Sitting of 6 May 2004

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

    Small Businesses
    Mr. David Heath: What assessment she has made of the impact on small businesses of changes in tax treatment set out in IR591. [170678]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): The growth in the UK economy, at a time when all other leading economies contracted, is the result of the Chancellor's prudent policies in helping businesses to invest. This measure was designed to encourage businesses to retain profits, to reinvest in their businesses and grow. Sadly, it was abused as a tax loophole simply to avoid paying tax and national insurance by reclassifying income as dividends. The Budget's impact on small businesses will ensure steady business growth and prosperity that is the envy of our neighbours.
    Mr. Heath: Is this not a problem entirely of the Chancellor's making, by ignoring advice at the time and providing a fiscal incentive for incorporation that resulted in a massive 43 per cent. increase in the number of incorporations? Now, the tinker man in the Treasury is reversing the flow and causing a mini boom and bust for small businesses. Do not our small businesses deserve a more stable environment to grow their businesses?
    Nigel Griffiths:The hon. Gentleman might want to consult on this matter on his website. He could perhaps take a leaf out of the book of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), who speaks on local income tax for the Liberal Democrats and who, in a survey of his constituents, managed to secure the support of only 12 people for their policy, with 2,400 against. If the hon. Gentleman consults small businesses, he will find that it is widely accepted that the abuse had to be stopped. Indeed, had he attended the all-party parliamentary group, he would have heard the director general of the CBI denounce this measure and
    1474
    the abuse that followed from it and say that the Chancellor had no choice but to close the loophole—a view that is widely held by business.
    David Taylor: When does an incentive become an abuse—when the take-up is higher than Treasury officials predict? Having been an accountant and a financial adviser to small businesses in a life before 1997, I think it deeply unfortunate that this measure was needed. The Chancellor has flagged up the fact that a review of small business taxation will report in the autumn. Will the Minister feed into that process the fact that small businesses—those acorns that will become the oaks of our future economy—need clarity and certainty? Those are the watchwords, not perverse incentives of the sort that were introduced in April 2002.
    Nigel Griffiths:I will certainly feed into that process, and I will feed in the latest Barclays survey, published on 31 March, which shows that 485,000 new businesses started up last year—an increase of 19 per cent. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all the help and advice that he has given to businesses to ensure that they are now thriving.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell:Is the Minister now beginning to get from the reaction of the House today the hang of just how annoyed the business community is about this? Having followed the Government's advice on incorporation, are not businesses now faced with extra costs, regulation and taxes, as the Government try to remedy the effects of this blunder? Surely a little contrition, even humility, from Ministers would now be welcome.
    Nigel Griffiths: I treat the joint advice from the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats with the respect that it deserves.

    Pharmaceutical Industry
    Mr. Eric Illsley: What steps she is taking to improve the competitiveness of the UK pharmaceutical industry. [170679]
    The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien):The UK is one of the world's leading locations for pharmaceutical research and development, and the Government are committed to maintaining and strengthening that position. Our 10-year strategy on science and innovation, as well as specific work undertaken in partnership with the pharmaceutical industry, will help to ensure that we achieve that aim.
    Mr. Illsley:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. As he points out, the UK pharmaceutical industry makes a huge contribution to our economy, investing some 40 per cent. of this country's research and development budget alone. He may be aware that, at a recent seminar in the House, reference was made to the competitiveness of the UK industry compared with that of the United States. Will he look again at the higher spend on drugs in the US, which makes it attractive to highly mobile capital and pharmaceutical

    1475
    companies? Will he do all that he can to ensure that the UK pharmaceutical industry maintains its current position?
    Mr. O'Brien: We shall certainly do all that we can to ensure that the UK pharmaceutical sector enjoys a highly favourable position in the UK economy and is competitive, but it operates in a globalised area of the world economy. The UK continues to be strongly favoured for investment; the rest of Europe perhaps less so. The UK played a key role in the G10, the EU high-level group on innovation and the provision of medicines, which reported to the Commission in 2002 with recommendations to address the growing imbalance in competitiveness and investment with the United States. Europe has great strengths in science and research, but that does not translate into industrial leadership and investment. As in other sectors, the key is to provide the right framework for incentivising and rewarding innovation. We in Britain do so, but other parts of Europe do not. We are working hard, however, to ensure that the European pharmaceutical industry as a whole remains high on the EU's competitive agenda.
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: The health of the pharmaceutical sector in this country is heavily dependent on its research base. In that context, what discussions has the Minister had with the industry about the likely impact of forthcoming legislation, particularly the Human Tissue Bill and the EU clinical trials directive?
    Mr. O'Brien:The Department has had discussions with the pharmaceutical industry to ensure that we respond to its concerns. It may not always want everything that we can do, but it is satisfied that we are listening carefully and are responding with appropriate amendments.
    Dr. Ashok Kumar: Given the importance of the pharmaceutical industry to our economy, as the Minister said, and its strong links with the chemical industry, I wish to raise a matter affecting Teesside, where Huntsman is going to build a polyethylene plant and apply to the Department of Trade and Industry for regional selective assistance. Will he consider that grant and provide all the support that he possibly can, because the plant is very important to the Teesside economy?
    Mr. O'Brien:I accept that it is indeed important, and know that my hon. Friend has made strong representations on behalf of Huntsman. We look forward to intensive negotiations and discussions with the company to ensure that we provide whatever support is appropriate for us to provide. We shall obviously look at all the circumstances surrounding its bid for an RSA grant, arid hope to be able to give my hon. Friend good news, but we cannot guarantee to do so.
    Mr. George Osborne: The 5,000 people who work in AstraZeneca's laboratories in my constituency are a testimony to the investment that is being made in the British pharmaceutical industry. Does the Minister agree that the capacity to make such
    1476
    investment and develop new life-saving drugs is undermined by unilateral decisions by, for example, the Hungarian Government, to slash pharmaceutical prices, thus reducing the amount of money paid for some pharmaceutical products? That has hit profits and the capacity of companies such as AstraZeneca to invest in eastern and central European countries. What are the British Government doing to make representations to the Hungarian Government?
    Mr. O'Brien:Hungary is an EU accession country, and we must ensure that it accepts the need for a level playing field and negotiates with its partners in the EU about the operation of the industry and the support and advantages that it seeks to provide. The aim of the EU is to create that level playing field. As for AstraZeneca, we are listening carefully to the concerns that it shares with other pharmaceutical companies about advantages that are being sought in some eastern European countries, and we shall make appropriate representations or their behalf to the Hungarian Government.

    Battery Recycling
    Paul Flynn: What plans she has to ensure that the reprocessing of end-of-life batteries can be undertaken in the UK. [I70680]
    The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith):Most car batteries are already recycled in the UK, as are many button cells containing mercury and silver. A plant for recycling lithium batteries is being built in Scotland. Increased collection of household batteries would make such recycling more economic, and my Department has held discussions with a company interested in developing a facility in the UK.
    Paul Flynn: Is it not a nonsensical aspect of environmental policy that the small number of batteries recycled through zinc reprocessing plants have to be shipped to France, because we no longer have such a plant in the United Kingdom? If the directive becomes mandatory, up to 30,000 tonnes of end-of-life batteries may be shipped to France. The news that there will be a plant in Scotland is welcome, but should we not ensure that the nonsense of sending batteries to France is ended and that we develop zinc-processing facilities, particularly at Newport, which has become a major centre for recycling fridges and end-of-life vehicles?
    Jacqui Smith:My hon. Friend importantly links the action that we need to take in response to the EU batteries directive with the opportunities that that provides for recycling. Once we can collect significantly more batteries than we do at present, important opportunities for recycling will obviously open up. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department is holding discussions on the issue with the battery industry, which is aware of that significant recycling opportunity.
    Mr. Michael Weir: At those facilities, will the Minister consider the recycling of zinc air batteries that are used in hearing aids? There is a great deal of worry among users of hearing aids that under the directive the batteries could effectively be banned because of the difficulties of recycling.
    Jacqui Smith:I agree that we need to be careful to deliver the objectives of the directive, which aims to reduce the disposal of waste, but to do that in a way that does not disadvantage consumers or those who make significant use of particular batteries, as the hon. Gentleman points out. That is why, in the next two weeks, we shall consult on the details of how we take forward discussions on the directive. I am sure that that is one of the issues that will be borne in mind as we carry through that consultation.
    Mr. Julian Brazier:Will the Minister confirm, though, that more motor car batteries are being dumped illegally since the rules on recycling such batteries were tightened up a few years ago? Will she give the House a prediction of levels of vehicle dumping after the introduction of the end-of-life directive?
    Jacqui Smith:The end-of-life vehicle directive, along with other Government measures, related to our action on antisocial behaviour, for example, is an important way in which we can ensure that we reduce the dumping of vehicles. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the position with regard to automotive batteries. Already, 90 per cent. of automotive batteries are collected and recycled in the UK through a UK recycling plant. Although the hon. Gentleman can raise concerns about how we maintain that, we already have a good position in respect of automotive batteries, which can only be improved by both the consultation on, and the implementation of, the end-of-life vehicles directive.

    ACAS
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd:What assessment she has made of the impact of budget reductions in the ACAS public helpline on the planned expansion of that service; and if she will make a statement. [170681]
    Mrs. Ann Cryer:What assessment she has made of the possible effect of proposed reductions in the ACAS budget on staffing levels. [170689]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe):We are in discussion with ACAS about its future funding. It is too early to speculate on the detailed impact on ACAS staff or operations.
    Mr. Llwyd: As I understand it, the Department is to impose a 10 per cent. cut across the board. I am sure the Minister will recognise the good work that ACAS does in employee-employer relations. As he knows, the helpline deals with 28,000 calls per week, and ACAS intended to expand that service. Will the Minister explain how, in the light of any cuts, the Department expects ACAS to expand the service? If he believes that the service will not be affected by a budget cut, can he say which ACAS services are likely to be cut?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: How ACAS disburses its funds is a matter for the ACAS board, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The Department funds the whole budget. The
    1478
    ACAS helpline has been extremely helpful to small firms and individuals, and we hope it will continue and develop. It has taken over 700,000 calls a year and I believe it will continue. ACAS is reviewing its operations across the board and I believe it will propose many other ways of helping small firms and individuals.
    Mrs. Cryer: With my hon. Friend's great experience in the trade union movement, does he believe that cuts in funding to the frontline staff at ACAS could have a negative impact on industrial relations, which could cost the taxpayer more than any savings made in funding?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. It is not our intention to stop ACAS doing the excellent work that it does. We support the work that ACAS is involved with. We are looking at efficiency savings right across the Department and because ACAS falls within the Department's remit, we must examine its efficiency as well, but it is not our intention to interrupt any of the work that ACAS is doing.

    Renewable Energy (New Housing)
    Ian Lucas: If she will discuss with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister the amendment of building regulations to encourage the use of renewable energy products in new housing. [170682]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths):The energy White Paper announced a review of building regulations to encourage the take-up of love-carbon and zero-carbon technologies, and on implementing article 5 of the energy performance of buildings directive. Our colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry established a working party on how low-carbon systems could be addressed in the building regulations, and the results are available. I urge my hon. Friend to submit his views to the impending consultation exercise.
    Ian Lucas: A considerable amount of new-build housing is being constructed in my constituency, which is an opportunity to develop the manufacturing industry in renewable energy in the United Kingdom. Sharp Manufacturing has located its manufacturing operation for photovoltaic cells in Wrexham, and we must develop that important market. Will my hon. Friend assure me that he will assist manufacturing industry in that positive development by putting real pressure on the ODPM and, indeed, the Welsh Assembly Government, to take the matter forward?
    Nigel Griffiths: I am delighted that the Government have committed £25 million in grants to support major photovoltaic demonstration projects, which involve installing solar photovoltaic panels in all types of building, and I hope that photovoltaic panels are used as widely as possible. My hon. Friend has contacted the ODPM, and the Deputy Prime Minister knows that my hon. Friend strongly supports the Sharp factory in

    1479
    Wrexham and wants to ensure that it takes a world lead in photovoltaic technology, from which we want British manufacturers to benefit.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Although I welcome what the Government have done on renewable energy, is my hon. Friend concerned about the long-term security of energy supplies in general? Is it not now time for the Government to put the kind of resources into renewables that were previously put into nuclear energy to ensure that we have safe and secure energy for the future?
    Nigel Griffiths: We take the need to invest in renewables seriously, which is why we have made a multi-million pound investment to showcase some of the diverse renewable structures and mechanisms that are available. It is important that we make up for lost time, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services shares the commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) to renewables, which he champions.
    Dr. Desmond Turner: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that departmental co-operation is essential in delivering energy policy. Will he therefore open discussions with the Treasury on fiscal measures to promote energy conservation and renewable energy, such as reducing VAT on insulation materials and restructuring carbon tax, which is ripe for improvement?
    Nigel Griffiths: The Treasury has considered those matters, on which my hon. Friend speaks with knowledge and concern. I note Government Members' widespread interest in the matter, but no Conservative or Liberal Democrat Member rose to speak.

    Postal Services
    Ann Winterton: If she will make a statement on the reliability of postal services. [170683]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt):The Royal Mail has put in place a three-year restructuring programme to improve service delivery and put the company on a sound financial footing. The renewal plan is working. In the first half of 2003–04, 93 per cent. of first-class letters were delivered the next day—the highest figure in 15 years and well above the European average. That figure fell with last autumn's strike action in London, and changes to working practices mean that current performance is around 90 per cent. That falls short of what customers are entitled to expect, and the Royal Mail and the unions must now work together to improve the quality of the service.
    Ann Winterton: Last year, the Royal Mail failed to meet 12 out of 15 of its national performance targets. This year, it will fail them all, and the new chief executive has publicly apologised for its appalling level of service. Will the Secretary of State bring urgent pressure on the Royal Mail to review its plans for reform? In particular,
    1480
    the scrapping of the second post means a later delivery, which is inconvenient for both businesses and households.
    Ms Hewitt: Let me echo the chief executive by adding my apology to any customer who has been inconvenienced by late delivery or loss of mail.
    On the second delivery, let me point out to the hon. Lady that no other postal operator makes two deliveries a day. The second delivery, which accounted for a mere 4 per cent. of mail, was eating up 20 per cent. of the Royal Mail's costs. That was simply unacceptable in a company that was losing more than £1 million a day, which is why it is moving towards one delivery a day. I accept that the new system is causing problems as it settles down. When I spoke to Allan Leighton last week, I stressed, and he fully accepted, the need to get the change to a single delivery working as quickly as possible.
    I hope that the hon. Lady will not make the mistake that some have made in recent weeks of talking down the Royal Mail—as the Conservatives always talk down public services—and sneering at hard-working, honest postmen and women all over our country. I hope that she will take the opportunity to congratulate her local sorting office—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State is getting involved in an argument. I do not think that the hon. Lady attacked the Royal Mail.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Although I certainly want to support the,. Royal Mail in Burnley, does my right hon. Friend recognise that the new system is causing chaos? There are bags of untouched mail, and some places are getting only one delivery a week. That is seriously affecting business, and lots of people are protesting. Will my right hon. Friend tell Mr. Crozier that the Post Office should discuss with the postal workers who have to do the work, and with the unions, what the changes involve? Otherwise, we will have a system in absolute chaos. Perhaps Mr. Crozier should come to Burnley to look at the problem.
    Ms Hewitt: Let me assure my hon. Friend that all the changes that are being made are being decided at the local level by area managers in full consultation with the employees, because that is the only way in which a change of this magnitude can be carried out. I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend's constituents have been suffering the inconvenience that he describes, and I will certainly draw that to the attention of Allan Leighton and Adam Crozier. I know that my hon. Friend will support the efforts that they are making to deal with the bad industrial relations that have dogged certain of our sorting offices and caused such problems.
    Malcolm Bruce: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that thousands of hard-working and industrious postal workers will feel let down by some of their colleagues who have pursued damaging unofficial strikes, as well as negligent and, in some cases, criminal activities that besmirch the vast majority who want the service to improve? Does she acknowledge that without

    1481
    investment and change, the Royal Mail will not meet the target improvements that she is talking about, but will face cherry-picking from competitors and a loss of confidence in a universal service? What will she do to ensure that the Post Office has the power and the investment to deliver the changes that will get us back to the first-class service that we deserve?
    Ms Hewitt: We have put new management and leadership into the Royal Mail and we are investing £2 billion to support its modernisation and renewal process, in both letters and post offices. That renewal plan, which is absolutely necessary, is starting to work, thanks in no small part to the huge efforts of hardworking postmen and women who were as angry and dismayed as anybody else by the revelations—which were mainly about temporary workers from just two sorting offices—on Channel 4 last week. We will make the investment and support the reform. The Conservatives would of course make that investment impossible with their public spending cuts.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I tell my right hon. Friend that my postal services in Cambridge are incomparably better than they were four years ago, and that the cancellation of the second delivery has actually led to an earlier first delivery? Certainly, I have heard no recent complaints, despite the fact that it is extremely difficult to recruit and retain postal workers, who do a very good job.
    Ms Hewitt: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and I know that the postmen and women in her city of Cambridge will be, too. Despite the teething problems that have inevitably accompanied the change from two deliveries to one delivery—an enormous change programme—90 per cent. of first-class letters are delivered the next day in the country as a whole. In most of the 1,100 sorting offices where the single delivery has been introduced, the system is working well.
    Michael Fabricant: Of course we accept the Secretary of State's point that most Post Office workers do an excellent job. Conservative Members are also grateful for her public apology for the Post Office's recent performance. She mentioned the "Dispatches" programme and the items that were destroyed in the River Thames, and she knows that Monday's Postcomm report referred to 8.5 billion items being wrongly delivered and a further 6 million being lost in the past year. She cannot duck the fact that the Post Office is 100 per cent. owned by the Government. What is her personal vision for the future governance of the Post Office? Surely she accepts that it cannot carry on as it is.
    Ms Hewitt: That was a speech rather than a question. Let me stress that we have put in place a new form of governance for the Royal Mail: a publicly owned corporation with the commercial freedom to operate at arm's length from the Government. We called for that when we were in opposition, as did the unions, but the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported refused to make the change. We have put in place new management and we are supporting the renewal programme, which is starting to deliver. Indeed, the
    1482
    Post Office is now making profits. We are delivering a vision of a modern, competitive Royal Mail, which meets customer needs, supports communities throughout the country, makes a profit, not losses, and has a strong regulator, which we created, not the Conservatives, to ensure that customers get the good deal that they are entitled to expect.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not wish to be accused of talking the Post Office down, but my personal experience and that of my office in Leicester of postal delivery is totally different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). The situation is incomparably worse in Leicester now than it was four years ago. I hear all the rhetoric about what we have done, and what the Post Office intends to do and has done, but will my right hon. Friend give me and my constituents an absolute guarantee that, in the foreseeable future, delivery times will be increasingly reliable and that the mail will be delivered when the Post Office says that it will be delivered?
    Ms Hewitt: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, although I know that he will welcome the fact that the Leicester delivery office is one of the best performing city centre offices in the country on tackling misdelivery and redirection. As I said earlier, the change to a single delivery is causing problems in the first two months of its introduction. The new system needs to bed down. It is an enormous change programme and I readily assure my hon. Friend that, as it beds down, the company will revert to the high standards of customer service that his constituents and mine are entitled to expect. I emphasise that the renewal plan is essential to the future of the Royal Mail and I know that he and other hon. Friends will support it as it improves the service to customers.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Does the Secretary of State realise that the hard-working and decent postmen and women as well as local businesses in my constituency complain to me about the service? Will she examine the new distribution arrangements? One of the problems is that the mail does not arrive at local sorting offices until much later in the morning because it has not been distributed properly from the main centres. The postmen and women cannot leave until all the mail is sorted.
    Ms Hewitt: That is indeed a problem that seems to be occurring in some places, although it certainly is not happening everywhere. I will readily undertake to draw to the attention of Adam Crozier the specific problem of the postmen and women in Hexham.

    Manufacturing Companies
    Mr. Michael Clapham: What action she is taking to help small and medium-sized manufacturing companies. [170684]
    Mr. Michael Foster: What action she is taking to help small and medium-sized UK manufacturing companies. [170687]
    The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith):We are helping small and medium-sized manufacturing companies to compete effectively in the increasingly global market with the support of the highly successful manufacturing advisory service and the other measures of the Government's manufacturing strategy—the first for 30 years.
    Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, which illustrates the comprehensive package that is available to small and medium-sized enterprises. She will be aware that there are 3.8 million SMEs in the UK, and that they account for 40 per cent. of our gross domestic product. However, one weakness is that only a relatively small number of SMEs export into the EU. Indeed, the Federation of Small Businesses estimates that number at just 22 per cent. What can my right hon. Friend do to make that better? Will she ask her officials to look into what assistance we might be able to give to make the route into the new, expanded European Union better for SMEs?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The key to success in export is to be productive and innovative at home. The manufacturing advisory service is making a difference by adding an average of £104,000-worth of value-added to the manufacturers that have used its services. We need to couple that with the kind of support and advice that is provided by UK Trade and Investment and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, to link that to the new opportunities now opening up for our exporters, both small and large, through the enlargement of the EU. I shall certainly undertake to ensure that we redouble our efforts in that regard.
    Mr. Foster: What specific policies does my right hon. Friend's Department have to help small and medium-sized manufacturers deal with the relative strength of the pound against both the euro and the dollar?
    Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend has identified just one of the many global pressures under which our small and medium-sized manufacturers have to operate. In that regard, I am reassured and encouraged—as I know my hon. Friend will be—by the fact that April's CBI survey showed that output expectations remain high for the second consecutive quarter, and that May's Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply survey found that the manufacturing sector had improved for the 10th consecutive month. Strengthening world conditions also offer opportunities for our manufacturers. We need, however, to couple the general support that I have mentioned with the specific assistance that UK Trade and Investment, for example, can offer, and with other activities in order to strengthen our manufacturers so that they are able to compete not only domestically but, increasingly, internationally.
    Sir Robert Smith: One way to help all small and medium-sized manufacturers is to reduce the burden of bureaucracy on them, to allow them to concentrate on their core activity. To that end, the Government held out great hopes in their White Paper on company law reform, which we were told would bring all such law under one heading so that there would finally be simpler
    1484
    law, and ensure that there would be a minimum law for all companies, with only the larger companies having to comply with it. Since then, we have seen no legislation on those reforms coming through Parliament. Can the Minister give us any indication as to when that promise will be delivered to small businesses?
    Jacqui Smith: We are in the process of consulting stakeholders on the way in which we shall implement the recommendations of the company law review, including the important principle of "think small first". We have ways in which we can deliver all that, and we are currently considering how we shall draft the legislation. I would expect that to happen very soon—as soon as parliamentary time allows. Stakeholders have been encouraged by the progress that we have made in dealing with this complex issue, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, is very important to the whole basis of our company law as a source of our competitiveness, and particularly to small and medium-sized companies.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Does the Minister recognise that, in relation to small and medium-sized manufacturers, the Government's so-called actions have resulted—as announced yesterday by the Office for National Statistics—in UK manufacturing output declining in the last reported quarter? It is now significantly lower than in 1997. Does she acknowledge that, in the fourth quarter of 2003, total manufacturing investment fell by 1.5 per cent. compared with the previous year; that UK productivity growth has halved during Labour's seven years in office; and that, according to the latest figures, jobs in UK manufacturing were down 95,000 in 2002—03? Is she aware that the World Economic Forum's competitiveness ranking shows that, although Labour inherited one of the foremost competitive economies in the world, we have low fallen to a woeful 15th place in those rankings under Labour's regulation state? Where precisely is the financial return to British businesses and taxpayers on the Department's £8.2 billion splurge of their money?
    Jacqui Smith: I will not take any lessons from Conservative Members on support for manufacturing, given the record of devastation of manufacturing during the boom and bust ears under their party. Based on the manufacturing strategy—the first for 30 years—we are
    taking practical action to support our manufacturers, including investment in the manufacturing advisory service, which brings with it £38 million-worth of value-added for our manufacturers, and investment in science and innovation, as well as ensuring that manufacturers can benefit from that through the technology strategy. There is also investment through our regional development agencies in helping to develop support for manufacturers at regional level. All that is practical support that would be under threat from cuts by the Conservative party.
    Mr. O'Brien: As a manufacturer who worked in a business that prospered for all 18 years under the Conservatives, I think that is an extraordinarily poor response. British business will have heard that— surprise, surprise—there is no financial return on all that

    1485
    taxpayers' money, which has been thrown away by this profligate DTI. Instead, we have the Minister's habitual torrent of denial and complacency.
    Under Labour's regulation state, one of the biggest burdens on small and medium-sized businesses, not least manufacturers, is employment regulations. Given the scrutiny that the political parties are under owing to the imminent European elections. will the Minister condemn and discipline her colleagues the Labour MEPs for defying her party's policy by twice voting to remove the UK's opt-out from the EU working time directive? If she will not—her colleague the Minister for Small Business and Enterprise pointedly failed to do so when questioned directly by me at February's Question Time, and did not even mention it in his answer—she knows that the only possible interpretation is that, on this crucial matter, she is confirming that Labour MEPs were accurately reflecting Labour policy to scrap Britain's opt-out from the working time directive. So, let us all listen very carefully—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Far too long.
    Jacqui Smith: I identified three practical areas where the Government are investing and achieving success in supporting manufacturers. We heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman about whether those would, as we believe, be cut under Tory plans. I can assure him that the Government will support decent basic working conditions for our work force and the maintenance of a flexible labour market, which of course has been one of the keys to ensuring that we have 2 million more people in work than when his party was in government.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: My right hon. Friend will be aware that regional selective assistance is important to manufacturing industry and that we have had a series of meetings with her on a medium-sized assembly operation in Ryton in Coventry, while awaiting the approval of the Commission in Brussels. Can she tell the House whether we have had that permission communicated to us, and if not, why not? Will she please hurry it up and let us know when we can expect it?
    Jacqui Smith: As my hon. Friend rightly says, we have been engaged in discussions with the company and with him and our hon. Friends in terms of what we need to do to provide support. I will write to him on the up-to-date situation, but I can assure him that we will continue to engage with hon. Members and the company to make the strongest possible case to the EU with respect to state aid regulations.

    Gas/Electricity (Disconnections)
    Bob Russell: How many (a) gas and (b) electricity customers were disconnected from supply in error in the last year for which figures are available. [170685]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe):Those are not among the data collected by the industry regulator, Ofgem. Such errors are unacceptable. If there is a pattern of
    1486
    them, I encourage Energywatch to put evidence before Ofgem so that it can take appropriate or necessary regulatory action.
    Bob Russell: The Minister will be aware that there are 20,000 disconnections every year among gas and electricity customers, some of whom will have been disconnected in error. Will he bring pressure to bear on the industry to put into immediate effect Ofgem's recommendation that customers should have direct face-to-face contact with the supplier before the energy is disconnected, as then no error would be made?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. Procedures are in place to make sure that vulnerable customers are looked after. Ogem recommendations following the Bates case have been applied, and I believe that that is the appropriate position.
    Tony Lloyd: But will my hon. Friend consider whether there is any other industry in which disconnection of service with such consequences would be allowed? In this day and age, are there not more appropriate means of debt collection than disconnection? Should we not move beyond this antiquated system of allowing the power utilities to cut off supply?
    Mr. Sutcliffe: As I said, the issue is vulnerable people and how they are protected. A code of practice is in place that protects people, and there are many steps to take before disconnection, which I believe are appropriate. If Energywatch can come up with evidence of errors, it is appropriate that Ofgem should then take action.
    Mr. David Cameron: One way in which customers are disconnected is through power cuts. Does the Minister recognise that that is a real problem in rural areas such as mine? I will not ask him to comment on the fact that a number of those seem to be caused by swans flying into electricity pylons, but will he consider the compensation regime, which seems capricious? Is he aware that someone who undergoes four power cuts of three hours each gets compensated, but someone who undergoes six power cuts of two hours each does not?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is far too wide.

    Coal Miners' Compensation
    Anne Picking: What action she is taking to ensure full payment of compensation to coal health claimants. [170686]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths):The Government established two schemes to compensate miners for industrial diseases. So far, more than 340,000 sick miners, their widows or children have received £2 billion. I have taken steps to ensure that those who are eligible receive their full compensation payments.
    Anne Picking: I thank my hon. Friend very much for that answer. I am sure he will agree that what the Government are doing in terms of compensation for miners is a good news story. It has been seriously marred, however, by the long delays caused by the unscrupulous behaviour of lawyers and third parties involved. Because the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. Brian Davie, has taken so long, his fee has gone up from 5 per cent. to 15 per cent., which they will glean. We want the money to get to the dying miners—the proud miners who spent 40-odd years down the pits working very hard and who are likely to die before they get their money. Will he fast-track the cases of those who are still alive?
    Nigel Griffiths: Certainly I want my hon. Friend's constituent to benefit, as 2,000 of her constituents have benefited, from compensation of £8 million paid in East Lothian to date. I advise all her constituents, and all hon. Members' constituents, to use those who have signed the claims handling agreement, which makes no charge to the claimant because the Department of Trade and Industry meets those fees. It is unacceptable that anyone should have to pay fees out of their compensation and see any increase in their fees. I will be keen to have details of the case that my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Government are to be congratulated on this scheme. What casts a shadow over it, as has been said, is the amount of money that has been paid to solicitors. When the Minister says from the Dispatch Box that there has been no charge on the individuals, and it has been covered by the Department, of course, that is still a cost on the taxpayer. Is the Minister satisfied and happy with the way in which the legal profession has responded to this scheme?
    Nigel Griffiths: Yes, I am, by and large. An agreement was reached with the responsible solicitors, the profession and other claims handlers early in the compensation scheme to ensure that every penny that the Government set aside for compensation went to the sick miners, their widows or their families. A separate fund totalling many millions of pounds was set up to pay the legal fees. Those were capped at, from memory, about £2,100, and that agreement was acceptable to all. This is the biggest public compensation scheme in our history. I am grateful for the expert legal advice and help that we have had from the legal profession, and I want to see the payments made as quickly as possible to those sick miners, and when they have passed on, to their widows or families.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, after privatisation, many miners, especially in the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire coalfield, decided to work for private contractors at different pits? In some cases, they worked for the Coal Board, British Coal and perhaps two or three others. The problem is that some of the unscrupulous firms for which the miners worked refuse to take part in the multi-settlement that is necessary. Will my hon. Friend make sure that he gets on to those firms to make them pay their share of the bill? Did he also detect that the hon.
    1488
    Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) almost hinted that if the Tories got into power they might scrap the scheme?
    Nigel Griffiths: That would indeed be terrible. My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on this matter. I want to ensure that no party is responsible for any delay in the securing of a settlement. We are currently looking at those who are not co-operating fully to establish how we can neutralise that unco-operative attitude and make certain that payments are made, especially to claimants who are still alive and can benefit.

  MINISTER FOR WOMEN
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER FOR WOMEN

    Women Prisoners
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department regarding women prisoners. [170670]
    The Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith):My official and I have had various discussions with the Home Office. With regard to women prisoners, we welcome the recently published women's offending reduction programme action plan, which aims to ensure that interventions are better tailored to meet the needs of women. I heartily support the Home Secretary's April announcement of a substantial new initiative to fund specialists units, with specially trained staff, for young women in prison.
    Dr. Tonge: I thank the Minister for her response, but she must realise that the number of women in prison has now reached an all-time high—more than 4,600. Even more disturbing is the 200 per cent. increase in suicide rates among women prisoners over the past five years. When can we expect to see some improvement? I appreciate that the Government are trying to do something, but in view of the responsibilities that women have over and above those of men, when will we see a reduction in the number of women prisoners and better conditions for those in prison?
    Jacqui Smith: The objective of the women's offending reduction programme is to help reduce the number of women in prison by ensuring that sentences have confidence in alternatives to custodial sentences. That is already happening. I share the hon. Lady's concern about suicides: that is why I am pleased that there are now "suicide co-ordinators" in each women's prison to tackle the pressures that contribute to the disproportionate number of suicides among women prisoners. I hope that they will begin to make progress in reducing that unacceptable level.
    Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are currently about 70 women under 18 in prison? Does she think prison a suitable place for young women of that age? The Government have managed to get all the 15 and 16-year-olds out of

    1489
    prison; what can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that the same is done for the very small, very vulnerable group of 17-year-olds?
    Jacqui Smith: I hope my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the Home Secretary's announcement of considerable investment in the development of specialist units so that when there is no alternative to custody, those young women are kept separately from adults and receive education and support that will prove important for their resettlement.
    Also important is the development of initiatives such as the accommodation-plus initiative, which is being piloted in certain areas. Young women who are at risk of offending are given accommodation, along with educational support to prevent them from offending and ending up in prison.
    Sandra Gidley: As the Minister will know, in 2002 most women's convictions were for shoplifting and non-violent offences. Two thirds of those convicted of such offences were women. Reoffending rates have soared to 60 per cent. What is the Department doing, along with employers, to ensure that women receive training and a promise of employment, so that those cycles are not repeated endlessly?
    Jacqui Smith: The hon. Lady makes a very important point about the need for resettlement services, and I know that the women's team that is responsible for prisons is focusing on them in the action that it is taking forward. In particular, it is investing an additional £640,000 in those services to strengthen the employment advice that she mentioned and to make sure that housing advice and housing provision—they are often a top priority for women—are available to women when they come out of prison so that they can return to their child care responsibilities. It also provides them with the base on which to build their work and lives back in the community so that they avoid reoffending and ending up back in prison.

    Information and Communications Technology Degrees
    Michael Fabricant: What steps she is taking to encourage women to take degrees in information and communications technology. [170671]
    The Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt):E-Skills UK, the sector skills council for ICT, is working with employers to make IT degrees, courses and careers more attractive to women. In particular, it is developing a new IT degree that focuses on the use of IT. We know from experience that it is likely to be more attractive to women.
    Michael Fabricant: Does the Secretary of State accept that one deterrent to women entering the industry is the glass ceiling in the UK whereby women are not able to obtain promotion? Is she aware that in the old Soviet Union more than 50 per cent. of managers in this sector were women and there was no Minister for Women in the old Soviet Union? The figure is only 15 per cent. in this country now, so what is the Ministry for Women for—indeed, what is she for?
    Ms Hewitt: Well, I am not for a return to the Soviet Union. I am for the promotion and extension of flexible working opportunities to women and men right across the economy. We know that one of the main reasons why women do not find IT attractive and why, all too often, they do not return to science and technology jobs even when they have the degrees is the lack of flexible working. That is something that the hon. Gentleman knows I have championed. I have changed the law and I am working with employers to spread the best practice that the best employers are already implementing.
    Judy Mallaber: Has my right hon. Friend yet had a chance to look at the research published today by the Equal Opportunities Commission on gender segregation in work and training?
    Mr. Eric Forth: Oh, please.
    Judy Mallaber: Such segregation, including in IT, is one of the major factors in the gender pay gap, and the research would also help in relation to skill shortages in key areas. Will my right hon. Friend take on board the recommendations relating to modern apprenticeships, which is one of the issues that the research has specifically considered, and make sure that they are a priority for our work in that area?
    Ms Hewitt: Judging from the comments we have heard from the Opposition Benches, that is another piece of work that the Conservative party would cut as part of its public spending cuts. The Equal Opportunities Commission is absolutely right. In most sectors, if there is real under-representation of women, there is a real problem with skills shortages. That is hardly surprising if employers are recruiting from only half the potential talent pool. I am working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to ensure that we spread apprenticeships, so that women go into non-traditional jobs and men go into the caring jobs that have hitherto been dominated by women.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The Minister might note that the real answer to the actual question is that Labour's education policies are not encouraging anyone of any sex to take degrees. Here we have another example of how Labour policies are letting women down. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) said, the Equal Opportunities Commission reported yesterday that sex segregation in some areas of employment is contributing to skills shortages. I hear what the Minister says about that, but nothing is happening to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not make a speech; she must ask a question.
    Mrs. Laing: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister noted that, today, the Fawcett Society warns that key groups of women are "disillusioned, dissatisfied and deserting" Labour? Instead of criticising what the

    1491
    Conservatives did, she might note that Conservatives lead by example because we had a woman Prime Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Secretary of State.
    Ms Hewitt: I am proud of the fact that in the past seven years, we have helped more women into employment and into education than ever before. I am proud of the record increases in child benefit, and of the
    1492
    introduction of the child tax credit and the working tax credit. I am proud of the fact that we introduced the national minimum wage—the Conservatives opposed it—which has helped nearly 1 million low-paid women to improve their earnings. I am proud of the fact that we have doubled the length of maternity leave, increased maternity pay and introduced flexible working. The reality is that Labour is streets ahead of the Conservatives in the representation of women, and in delivering for women real improvements in their daily lives.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 10 MAY—Second Reading of the Energy Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 11 MAY—Remaining stages of the Housing Bill, followed by a motion to approve the First Joint Report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on Visitor Facilities: "Access to Parliament".
WEDNESDAY 12 MAY—Second Reading of the Age Related Payments Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords Amendments, followed by motion to approve a money resolution on the Promotion of Volunteering Bill, followed by motion to approve the First Report of the Procedure Committee on estimates and appropriation procedure.
THURSDAY 13 MAY—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Child Trust Funds Bill, followed by a debate on armed forces personnel on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 14 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be:
MONDAY 17 MAY—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
TUESDAY 18 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Pensions Bill (Day One).
WEDNESDAY 19 MAY—Progress on remaining stages of the Pensions Bill (Day Two).
THURSDAY 20 MAY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Pensions Bill (Day Three).
FRIDAY 21 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
Mr. Heald: Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether it was likely that more British troops would be sent to Iraq, and the Prime Minister said that the Government were "in discussion" and that the matter was "under … review". Yet today, we read on the front page of The Times—there is a similar story in The Sun— that 2,000 Marines are being sent there. So while the Prime Minister was saying one thing here, his spin doctors were saying another to the press.
Mr. Eric Forth: What is new?
Mr. HealdIndeed.
As it is the Prime Minister's birthday today, will the Leader of the House give him a present—a piece of advice—and tell him to cut out the spin and to be frank and straightforward with the House and the country? May we also have a statement on troop deployment?
1494
The Leader of the House will recall that I have asked him on numerous occasions about the Sessional Orders and the report of the Procedure Committee. When will we have some action and what is the timetable?
I am grateful to the Leader of the House: last week, I asked for two days on the Pensions Bill and he has given us three. I hope that he is setting a precedent; perhaps he can confirm that he is. Has he seen the all-party amendment that would provide compensation to victims of the Allied Steel and Wire pension scheme disaster? May we have a statement before the week after next, explaining the Government's response to this much-needed proposal?
The Foreign Secretary promised weeks ago a debate on Zimbabwe in Government time, yet no such debate has been held. In fact, there has been no such debate in Government time since 1997. The England and Wales Cricket Board is waiting for clear advice from the Government about the proposed tour. The Leader of the House is something of a specialist on preventing cricket tours—will he prevent this one?
Finally, has the Leader of the House seen the article in today's edition of The Guardian entitled "Hospitals in countdown to threat of chaos"? It points out that the Health Secretary has apparently admitted to the British Medical Association that there are 100 days to avert the chaos that will result from the introduction of the working time directive on 1 August. The chairman of the BMA says that the Health Secretary is acting too late, that more than half of hospitals will not be ready, and that there is a risk of overnight emergency admissions being shut down. May we have an urgent statement on this alarming report?
Mr. Hain: The shadow Leader of the House makes every effort—it is no doubt his job—to demonstrate contrived indignation about everything that is going on in the world, but he knows that the situation in Iraq is very difficult and that British troops stand ready to do whatever is necessary and are doing a great job out there at the present time. If and when extra troops are needed, the Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that he will keep the position under review. There is absolutely no substance in the hon. Gentleman's jumped-up indignation on that point.
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for wishing the Prime Minister happy birthday—the most successful Prime Minister that Britain has had in living memory. In respect of spin, I was interested to note that the hon. Gentleman did not defend his own party's spin on the council tax. Conservative Members were jumping up and down with indignation on the council tax, on which they quoted figures selectively—a real example of spin.
On Sessional Orders, I have already made it clear that we will respond when we are ready to respond, and in a sensible fashion.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the extra time that is being devoted to the Pensions Bill. It is particularly necessary because of the dreadful inheritance that resulted from the Conservatives' inability to protect pensioners throughout the country. We are introducing extra protection for pensioners as well as investing more in

1495
pensions, particularly for those on low retirement incomes. As to the ASW workers and others who have been robbed of their pensions in a scandalous fashion, that issue is under continuing review and will be dealt with if we possibly can do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Zimbabwe and I share his and his party's view. I am glad that the Conservatives have at least belatedly come round to their current viewpoint. Some of us have been consistent for decades in opposing political oppression and tyranny in southern Africa, whether it be under the old apartheid system, which the Conservatives apologised for year after year—I recall Mrs. Thatcher attacking Nelson Mandela—or under Robert Mugabe's regime. I believe that we should maintain consistent views on this issue, which has been conspicuously lacking from the Tories. I have made it absolutely clear that, if I were an English cricketer, I would not tour in Zimbabwe, and that is probably the view of many English cricketers as well. However, it is not for the Government to instruct the English cricket authorities what to do on that issue.
On the question of hospitals, the hon. Gentleman has the bare-faced cheek to talk about chaos. We should remember the chaos under the Conservatives, when people were lying on trolleys in corridors day after day. Now we are seeing record investment in our hospitals. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that doctors should work all through the night and the following day? We are seeking a sensible solution to the problem and we will secure it when it is available.
John Cryer: Further to questions asked last week, may we have a full debate on events in Iraq? I ask that not just because of the recent troop deployment, but having regard to the UN call for an inquiry after the events and slaughter in Falluja. It would also give those Conservative Members who belong to the chattering classes—we should recall that they pressed for war months before we went to war and told the Prime Minister that he should ignore the UN— an opportunity to explain why, after voting for the war, they are now apparently having a pang of conscience. It would also give Labour Members the opportunity to tell them, "Actually, it is a bit too late." More than 20,000 people have died in Iraq, and no matter how much Conservative Members' consciences bother them, it will not bring them back.
Mr. Hain: The situation in Falluja has been very serious. The Government and the coalition are trying to introduce some stability to protect lives. However, my hon. Friend is right to remind the House that the Opposition wanted to railroad us into Iraq, regardless of any UN mandate. Indeed. they criticised the Government for seeking UN support for the action that we took, and urged us to go ahead regardless.
Mr. Paul Tyler: On the subject of the English cricket team's tour of Zimbabwe, the Leader of the House will have noted that the Prime Minister, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), announced yesterday that the Foreign Secretary and, I think, the Minister for Sport and Tourism were going to
1496
see the England and Wales Cricket Board today. May we have an urgent statement on that? The statement might provide an opportunity for the debate on Zimbabwe that all of us think is necessary, but it should deal specifically with the representations that are to be made to the International Cricket Council.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the problem resided with the ICC. Are the Government and the ECB making a submission to the ICC? If so, what are they trying to get it to agree to? Do the Government agree that there should be criteria, other than the existing ones, that would make it possible for the tour to be cancelled without the penalties that are threatened at present? What is the Government's position on the matter?
My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has already corresponded with the Minister for Sport and Tourism to suggest that an all-party submission to the ICC would be helpful. Does the Leader of the House—especially given his radical, Liberal past on these matters—agree that now is the time to make a new submission, so that we take account of the moral, legal and ethical issues it involved, and make sure that the tour does not take place?
On the question of the security of the Palace of Westminster, has the Leader of the House seen today's report about security at Buckingham palace? It offers a very open assessment of what has gone wrong there, and what proposals have been made to put matters right. The Leader of the House will recall that I asked him on 25 March how many security passes to this building had gone astray, given the very large number that have gone astray from Government Departments. Can he give me that figure now? If lot, will he write to me about it?
Finally, will the Leader of the House confirm the Government's position in respect of votes at 16? The Electoral Commission has made one recommendation, but we are now told that Ministers take a different view. What is the Government's position on the matter?
Mr. Hain: First, I acknowledge that the Liberals, the Liberal Democrats and Labour have been consistent in their battle against apartheid in sport over the past 30 or 40 years, and they are adopting the same approach to dealing with the problems in Zimbabwe. Our record is consistent, unlike that of the Conservatives, who seem to worry only about black tyranny, not about white tyranny as well, even though that is where these problems arise.
The hon. Gentleman asked for specifics about the meeting due to take place this afternoon. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport are due to meet the English cricket authorities, and we shall have to wait for the outcome of that meeting. The Government's position is clear. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday that he would prefer that the tour did not take place, but the Government cannot treat the English cricket authorities as though they were a Department of State. They must make their own decisions, and I know that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
We all share a sense of frustration with the ICC, which I do not believe is properly discharging its responsibilities to international cricket. I am afraid that

1497
some of its statements today echo exactly the inconsistencies and prejudices evident 30 or 40 years ago among cricket authorities the world over in respect of apartheid. The sooner the ICC adopts a morally consistent position, the better.
The hon. Gentleman asked about security. I have seen a summary of the Security Commission's report, and we welcome its proposals in respect of the royal estate. A post of director of security for the royal households has been announced and put in place. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary makes clear in a written statement today, a wide range of checks is being developed, and an annual plan will be agreed to ensure that security is improved. Of course, there is a read-across to the Palace of Westminster from that. That is why we have set up an independent investigation by the Security Service and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.
I gave the figures in respect of the number of passes that have been issued during the debate last month. The hon. Gentleman can check them for himself.
Finally, on the issue of votes at 16, the Electoral Commission recommended in a recent report that the voting age should not be reduced to 16. The Government have not had a chance to respond to that report, but we are holding a big conversation with people right across the country—
Mr. Forth: Oh, no!
Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues scoff at the big conversation because when they were in government they never had a conversation with any members of the public. That is why they were run out of office.
Janet Anderson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of concern on both sides of the House about the effect in practice of the revised sitting hours of this Chamber. He will also be aware that the responses to the recent questionnaire on the issue show a small overall majority for reverting to the previous times on Tuesdays. Can he assure us that we will have an early opportunity to debate the matter in the House?
Mr. Hain: As my hon. Friend knows, the Modernisation Committee will begin a review shortly into how to resolve the issue. I pay tribute to her efforts to try to find a consensus on the matter. As she knows, I have wanted to achieve agreement so that the House can move forward, instead of being split as we were when the original decision was taken As my hon. Friend fairly acknowledged, the Procedure Committee report shows a narrow majority in favour of changing back to a 10 pm finish on Tuesdays, but 200 Members did not register an opinion. If we can find a consensus through the Modernisation Committee review, I will put it to a vote in the House as soon as it is possible to do so.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week on the managed closure of post offices? I bring his attention to early-day motion 1133, in the name of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) and supported by other Lancashire Members, including myself.
1498
[That this House congratulates the Lancashire Evening Post in its campaign to save post offices from closure throughout Lancashire and recognises that the Lancashire Evening Post has received thousands of responses from its readers supporting the campaign; raises concern that Royal Mail are providing financial incentives to sub postmasters to leave, thereby allowing the Royal Mail to close post offices leaving local users with no service; and calls on the Royal Mail to be open and transparent in making a business case for closure ensuring that all interested parties are consulted and provided with all the facts in relation to profitability and use of individual branches before any decision to close is taken.]
Thirty-one Lancashire post offices are about to close, including three in my constituency—two in Clitheroe—and one in Ribchester. The motion also praises the campaign of the Lancashire Evening Post and thousands of its readers to keep the post offices open. Is it not insanity to pay post offices to close instead of paying for them to open? When will we see an end to this post office set-aside?
Mr. Hain: I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman raises about his constituency, and we have all had to deal with such problems, not only in the last seven years—or the last year or last few months—but for the last 20 years. We have seen a whole process of change which was partly brought about by people changing their shopping habits and not using their local post offices as much as we would like. The Government have been dealing with the problem. We have put extra money in to support the distribution of local post offices and we will continue to work on the problem.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I bring my right hon. Friend back to the subject of the possible deployment of troops in Iraq? The headlines in The Sun and The Times are specific. They claim that the troops will go out "to seize flashpoint city" and that the decision has already been made. That would be an extremely dangerous mission. Will my right hon. Friend deny that such a decision has been taken and, if he cannot, when can we have a statement? After all, we have a right to know before the Murdoch press.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend will know that similar press reports have appeared almost daily—or at least weekly—in recent months. Sometimes they have been accurate and sometimes they have not. I do not have anything to add to what I have just said and the Prime Minister made the position clear yesterday.
Sir George Young: Three months ago, when the Prime Minister appeared before the Liaison Committee, he agreed to review the rules under which civil servants give evidence to Select Committees—the so-called Osmotherly rules. When does the Leader of the House anticipate reporting progress on that review?
Mr. Hain: The Prime Minister is due to appear before the Liaison Committee in a few months' time and I should have thought that he would he questioned about that subject if it has not been progressed in the meantime.
Colin Burgon: I am one of the many hon. Members who enjoy showing constituents around the House. However, I have noticed lately that a key piece of our history is missing from the Royal Gallery—the death warrant of Charles I. That is one of the most important documents in the history of this House and of this nation, as a reminder of when our valiant predecessors put an over-mighty monarch firmly in his place.[Interruption.] I have no one in mind at the moment. Can the Leader of the House find out when that key document will return to the Royal Gallery?
Mr. Hain: My deputy mutters that the document is currently subject to scientific research. I have no idea what that means, but no doubt my hon. Friend's concern will have been noted by the House authorities and his constituents will be satisfied in future.
Rev. Martin Smyth: As we are currently sending more reservists out to Iraq—for example, some members of the Royal Irish Regiment will be going out—may I, too, press the Leader of the House for a debate on troop deployment? At the same time, we could examine the attitude of employers who have not played fair with reservists mobilised to serve their country.
Mr. Hain: If employers are not playing fair, that is an important issue because members of the Territorial Army do a valuable job and should be treated fairly. On troop deployment generally, and the role of the Royal Irish Regiment, the Ministry of Defence will have carefully noted what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Colin Challen: May we have an early statement from the Foreign Secretary about the situation faced by British lorry drivers who are incarcerated in French prisons? When I last inquired, about 60 HGV drivers were being held in those prisons, including my constituent, Paul Watson, who has been locked up in Arras prison since last October and still does not know when he might go to trial. He has been refused bail on several occasions, and although I have applied for a permit to visit him it seems that the French are quite adept at losing such applications. Will the Foreign Secretary come to the House to explain what we are doing to secure proper treatment for British lorry drivers, many of whom, I believe, are innocent, so that our constituents are free to come home to their families?
Mr. Hain: I know that my hon. Friend has pursued that case with great diligence; I acknowledge that, and his constituent will be grateful. I am very surprised that the French authorities are apparently denying a British Member of Parliament, who is also a fellow citizen of the European Union, access to his constituent and I hope that that will change. In the meantime, the Foreign Office is providing full consular advice and my hon. Friend is free to raise the issue with the Foreign Secretary or his Ministers who will want to support my hon. Friend in whatever way they can.
Bob Spink: The well-informed Leader of the House will have seen the report in today's papers suggesting that the Government may be
1500
considering the development of more incinerators because they are said to be less dangerous than landfill. The campaigning newspaper, the Yellow Advertiser, is currently exposing landfill contamination on Two Tree Island in my constituency. May we have a debate on how we can increase recycling to meet the Government's recycling targets, which are likely to be missed? Recycling is the very best way forward.
Mr. Hain: I fully agree that recycling is the main solution to the problem. If we do not adopt a much more sensible response to waste disposal, we shall cover the entire landmass of Britain with landfill. That is why we are putting such emphasis on recycling and other innovative ways to dispose of waste.
Mr. Andrew Miller: When I first became an MP 12 years ago, I never thought that unemployment in my constituency would drop below 2 per cent. It has done so as a result of fantastic partnerships between the private sector, local government and central Government. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on the role of central Government in that area, especially in the context of programmes such as the new deal?
Mr. Hain: I shall certainly be happy to look at that request, not least because the Conservatives are making an attack on the new deal a principal part of their approach in the coming months. Indeed, the shadow Leader of the House has published a pamphlet attacking the new deal, despite the fact that 223 people in his constituency have (brained jobs through the new deal, only seven of which are subsidised. We want everybody to be given the chalice to work; about a million people are being helped by the new deal and, in the next election, I shall be happy to fight against the Conservative proposal to abolish the new deal and for the Government policy of full employment to give everybody hope under the new deal.
Pete Wishart: I support calls for a full debate in Government time on post office closures, if only so that we can examine whether it makes any sense to pay post offices to close rather than investing in them so that they can continue to make a contribution to the communities we serve.
Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is free to apply for a debate at any time. As he knows, the matter has been regularly debated in the House and he has no doubt made a contribution to those debates.
Mr. David Chaytor: Following the historic events of last weekend, when the accession countries finally joined the European Union, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the impact of accession? Would not that provide a useful opportunity for us to test out some of the more hysterical tabloid predictions about the number of east Europeans coming to Britain? It could also provide a useful background for debate about Europe in the run-up to the European elections on 10 June, as well as for the debate on the referendum on the constitution. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about the EU in the near future?
Mr. Hain: The Prime Minister will make a statement after the European Council at the end of next month, but I should certainly welcome other opportunities, although I do not think I should start the European election campaign today in business questions. My hon. Friend's point about the accession or 10 countries to the EU is well made. Their accession will enlarge our zone of security and stability; it will re-unify the whole of Europe, after its savage division after the second world war and the cold war; it will improve environmental standards by ensuring that the new countries raise their environmental standards; and it will also provide extra opportunities for prosperity and jobs. That is the great prize of EU enlargement.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Leader of the House realise that he gives the impression that he is dragging his feet on the question of the review of the sitting hours of the House when he talks about the narrowness of the majority in the Committee? Does he recall early-day motion 262, which was signed by 245 Members?
[That this House notes that the revised sitting hours and related arrangements have now been in place for 12 months; believes that there is now sufficient experience of the new arrangements to enable the House to judge what adjustments would be appropriate to enable the business of the House to be conducted more effectively; and calls for an urgent review of the reforms.]
The Government have made a U-turn on allowing people to vote on the European constitution, so how about allowing Members of the House to vote on their sitting hours?
Mr. Hain: There will be a vote on sitting hours.
Dr. Lewis: When?
Mr. Hain: Let me take the hon. Gentleman through the sequence of events. At the beginning of the year, I announced that the Modernisation Committee would conduct a review. In the meantime, the Procedure Committee had circulated a questionnaire to every Member and there was a large response to which I referred earlier. That response showed a very narrow division, not on reverting to the old hours on Wednesday—there was no real support for that—but on the Tuesday hours. The division was between those who wanted the hour of interruption to remain at 7 o'clock and those who wanted to move back to 10 o'clock. In the Modernisation Committee we need to reflect on the detail of the response to the Procedure Committee and, yes, at the end of that process the House will have a vote on its future sitting hours, as has always been promised. The current hours are only for the rest of this Parliament.
Mr. Martin Salter: The Leader of the House will be aware of early-day motion 583 signed by 168 Members on both sides of the House.
[That this House notes with regret the horrific murder of Jane Longhurst by Graham Coutts who had become an avid user of corrupting internet sites such as 'necrobabes', `death by asphyxia' and 'hanging bitches'; offers its 10 support to the family of Jane Longhurst in their call for
1502
action to he taken to close down these sites; calls on the Government to conduct a review of the Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1964 and all other key legislation; and asks the Home Secretary to ensure better co-operation from the international law enforcement agencies to close down such internet sites, which are likely to incite people to do harm to others.]
It calls for action to restrict UK access to corrupting and depraved internet sites, following the horrific murder of Brighton schoolteacher, Jane Longhurst, who originally came from Reading. She was killed by an avid user of internet sites such as "Necrobabes" and "Death by asphyxia". The Home Secretary has already pledged to try to take action against such sites and to restrict access to them, but does not my right hon. Friend think that as there is wide support for action from Members on both sides of the House it is a suitable subject for debate on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Hain: Indeed. I know that the whole House shares my hon. Friend's absolute abhorrence at that obscenity and the way in which internet sites can promote such behaviour. That is why the Government have been working closely with the Internet Watch Foundation, internet companies, telecom operators and others to increase our ability to prevent children from accidentally accessing explicit adult material of that obscene kind. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's campaign to ensure that we are constantly aware of the issue.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Leader of the House find Government time to debate the endemic fraud and corruption in the EU—the organisation so much admired by him and his hon. Friends in the Government? The issue has been dramatically highlighted by the National Audit Office and by the failure of the European Parliament to do anything about it.
Mr. Hain: Fraud in the European Union is indeed a great concern. That is why the Government have ensured that we focus on fraud the whole time and why Commissioner Neil Kinnock, despite the criticisms of him, has been embarking on some of the most difficult work that any commissioner has had to undertake to try to reform the European Commission's practices and ensure that such inefficiencies and fraud are tackled head-on. That must be done, not only in the interests of all of us, but in those of a Europe of which we can be proud.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Statements and oral questions on Iraq are welcome and could well be extended, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), but they are surely not enough. We need a fully-fledged debate on Iraq, the situation in Falluja, what is occurring in the prisons and the two legs of the Government's argument on weapons of mass destruction and humanitarianism. Moreover, we need to debate practical suggestions about how we can get out of the current mess, and the role of the United Nations and the role of a free Iraqi labour movement are important things that could be outlined in that a debate.
Mr. Hain: As I have told my hon. Friend before, I agree about the importance of a free Iraqi labour movement—something that did not exist under Saddam Hussein, but that he and I want to take root in Iraq. As for a fully-fledged debate, my hon. Friend has the opportunity to apply for one at any time, but he cannot really suggest that we have not had many opportunities to discuss developments in Iraq.
Mr. Barnes: A full day.
Mr. Hain: I have noted what my hon. Friend says about a full day's debate. In respect of the United Nations, we are working for another Security Council resolution and the intention is to hand over responsibility for the governance of Iraq to an interim Iraqi authority from the end of next month. That is on course and we will continue to do everything that we can to support it.
Mr. Don Foster: I thank the Leader of the House for his robust comments on the proposed English cricket tour to Zimbabwe, but may I press him on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that there should be a debate, or at least a statement, in the House next week, following today's meeting of the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Sport and Tourism with the England and Wales Cricket Board? Would not such a statement provide an opportunity for all parties in the House to join together to pressure the International Cricket Council to change its rules to allow the cancellation of such tours on the ground of moral issues, without fines being imposed?
Mr. Hain: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman on this. Undoubtedly, the villain of the piece at present is not just Robert Mugabe's despotic regime, but the way in which the ICC is turning a blind eye to that. I find that unacceptable, and it would be a good idea if we could explore—whether through a debate in the House or other means—how the focus of attention can be put on the ICC.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the future of post office closures? The closures are being done differently from in the past. In fact, enticement, bribery and every other means are being used to encourage post offices to close when we believe that they are viable businesses. There is no transparency, the books are not made available to make a rational judgment and the evidence needed to make the judgment is concealed. That is not an appropriate way to close post offices.
The losers are the public. Generally, old people use post offices. Many of the post offices involved are surrounded by old people's bungalows and sheltered accommodation. Those people will continue to need post offices. They will continue to live in those homes, but post offices will be unavailable to them. I plead with my right hon. Friend to arrange an open debate, with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry available to the House.
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend makes some serious allegations—the Secretary of State will want to take note of them and respond to him—but I agree with him in this respect: the local post office in my own village in my constituency is a fulcrum for the village. Pensioners and others dependent on benefits use it particularly actively. Pensioners in a former mining constituency such as mine do not have cars and cannot get down the valley easily, so the post office is a vital community facility. He is absolutely right about that.
Mr. George Osborne: When will we debate the proposed referendum on an EU constitution? Although the Prime Minister could open such a debate, would it not be a good break with precedent to allow members of the Cabinet to speak in it and have their say—a say that they were denied around the Cabinet table? Perhaps the Leader of the House could respond to the debate, so that we could hear him eat his words before we go off and eat our dinner.
Mr. Hain: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I responded to a similar impudent point from the shadow Leader of the House a few weeks ago. This issue will be debated in due course, but how can we debate a referendum on a European constitutional treaty that has not yet even been finally negotiated, let alone agreed and signed? That is the point. He and the Conservative party decided that they opposed the draft constitutional treaty before it was even properly published and agreed in the European Convention, on which I represented the Government. They are still pressing the same position when the negotiations have not finished. Let us see what is negotiated and whether agreement can be reached, and then we will decide how to proceed.
Jim Knight: I am sure that the Leader of the House shares my concern about the levels of council tax. May we debate that important issue and particularly the effects—cuts in services or increases in council tax—if there were a two-year cash freeze on local government funding?
Mr. Hain: Of course, the consequences for council tax of a cash freeze on local government spending, which would cut local government funding by £2.4 billion, would be catastrophic. Council taxes would rise by 10 per cent. as a consequence of the spending plans promoted by the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Cabinet in the first two years of a Conservative Government. Local government spending would be cut by —2.4 billion, either savagely cutting services or sending council tax levels sky high. That is the prospect that awaits the people of Britain if they get a Conservative Government.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Will the Leader of the House find time to hold a debate on the Environment Agency's proposed amendments to the substitute fuels protocol that will, by sleight of hand,

1505
allow waste materials to be rebadged as fuel and thus imported into this country for disposal at plants such as the Westbury cement works?
Mr. Hain: Obviously, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will want to take careful note of the hon. Gentleman's point.
Helen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the role played by police community support officers who make a valuable contribution to reducing crime and reassuring the population in my constituency? May we have an opportunity to debate both the possible expansion in the number of support officers and the effect that a £900 million cut in the Home Office and criminal justice budget would have on those people, whom we now have out on the streets reducing crime?
Mr. Hain: I would welcome an Opposition debate on that matter. My hon. Friend is right: it would be interesting to find out whether the Opposition could defend their policy of cutting Home Office expenditure by almost £1 billion, slashing the number of police officers and community support officers, who are vital to improving security in our communities and dealing with antisocial behaviour and the other intimidation that is visited upon senior citizens, especially. That is a question for the Opposition to answer in the coming election campaigns.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: Has the Leader of the House seen the reports in today's press that unscrupulous law firms are launching legal actions against British troops in Iraq? Will he make it categorically clear that no British troops, either in Iraq or any other theatre, will be subjected to claims under human rights legislation?
Mr. Hain: The Ministry of Defence is obviously very concerned about this matter. Indeed, the Government are concerned about it and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will follow the points that he makes and the whole situation very carefully.
Julie Morgan: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the statement made yesterday by the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, about progress on reviewing baby death convictions following the Angela Cannings judgment. What arrangements will my right hon. Friend make for that issue to be debated in the House when that review is completed? It is a matter of enormous concern for all parents, carers and paediatricians. I am told that many paediatricians are reluctant to become expert witnesses or take on cases where child abuse is suspected, which may leave children unprotected.
Mr. Hain: This is a very important matter and I acknowledge the close and expert interest that my hon. Friend has shown in child protection and children's rights. That is why I am sure that the Attorney-General's statement and the accompanying written ministerial statement will be particularly welcome to her.
Kevin Brennan: I thank the Leader of the House for the generous provision of three
1506
days' debate on the Pensions Bill on Report and Third Reading, but will he assure the House that, within that time, sufficient time will be given to debate all amendments relating to the 60,000 workers who have lost their pensions, including any amendment that may be tabled by Labour Members if the Government do not make their own announcement before that time?
Mr. Hain: It is partly because of the importance of the matter that sufficient time has been allowed, not just to debate the necessary technical amendments tabled by the Government but to address that issue. I assure my hon. Friend that, if an amendment tabled by Back Benchers is selected by you, Mr. Speaker, and if it is in order, there will be enough time to debate it, if, indeed, it is necessary to table such an amendment at all.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that patronage is the curse of our age and that 46 new Members have entered Parliament by appointment, not election? What is happening with House of Lords reform and will it ever take place while peers in the other place have a right of veto and can overrule the decisions that we take in the elected House?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend will welcome the increased number of life peerages, which enables the Labour contingent in the House of Lords at least to close the gap with the Conservatives, who are still the largest party there, which makes their presence in the upper House disproportionate to their support in the country. As for House of Lords reform, the Government are addressing the issue and we are determined to advance reforms on the composition of the House of Lords, its powers and procedures.
Mr. Wayne David: I am pleased that Members on both sides of the House have welcomed the fact that the European Union has increased in size with the arrival of 10 new member countries. They will be aware that this week the President of Poland is making a state visit to this country and I am sure that we all welcome the fact that Poland has come back to its European home. May we have a debate in the House as soon as possible on the economic implications of future enlargement of the European Union for both Britain and the EU as presently constituted?
Mr. Hain: I join my hon. Friend, on behalf I am sure of the whole House in welcoming the state visit by the President of Poland, which was an important ally of ours in the second world war and has long been a friend of Britain's. My hon. Friend is one of the Members who have promoted ties with Poland. We value its entry into the European Union and I believe that it will be a strong ally of Britain in the EU's future development.
As for any future plans for the EU enlargement, my hon. Friend knows that Bulgaria and Romania are closing a number of chapters necessary for the conclusion of negotiations on their accession and other candidate countries are lining up, including Turkey, which I personally would like to see in the EU at some point. No doubt there will be opportunities to debate later enlargement.
David Taylor: In light of a planned lobby of Parliament by employees of Her Majesty's Prison Service and the national probation service, who wish to express their concerns about the national offender management service, would the Leader of the House care to pay tribute to the professionalism and commitment of those two groups of people and ask the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House to supply the organisational detail that is missing but necessary, provide assurances about resource levels and explain the delphic term "contestability", which seems to threaten employees and voluntary sector providers alike?
Mr. Hain: The Home Secretary will want to pay attention to the points made by my hon. Friend, but I happily join him in paying tribute to the role played by prison officers and probation officers. As for the latter, I often feel that they are the butt of attacks and criticisms, rather like social workers, but in fact they do an important job, which we are happy to acknowledge.

BILL PRESENTED
  BALANCE CHARITABLE FOUNDATION FOR UNCLAIMED ASSETS (ALLOCATION)
  Mr. Frank Field, supported by Mr. Jon Owen Jones, Mr. Derek Wyatt, Kevin Brennan, Mr. David Willetts, Mr. Nigel Waterson, Mr. Steve Webb, Annabelle Ewing, Sandra Osborne, The Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson and Adam Price, presented a Bill to make provision about the allocation of unclaimed assets secured by the Balance Charitable Foundation for Unclaimed Assets: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 18 June, and to be printed. [Bill 104].

  Points of Order
  1.14 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and colleagues on both sides of the House about the possible deployment of additional troops to Iraq. You will also have heard the thoroughly casual and dismal reply by the Leader of the House to the serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. It is plain that the newspapers, particularly The Times and The Sun, have already been briefed that additional troops are to go to Iraq, and we know that a reconnaissance force is already there to assess the state of play in the area. Given your own very strong views, often rightly pronounced in the House, that statements should be made in the House before they are released to the press, if a decision has been made in principle—we believe that it has been to consider a deployment, the House of Commons urgently requires the Government to come and explain their policy, and give the House the opportunity to debate this serious question, which involves sending up to 4,000 troops into harm's way.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the matter was raised by the shadow Leader of the House. With regard to comments in the press, as he knows, sometimes they can be inaccurate, and therefore I do not wish to make any statement on that. However—and I hope that note is taken of this—if there is any significant increase in Army personnel going into an area of danger, I would want the House to know about it.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a great discourtesy to the armed forces and their families that no attempt has been made to clarify the accuracy of the reports in the papers today or to make sure that we now have a statement on the facts?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows my difficulties. I cannot be drawn into these arguments, and I think that I have made the point on behalf of the House.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take you back to Question Time and draw your attention to Question 3, when a number of Opposition Members rose but you were unable to call them? I make no argument about that whatsoever. However, after Question 5, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), a junior Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, commented that no Opposition Member had risen to ask a question when, in fact, you had called four Government Members to ask a question. Could you inform Ministers that it is you who decides who is called in questions? Unfortunately, the Opposition do not have much say in whom you call.
  Mr. Speaker: I think that Ministers know that, but from time to time they take some liberties.

Orders of the Day

  Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  [Relevant documents: First Report from the Defence Committee, Session 2003—04, HC 96, on Armed Forces Pensions and Compensation, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6109.]

  Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill
    New Clause 1

      RESERVISTS PERSONAL PENSION PLANS
      The Secretary of State may by regulation enable the Armed Forces Pension Scheme to make contributions to personal pension plans owned by members of the Reserve Forces.'.— [Mr. Brazier.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      1.18 pm
      Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I declare an interest, Mr. Speaker, as I served for 13 years in the Territorial Army, as you yourself did. Indeed, as background to our debate on pensions, I might say that my grandfather served throughout both world wars as a reservist officer. His health was ruined as a result and, although he was decorated for gallantry, he never received a pension of any kind. The proposal in new clause 1 does not relate to the past, but aims to address an injustice that exists today.
      In connection with the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), Operation Telic involved the largest deployment of reservists since the war, so this is a good time to focus on the issue. They constituted a huge proportion of the overall personnel, with 5,000 out of a nominal total of 45,000 reservists—only 35,000, however, were trained and available for service—being deployed. Even today, the Library tells me, we have 989 reservists in Iraq, 230 in Afghanistan and about 300 in the Balkans. Recently, the first military cross since 1945 was awarded to a territorial.
      Nearly all those are people who have civilian jobs. They give of their time during peacetime and for many years serve at annual camps, weekends and evenings in the Territorial Army and its counterparts in the other two services. There is no pension provision for reservists, however many years they serve, except in one respect. Those who are called up for full-time service can have payments made into an employer's pension fund, if they have an employer. If they happen to be self-employed—a large and important category of reservists—there is no provision. The new clause seeks to address that, for two reasons.
      First, the current arrangements are grossly discriminatory against self-employed people; why, I cannot imagine. I served in three different TA units and self-employed people played a vital role in all of them. As call-outs become more burdensome and onerous, and as employers become reluctant to allow employees to serve in the reserve forces, the proportion of self-employed people, if they can be found and are able and
      1510
      willing, may have to rise. It is very unfair that such discrimination exists.
      The second point relates to all reservists. No matter how long they serve, there is an absolute lack of provision for their general service outside full-time deployments. I was one of those who argued strongly and many times in the House for more use to be made of reservists, preferably in formed units. I welcome the fact that just before the last Conservative Government fell, we passed the Reserve Forces Act 1996 and started the process of making more use of reservists. I did not envisage at that stage that there would be huge cuts in the number of reservists and an enormous increase in the scale of work required of them. That is what happened.
      When we consider pensions for those who are not on full-time service, it is important to recognise the sacrifices that they make. Overtime opportunities are greatly reduced if one is spending weekends away and spending training evenings as a reservist. Even in the old days, career opportunities were somewhat jeopardised by reserve service. I well remember conversations in which people said, "We really wanted so-and-so to take such-and-such a job, but he finally felt unable to do so because it would have meant giving up a promotion, as the job is so busy." Today, with the prospect of being called out in peacetime for periods of as long as six or even nine months, perhaps as often as once in every three or four years, the reduction in people's earning prospects, and consequently in their eventual pension prospects, is considerable. That is not reflected at all, outside the periods of full-time service.
      I shall not detain the House with a long argument because that would not strengthen the case. However, it might be for the convenience of the House if I explained in a few sentences how the national guard scheme works. It is a good scheme and a cheap one. Bearing it in mind that reservists provide defence on the cheap, much of it funded by their employers—or their own business where they are self-employed—it is a scheme that the Government would do well to consider. Such a scheme is envisaged by new clause 1.
      The scheme is governed by three simple rules. First, leaving aside the full-time deployments, there is no contribution for anyone who serves fewer than 20 years, so the scheme applies only to a small proportion, but it applies to those people who are the very backbone of every unit—the company commander, the company sergeant-major and the long-serving non-commissioned officer. In America, when such people have done 12 or 13 years and feel that they have had enough, they realise that in another six or seven years they will be eligible for a pension. The scheme affects a fairly small class of people, but a critical one for maintaining unit quality. Secondly, one does not receive a pension at the age where one's regular counterpart would. The pension starts at state retirement age, which, from memory, is 67 in America, so the provision is relatively cheap. Thirdly, it is entirely related to the amount of time spent serving.
      At a time when the defence budget is stretched, I know that there is no huge willingness to consider spending extra money on anything, but when the burden is being disproportionately borne by members of the

      1511
      reserve forces, the very small sums that the scheme would cost would be good value for money and would represent justice.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin):May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the US system that he was explaining to the House? For comparative purposes, will he tell us about other pension provision? For instance, is there a state pension provision across the United States that national guard members would receive as well?
      Mr. Brazier: The Minister knows that pension arrangements in America are extremely complicated, with variations between states. The crucial issue is the return that reservists get from giving up time to do reserve service, which other civilians who do not give up time to do reserve service do not get. What pension return are reservists getting? In the national guard, the US army reserve or its counterparts in the other services, the small proportion of people who are the backbone of the organisation get the benefit if they do more than 20 years, and those who choose not to sacrifice their time and make the other sacrifices involved do not get it.
      Angus Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, which I am sure he has also found is popular among people in the Territorial Army and reserves more generally. They think it would be a fair way to go. Is he aware not only that such a scheme exists in the United States, but that Canada has been developing a similar scheme over recent years? Perhaps the Ministry of Defence could look at that for inspiration.
      Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is more up to date on the situation in Canada than I am. I know that the Canadians were evaluating a scheme, but I do not know how much progress has been made. I can say, however, that, as the House knows, the turnover figures, or the wastage rates, which are a significant measure of the state of a unit, in all our counterpart English-speaking countries—America, Canada, Australia and, I believe, New Zealand—are much lower than those for the British reserve forces. That should concern us.
      There are two separate injustices that the clause seeks to address. The first is the lack of a pension to cover the full service of a long-serving reservist. The second is the immediate crying need to sort out the discrimination against the self-employed. I urge the House and the Government to support new clause 1.
      Mr. Colin Breed: As there are currently reservists in theatre, it is right that we should think about their future welfare and the benefits that we provide for them. In Committee, the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) explained in greater detail why we should do so. We should look after reservists for the right reasons, not because other countries may be introducing their own schemes. We should properly address the discrimination issue and find a means of reflecting in pension terms the service
      1512
      that they have given. The principle of paying a contribution to reservists who receive an occupational pension has already been established, so the Government cannot argue against it.
      1.30 pm
      On that basis, why should we not pay those who have personal pension plans? In Committee, the Minister explained that a reservist averages about 30 days' service a year, so the pension would be very small. However, that is an argument in favour of new clause 1, because extending the scheme would have little effect on the overall cost—I understand the cost-neutrality problem. The change would cost a small amount and affect relatively few people, so finance should not be an issue.
      We have agreed the principle and that extending the scheme will not cost very much, so why are the Government making such a great fuss? The hon. Member for Canterbury suggests an elegant solution to enable the Government to address discrimination and recognise the valuable service that reservists give, and it would hardly register as a blip in the budgetary process.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: I am delighted by the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), but I was disappointed by the Minister, who sought to tarnish it by criticising the system in America and suggesting that people gain an advantage by having two pensions. The issue is about fairness to people in the reserve forces, who give their time and, in some instances, their lives or their well-being on behalf of their country, and new clause 1 allows this House and the nation as whole to recognise that commitment.
      Mr. Caplin: As the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Defence Committee, he did not participate in Standing Committee, where hon. Members were able, free and willing to ask questions about different points as we debated the issues. I intervened on the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) to raise an interesting point about the US scheme, and I cannot see anything wrong with that.
      Mr. Hancock: The point would be relevant only if the Minister provided evidence that people in the reserve forces in the United States can claim other benefits. The US system is a good example, because it works and offers reserve forces a pension scheme, and it could easily be adapted and made available to reserve forces in this country. The point that many reserve service personnel in the United States probably do not have other pension facilities is valid, but it does not relate to this issue, which concerns fairness to our reservists.
      Mr. Brazier: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Pensions paid to members of the armed forces and, indeed, other state sector occupational funds are not welfare payments; they are a reward for service.
      Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is dead right. The issue concerns the recognition of those individuals' commitment to the nation. New clause 1 will not break the MOD bank, and it is a way to honour reservists and recognise their dedication.

      1513
      During the past year, I have talked to many people who have returned from active service in the Territorial Army and other reserve forces in Iraq, many of whom have been on long deployments for the third time in three years. Reservists who have served on three separate deployments are not unusual, and many of them return to face difficult employment situations, which is a point that the Minister has recognised.
      New clause 1 is a major step in the right direction—it is a small financial step, but it is a big step in honouring a debt that we should have considered long ago. I hope that the House is inclined to support it unanimously, and if the Government were to agree to it, it would mark their commitment to our reserve forces.
      Mr. Caplin: I can safely say that unanimity will not be achieved on new clause 1.
      I pay tribute, as I have on a number of occasions, to the work of all our reserve forces, whether they are deployed in Iraq, the Balkans or Afghanistan. The hon. Member for Canterbury was good enough to acknowledge that we have made changes to reserve forces during the past few months to recognise their greater importance. I told the Standing Committee the news about the Duke of Westminster a couple of weeks before the London Gazette announced it, but not to worry—I suppose that was my privilege in that situation.
      Since we debated the issue in Standing Committee, I have met a number of reservists in Basra. As I expected, they are a fully committed and very determined group of men and women, and they are dedicated to Britain's cause in south-east Iraq. They are particularly committed to the reconstruction of Iraq and to their work with the local Iraqi community, which is testament to their skills. Many members of the reserve forces, which are doing a superb job in Iraq, are becoming increasingly frustrated at the lack of attention shown by the newspapers and television to their work developing water stations and sewers and helping schools and hospitals. Owing to the work of all our British troops, including our reserve forces, the public infrastructure of south-east Iraq differs significantly from its condition 18 months ago.
      The hon. Member for Canterbury began the debate by discussing the current size of our reserve forces, and he does not see the Reserve Forces Act 1996 as a reason to reduce numbers. If we go back 10 years to 1994, however, the Territorial Army contained about 100,000 people.
      Mr. Brazier: No it did not.
      Mr. Caplin: It was very large, but it was seldom deployed or deployable. Today, the TA contains some 40,000 people and is deployable, which is something that Government and Opposition Members welcomed in an excellent Adjournment debate on the issue in Westminster Hall. The capability of the TA and the reserve forces in general is more significant today because they are more likely to be deployed.
      Mr. Brazier: I am listening to the Minister carefully. After the TA was cut by about one third, the Government announced that it was more deployable,
      1514
      and it has been deployed more often. Apart from the introduction of the mobilisation centre, which was announced by the previous Conservative Government, can he mention one single change that has made the reserve forces more deployable? More reservists are being deployed, but the resources to train them for deployment have been reduced.
      Mr. Caplin: I do not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman's question. I went to Chilwell to speak to reservists as they were mobilised and found that the system is effective. I have talked to reservists in both Chilwell and Iraq, and they welcome the training and development that is part of the mobilisation process.
      I make those points about deployment because it determines the pension issue. The House will not take a unanimous view on new clause 1 because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, voluntary reserve service, such as weekend training and annual camp in the TA, is not pensionable under the armed forces pension scheme. Service is pensionable when people are deployed. I entirely accept the point that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) made about fairness to those who are deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Under the Reserve Forces Act 1996, we do, can and will use the power to make pensionable payments for those people, because they are deployed, or mobilised, and therefore acting in theatre.
      Mr. Hancock: The Minister makes an interesting point, which he has obviously researched. Will he give details of how many people over the past three years have been compensated in the way that he describes?
      Mr. Caplin: I cannot do so today, but I look forward to the parliamentary question that will naturally follow.
      When the reservist is mobilised, he or she can ask the Ministry to make pension contributions to his or her civilian pension plan. That is how the 1996 Act works. New clause 1 is unnecessary, because we already have that power to make payments to civilian pensions.
      I cannot tell the House how much it would cost to extend the scheme as the new clause proposes. It was suggested that it would not cost a lot, although we were not given any figures—that would have been interesting. I have a feeling that such non-mobilised reserve service pension arrangements would end up costing millions of pounds, but we can certainly look into the potential costs.
      I want to draw some differences between those who are employed and those who are self-employed. Those who are employed are protected under the safeguards in the Protection of Employment Act 1977, which were enhanced by the Reserve Forces Act 1996. I accept that the situation is slightly different for self-employed people. As hon. Members will know from the debate in Westminster Hall, this is one of the areas to be considered in the review that I am undertaking with regard to statutory instrument 309, which will take account of the differences between employed and self-employed status. I explained the timetable for the review process, and I hope in next week's debate to be able to say more about where it stands and to give hon.

      1515
      Members clearer time lines. [Interruption.] I can see the hon. Member for Canterbury edging towards the front of his seat.
      Mr. Brazier: I thought that the Minister was about to sit down.
      Mr. Caplin: I should like to make a couple more points first.
      The new clause would add nothing to the powers under the Reserve Forces Act, which allows us to make such contributions. The Bill ensures that reservists' arrangements will continue to be properly governed by the 1996 Act when we move to the new armed forces pension scheme. Two schemes will run, and the 1996 Act will be relevant to both. The powers that we have in those schemes will ensure that people are not out of pocket in terms of their pensions. That is because, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South said, they are doing a crucial job for our country, whether in Iraq, the Balkans or Afghanistan. If the new clause is pressed, I shall ask my hon. Friends to resist it.
      Mr. Brazier: I hope that it is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker, for me to say that when I moved the new clause I did not explain that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who has just come back from the Gulf, was unable to move it because he is at his father-in-law's funeral. He asked me to pass on his apologies to the House.
      Although I am not persuaded by the Minister's arguments, I acknowledge that he made two helpful commitments: that the Government will consider the whole issue of the way in which the self-employed are looked after; and that he is willing to look into how much it would cost to introduce a wider scheme. It would perhaps be uncharitable to remind him that he still owes me a letter, because he promised to write to me about the points that I raised on unit structures during the Westminster Hall debate.
      On the basis that we have those two pledges, I am happy to withdraw the motion.
      1.45 pm
      Mr. Breed: In view of what the Minister said about next week's debate, it would be extremely helpful if we could have by then some very rough figures on costs. I am sure that the actuaries could produce something in time.
      Mr. Caplin: Perhaps I should clarify the commitment that I gave. I did not say that I would provide figures on the proposed pension arrangements; I said that I would update the House on our review of statutory instrument 309 and reserve forces generally, which I detailed in the Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall four or five weeks ago. Nice try, though.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must now put the Question. I am afraid that we have had speeches after the withdrawal of the new clause. I must now put the Question but, of course, Members may decide not to vote on it.
      Question put and negatived.

    New Clause 2

      ARMED FORCES PAY REVIEW BODY
      '(1) The Armed Forces Pay Review Body (the "Review Body") shall monitor the extent to which the scheme meets the recruitment and retention needs of the Armed Forces.

      (2) The Review Body shall publish its observations in a supplement to the following annual report and the Secretary of State shall publish his response to these observations.

      (3) The Secretary of State shall consult the Review Body in advance of any variations in the Schemes which he is minded to make.

      (4) Any person (including serving members of the Armed Forces) or organisations concerned with the working of the Schemes or about Legacy Issues covered by existing schemes shall make such representations in writing (and in confidence if appropriate) to the Review Body in summary form in the first instance and the Review Body may, at its discretion, invite further representations on the matter in such form as it may prescribe, but the Review Body shall not be obliged by this provision to look into individual cases.

      (5) The Review Body shall set out the arrangements to apply to servicemen and women who elect to transfer to a new Armed Forces Pension and Compensation Scheme.

      (6) Before the introduction of any new scheme the Secretary of State shall submit to the Review Body the mortality and longevity assumptions upon which such scheme is based.

      (7) The Review Body shall keep the Schemes and Legacy Issues under regular review and shall report annually to the Secretary of State and may so report more frequently if they believe that to be necessary.

      (8) The Secretary of State shall cause any report to him by the Review Body to be published if the Review Body so requests.

      (9) The Review Body may make to the Secretary of State recommendations for variations in the Schemes.

      (10) The Secretary of State may, at his discretion, reject, vary or accept and apply recommendations by the Review Body.

      (11) If a recommendation is made under subsection (10), the Secretary of State shall make a written statement to Parliament setting out—

      (a) the Recommendation;

      (b) the Review Body's reasons for making the recommendation;

      (c) the Secretary of State's decision in relation to the recommendation;

      (d) the reason for the decision.

      (12) A legacy issue shall be defined as an historical anomaly in provisions of Armed Forces Pension Schemes causing inequitable treatment of certain clearly defined groups.'.—[Mr. Gerald Howarth.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      We had a series of very successful discussions in Committee. Although we were hampered in certain respects, and there were several fundamental disagreements, I think that the Minister will agree that we were able to deal with the issues in a courteous and civilised fashion. Conservative Members' criticisms of the Government—I suspect that their Back Benchers may have some, too—should not be misinterpreted. We are saying not that the Government are not supportive

      1517
      of our armed forces or careless with their lives and conditions, but merely that they could be doing better.
      I pay renewed tribute to the Select Committee on Defence for the extensive work that it—or, if I may say so, we—carried out in examining these complex matters of pensions and compensation. One of its chief complaints was that the Bill is an enabling Bill. It contains virtually nothing save an unfettered and unlimited power for the Secretary of State to draw up such schemes as he thinks appropriate. We have only the possibility of a one-and-a-half-hour debate to consider and scrutinise schemes that are very extensive in their effect on the armed forces and detailed in the way in which they will affect their lives.
      A second criticism was the lack of much of the detail of the schemes. No details about the early departure scheme were provided on Second Reading and were tabled only in Committee. I have outlined the two principal criticisms that the Select Committee on Defence made, and it is important to revisit some issues, not simply to rehearse earlier arguments but to give other hon. Members an opportunity to have their say.
      The pension and compensation schemes have been subject to scant parliamentary scrutiny. I remind the Under-Secretary that, in the 2001–02 Session, 1,468 secondary legislation measures were tabled but only three were considered on the Floor of the House and we voted on only one. Last Session, there were no debates in the Chamber on secondary legislation. We must also hear it in mind that secondary legislation is not amendable. The Bill contains nothing about the schemes, which will have a huge impact on the lives of our servicemen and women. In Committee, we tabled amendments to include at least some of the main principles in the Bill.
      Mr. Caplin: I, too, do not want to repeat all the points made in Standing Committee, but perhaps we can make the ground rules clear. We are considering a new scheme for members of our armed services on or after 6 April 2005. It is not directly relevant to those who are currently serving unless they choose to transfer to the new scheme.
      Mr. Howarth: That is a poor start by the Under-Secretary. We know that the new scheme that comes into effect next year will be mandatory for those who join on 6 April or thereafter, if the Bill reaches the statute book—perhaps that is a big assumption. However, the Under-Secretary glided over a fundamental issue, which I shall tackle shortly. Those who serve today and continue to serve beyond 6 April next year will face a choice. He accepted but brushed over that. They will have to choose whether to stay in the existing scheme or to join the new scheme. I leave aside compensation, about which there will be no such choice. However, it exists for pensions and it will affect servicemen and women and their families for the rest of their lives. The fact that there is nothing in the Bill about that makes it difficult for us to scrutinise the matter as we would have wished.
      Another complaint that we made was that, unlike members of other public services such as the fire or police services, Her Majesty's armed forces had no
      1518
      representative body to speak up for them. We therefore called in Committee for independent oversight to be given to a body of, for example, representative trustees. The Under-Secretary rightly pointed out that an unfunded scheme cannot have trustees, and we accepted that. We welcome the fact that, last Friday, the Under-Secretary announced that he had considered the representations that we made in Committee. To be fair, there was concern in all parties in Committee about the lack of independent oversight of the armed forces pension scheme.
      We are pleased that the Under-Secretary listened to our arguments but his announcement did not go far enough. We have tabled the new clause to include in the Bill an issue that the Government acknowledge to be important, and to add other matters on which the Under-Secretary's announcement did not go far enough. We welcome the fact that oversight will be given to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. As I said in Committee, that organisation has worked well and is respected by everyone. Given that we all believe that our armed forces need to have confidence in the oversight of the pension scheme, they will be encouraged to know that the remit has been given to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body.
      However, the review body's role in externally validating, as the Under-Secretary describes it, will be done
      "in the context of their quinquennial valuation of the AFPS". — [Official Report, 30 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 65WS.]
      We are worried that we have no detailed statement of the exact powers that will be given to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Will it be limited to considering pension issues every five years, as the comment about the quinquennial review suggests? Can it maintain—as we believe that it should—a watching brief, and report as and when it considers that to be appropriate? We believe that that is a much better way of granting power to the review body.
      If members of the armed forces knew that the matter would be considered not only every five years, but as and when those highly professional and splendid people who make up the Armed Forces Pay Review Body felt that the Government should take action or at least investigate a matter, that would have the added advantage of further consolidating confidence. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us how he envisages the pay review body's remit being effected.
      Why will the Armed Forces Pay Review Body be constrained in making its views public until the following year's annual report is published? There may be a good reason for that, but if the body discovers something about pensions that should be drawn to the attention of the armed forces or to that of the House, it should be able to do so and not be constrained. If it looks into a matter and finds a cause for concern, it should not have to wait until the following year to publish its anxieties. That is an unacceptable limitation. I reiterate that there may be a good reason for that, but we need to know why the Under-Secretary has chosen that route.
      Mr. Caplin: Perhaps I can help. Last week, I announced a quinquennial review of the new armed forces pension scheme. That would not prevent the Armed Forces Pay Review Body from commenting on pensions in relation to recruitment and retention of current armed forces staff.
      Mr. Howarth: That takes us a little further forward. If I understand the Under-Secretary correctly, he proposes to give the Armed Forces Pay Review Body a statutory remit whereby it must conduct a review every five years but will not be constrained from making a report to the Secretary of State or, as I would hope, to Parliament, if something arises in the meantime. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will confirm whether I am right.
      Mr. Caplin: The Armed Forces Pay Review Body reports to the Prime Minister. It is not in the Ministry of Defence in that respect. I am clear that it can consider all the issues that relate to recruitment, retention and pay. It makes the appropriate reports to the Prime Minister and we announce them to the House in a statement. Those terms of reference are unchanged. I propose that the body should undertake the additional work of examining every five years the workings of the new pension scheme. I shall say more about that shortly, but I hope that I have cleared the matter up.
      2 pm
      Mr. Howarth: I take encouragement from the last part of the Minister's remarks, because one of the issues that will become apparent—it is not apparent now—is just how successful some of the new measures will be in retaining the servicemen and women whom we want and need to retain in our armed forces. None of us here today, not even the Minister, can say with any certainty that the measures will have the desired effect in that respect. I therefore welcome the fact that there will be a requirement to review every five years, but it seems, from what the Minister has said, that there will be an opportunity for the review body to make known concerns as and when they arise, rather than being limited to doing so every five years. I do not want to be churlish: I welcome that.
      Given the importance of this issue, however, we feel that the new clause ought to be in the Bill. That would help the Government, because it would give them a clear framework within which to operate. We have included a number of other issues in the new clause that we felt ought to be addressed and to be given to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body as specific remits. Perhaps I can just go through some of them.
      New clause 2(5) would require the pay review body to
      "set out the arrangements to apply to servicemen and women who elect to transfer to a new Armed Forces Pension and Compensation Scheme."
      As I have just pointed out to the Minister, this involves serious issues that must be addressed by every serviceman and woman who is serving in the armed forces next April—issues that are likely to affect them and their families until the end of their days. We raised this matter in Committee.
      1520
      The Minister was present at our meeting yesterday with some of those who feel that the scheme has not moved on to help them sufficiently. Some of those people are in their 80s and 90s, and are living with a scheme that was established in the past. Whether they elect to stay in the existing scheme or move to the new one next year will be a matter of concern to them and to their families, and I envisage a great deal of debate on the issue in married quarters up and down the land, and certainly in my constituency of Aldershot.
      In Committee, when we called on the Minister to make advice available to our servicemen and women, he said that the Ministry of Defence could not act as a financial adviser, and nor, by implication, could any member of the chain of command. Given the way in which the oversight of our financial services is administered today, I quite understand the elephant trap that might lie ahead if the Minister or those under his command were to give such financial advice.
      The Minister helpfully provided us with a leaflet, however. I am not sure whether other hon. Members have seen it, but it is a little purple leaflet representing a tri-service view of these matters, entitled "The New Armed Forces Pension & Compensation Schemes". It sets out some of the key conditions and tells people:
      "You can remain on the current scheme",
      and
      "You will get the opportunity to choose whether to stay where you are or transfer to the new pension scheme. You do not have to decide now."
      Well, they are going to have to decide in due course, and these are momentous decisions. The leaflet says:
      "Where can I find out more?"
      and advises people, in the modern usage, to go to the MOD's website. I have managed to master the necessary technology to have a look at the website, and it does give some comparative examples of conditions under the existing scheme and what will apply under the new one. I have to say, however, that it is all pretty basic.
      The leaflet goes on:
      "If you have any general questions on the schemes, address them to your commanding officer or your local administration office in the first instance."
      I suspect that the Minister has already advised those people not to offer anything that might constitute individual advice to individual soldiers, sailors or airmen, and to ensure that their remarks are of a very generalised nature. The leaflet continues:
      "You can email general questions to the pensions team".
      I have not done that yet, but I might give it a try. Here is the rub, however. The last sentence says:
      "They will not be able to respond individually".
      That is the issue. Our armed servicemen and women will not be able to look to their employer for individual advice.
      Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman has been uncharacteristically generous to the Government in not repeating the condemnation of the Select Committee, on which he and I served, regarding this whole process. The Committee made it clear that the consultation on the process was "uninformative" and that the MOD had failed to grasp the importance of the issue to the service personnel involved. That leaflet is still vague in the

      1521
      extreme, and it still does not properly open the door for those issues to be discussed fairly with the individuals concerned. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, once again, the Ministry of Defence has failed miserably to put its case properly to the people it serves?
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman and I both still serve on the Defence Committee, and we did indeed make those forceful criticisms. In fairness, however, this leaflet came out after the Committee's report was published.
      Mr. Caplin indicated dissent.
      Mr. HowarthThe Minister shakes his head, but I do not think that any of us knew that the leaflets were in circulation until we asked, in Committee, what advice was being given. At that point, the Minister stood up and told us that the Ministry had put out a little leaflet. The following day, he came armed with a supply of them so that we should know exactly what was being given to our servicemen and women to enable them to make up their minds. However, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) said. it is pretty generalised stuff, and I return to my point that the leaflet says that the pension team will not be able to respond individually.
      In Committee, the Minister said that
      "as part of our preparations for the transition, we are obviously considering how to provide and facilitate access to independent financial advice. That is the responsibility of a good employer, which is what the Ministry is."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 10 February 2004; c. 131.]
      We concur with that, but so far, I see no evidence that any details of those preparations have been vouchsafed to us. Certainly, I have been given no new information that extends beyond this little leaflet. It is incumbent on the Minister to tell the House how the preparations for the transition are going, and whether he has come to any conclusion on how to provide and facilitate access to independent financial advice. That is the issue, and we and those whom we represent need an answer. The Minister is driving this measure through—I shall be contrary here and say that he has both gripped it and rushed it through. but I am in opposition and I am entitled to say that—and he is pressing ahead with the April 2005 deadline. We need to know what detailed provision he has made to facilitate access to independent financial advice.
      The Minister also told us that plans were under way to provide comparative individual benefit statements to enable servicemen and women to make an informed decision. Fearful as we all are of the capacity of government to cope with any new IT system, he ought to tell us what progress has been made in establishing the system necessary for the provision of that information. He was very confident in Committee that this could be done, so we would like to know that the system will be up and running and that it will provide what is needed to supply the individual benefit statements.
      Subsection (6) refers to the mortality and longevity assumptions, which underpin much of the complex debate on the affordability of the pension scheme. On
      1522
      Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said:
      "During interminable debate on this issue, the Ministry of Defence has effectively moved the goalposts by changing the actuarial assumptions on which everything is based. As the Defence Committee reported, the expected cost of the existing scheme to the Ministry in 30 to 40 years' time has been recalculated from 22. per cent. to 24.5 per cent. of pensionable salary. The new scheme will reduce the estimated cost to 22 per cent. However, if the original actuarial assumptions were applied to the new scheme, it would cost 20.3 per cent. of pensionable salary, so the total value of the new scheme is 1.7 per cent. less than the value of the current scheme".
      As my hon. Friend went on to say, that
      "flatly contradicts the Government's claim that any savings in one area"
      would go to
      "enhance benefits elsewhere."—[Official Report, 22 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1500.]
      However, he might regard the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a benefit.
      Given the capacity of Government to manage—that is the word I use—the figures, it is essential that there is some independent scrutiny of how a scheme as important as this is arrived at. The mortality and longevity assumptions on which it is based should be in the Bill, hence proposed subsection (6).
      Subsection (7) would provide for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to keep under review the legacy issues, which are defined in subsection (12). The Minister and all of us are aware of the great concerns out there, particularly among those who retired some time ago or their widows, about the feeling that there are issues that have never been addressed, either by this Government or by previous Conservative Governments. Therefore, it would be helpful if we provided for the AFPRB to have a specific remit to keep those legacy issues under review.
      That would help us and the Minister. Indeed, it would help me when we swap places after the next election, as we would be able to have some independent assessment. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends say that the Minister will not be here then. Well, Brighton and Hove Albion are doing pretty badly at the moment, so he may follow suit. It would help Ministers of whatever description if some well-regarded, well-respected and professional organisation could have a look at issues that have been of concern to a number of our constituents over a great many years.
      Subsection (9) states:
      "The Review Body may make to the Secretary of State recommendations for variations in the Schemes."
      That would enable the AFPRB to keep the compensation scheme under review, as well as the pension scheme. It is important to recognise that we are dealing with two schemes—one relating to pensions, the other to compensation. Again, the proposal would assist the Minister, as the compensation scheme could be kept under review. I suspect that the way in which he proposes to change that scheme—I will come on to that when we discuss another new clause—is likely to cause problems for him and his successors. Therefore, giving the AFPRB a remit there would be valuable.

      1523
      I hope that I have made a compelling case as to why we should include provisions on the review body. I acknowledge that the Minister has listened to some of the arguments and moved a long way to meeting our concerns. I hope that he goes the extra mile, as that would please us all.
      2.15 pm
      Rachel Squire: I welcome the fact that the new clause has been tabled and I welcome its contents, which raise a number of issues. I also welcome last week's written statement by the Minister on the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which shows that he has indeed taken careful note of the concerns of the Select Committee, of which I am a member, and those expressed in Committee, as well as the views from a range of individuals and organisations. I am pleased that the AFPRB will now have a role in externally validating the provisions of the armed forces pension scheme.
      The review body will enable all views to be expressed on the issues that involve all ranks of the armed forces. While debating and consulting on the Bill, I and others have been concerned about how much voice—or rather, as it often seems, how little—has been given to all ranks of our armed forces, instead of focusing on officers having their say. The most junior ratings and privates get little opportunity either to be informed of the proposals or to respond to them.
      May I ask the Minister two questions about his response in last week's statement? First, I welcome the clarification he has given on the five-year proposal not constraining the AFPRB from considering recruitment, retention and pay more frequently. However, I still want to press him on whether he will consider the possibility of the AFPRB being able to consider matters related to the pension and compensation schemes more regularly than every five years. One of the interesting suggestions in the new clause is that a range of individuals serving in the armed forces and other organisations should be able to write to the AFPRB to express their views and concerns about the operation of the new scheme and how things are happening.
      Secondly, and linking up with the question I have just asked, the Minister said in his statement that
      "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."—[official Report, 30 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 65WS.]
      What does he mean by "more frequent examinations"? Could that mean every year? Will he give examples of the "wider developments" that would justify the AFPRB looking at things more regularly? The new clause suggests an annual review of the new scheme.
      I welcome the fact that the new clause also considers consultation, the impact that the new scheme may have on retention and recruitment, the transfer arrangements and the AFPRB making a critical examination of the longevity and cost-neutrality issues, which have been addressed previously.
      1524
      On consultation, I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Government have responded to some of the concerns that were raised about how little opportunity it seemed that Parliament would have to debate the detailed regulations, as they were introduced, to this enabling Bill. I welcome the assurance that statutory instruments will be available for discussion, and that the House will be able to give a negative response if it feels strongly about them. I am not content, however, with the way in which the consultation on the proposed new pensions and compensation scheme has been conducted over the past six or seven years by the Ministry of Defence. I always react strongly to the argument that says, "This is the way that things will be done, because that is the way that they have always been done", whatever the issue. Half of the population of this country—I and other women—would not have been allowed to vote or stand as Members of Parliament if that argument had been upheld and the established arrangement therefore maintained.
      As for other aspects of the new clause, subsection (6) raises the issue of mortality and longevity, which was certainly an issue for me and other members of the Select Committee. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body should have an opportunity to consider the straitjacket, as we see it, of cost neutrality. Many of us are still concerned that the new armed forces pension scheme is not based on what our armed forces deserve but on how much they get now. Improvements are being paid for by reductions in benefit to compensate for the fact that people are expected to live for longer. In its report, the Select Committee made the point that the Government's proposals do not deal with what we considered was the likelihood that due to the reduction in service personnel, the MOD's total bill would decrease over time in spite of the increased life expectancy of all pensioners. Will the Armed Forces Pension Review Body be able to consider the fact that personnel are being asked to bear some of the burden of increased cost, rather than the MOD? I will listen with great interest to the Minister's response to the issues that have been raised by new clause 2.
      Mr. Breed: I endorse all the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire).
      I welcome the Minister's announcement that the pay review body's remit will be wider than it has been hitherto. Many of us believe that it is a pity that that was not the case some time ago, as it would then have been able to comment on the very scheme that we are now discussing. If the MOD had allowed that improvement to the remit of that body, we would have had the benefit of its comments. Nevertheless, the improvement is welcome.
      On cost neutrality. I mentioned on Second Reading the fact that it was restricted to the pension scheme rather than applied to the whole remuneration budget. Now that the review body is considering remuneration, pay and pension, it is even more sensible to consider cost neutrality within the wider context of the total remuneration budget. At present the application of cost neutrality is so restricted that those strictures bear heavily on existing pensioners who will pay for some of the benefits of others.

      1525
      I also welcome the fact that the layout of subsections in new clause 2 indicates clearly what the remit of the review body would be. From what the Minister has said, however, it seems that the MOD will still decide what matters the pay review body will consider, how and when it will do so, and even whether it is allowed to do so. It therefore strikes me that it does not have much independence, and the MOD will still be very much in charge, which diminishes the role that the review body can play. For instance, if the Select Committee decides in a year or two to reconsider the matter, will that pay review body be able to give its views, or will the MOD say, "Sorry, you must wait five years to give an opinion". That seems to diminish the value of what the ministerial statement was encouraging us to think was happening last week. This opportunity to debate new clause 2 is therefore extremely valuable.
      The leaflet is helpful, although some might say that aspects of its wording are premature. It still gives no indication, however, as to where a serviceman might go to get independent financial advice. It may be that a serviceman will have an independent financial adviser. Where will an IFA get the right answers to his questions to enable him to give proper advice to his client? Such decisions may be very significant, and must be made well in advance of the implications taking effect. If they are unable in any way to gain the information necessary to make the correct decision, there is at least the opportunity of a further round of mis-selling. It will not be mis-selling in the sense that people are—deliberately or not—sold something that is not appropriate to them, but in the sense that the adviser had been unable to secure all the relevant information to ensure that the client got the right advice and was not in any way restricted or ill advised in terms of the decision to change to the new pension scheme. That is an important issue, and I welcome the leaflet, but I am not certain of the implications if somebody says, "That's fine, but I want precise information about my individual circumstances." Where will they go for that information, and how will that be addressed?
      Mr. Hancock: If the House agrees with the Defence Committee that the armed forces deserve a pension scheme that recognises the unique contribution that armed forces personnel make to the life of this country, it must also accept the advice that the Committee attempted to give to Ministers—that they would have to do more work on their proposals if best practice rather than cost neutrality was going to be the starting point for a review. Those words were spoken in the Defence Committee, by me and others, as far back as two years ago. Our report was published on 9 May 2002. It is a great disappointment to me that the Bill fails to grasp the point that we were making.
      2.30 pm
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on pursuing the issue in his new clause. I hope that—unless the Minister proves extraordinarily generous—he does not withdraw the motion, thus depriving us of an opportunity to divide the House. New clause 2 is fundamental to the fulfilment of the principles spoken of in the Defence Committee's comprehensive review of the armed forces pension scheme. In its present form, the Bill does not address those principles. The new
      1526
      clause would allow the review body to take account of changed circumstances and reflect what happens in the real world, rather than waiting for five years.
      The Minister said that the body reported to the Prime Minister, not the MOD. What goes to the Prime Minister, however, is not a public document. The Prime Minister can make a personal decision on whether to act on it. A report on something so fundamental should be presented to the House so that it can decide whether there should be structural changes in the way in which the armed forces are compensated for accidents, death or illness, or in their pension arrangements.
      New clause 2 would enable us to help armed forces widows—who spoke to the Minister and others yesterday about their problems, and their dissatisfaction with what has been done by successive Governments. The hon. Member for Aldershot was right to acknowledge that this is not just a one-Government failure, but a traditional failure of all Governments to recognise the difficult position in which many widows find themselves. Most Members of Parliament would agree that it is unacceptable, yet we choose to do nothing about it. The new clause would allow it to be examined and ruled on not by the Prime Minister but, properly, by the House.
      I was pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), who, as a member of the Defence Committee, listened to the evidence. It took a long time for the Committee to hear it all. We did not rush our review; the Committee is not renowned for its speed when it comes to matters as important as the pension and compensation rights of members of the armed forces. We heard a huge amount of evidence from all who could possibly be seen to have an interest. In her speech, the hon. Lady acknowledged that there were still improvements to be made. I sensed a more than willing acceptance that new clause 2 would help rather than hinder the Bill. I hope that the Minister will recognise that it is not a wrecking proposition, and is intended not to harm the Government's case but to cover matters that the Bill does not cover properly.
      Many of the problems of service personnel and their families will not go away, and we need a speedier vehicle to deal with them than we have at present. New clause 2 could provide it, and the Minister should welcome the new clause with enthusiasm. I hope that he takes a slightly more open view of it than he took, regrettably, of new clause 1, which he refused to consider. I also hope that the whole House will accept that if we are to live up to the expectation that we all claim to have that our servicemen and women should have proper pension and compensation schemes, it should not take five years to change aspects that are wrong.
      A flexible approach should be taken, and issues of cost neutrality should not be the driving force. The hon. Member for Aldershot explained very eloquently that there would be a reduction in the overall cost to the MOD. On what may have been the first occasion on which the Minister was allowed out of the MOD on his own, he addressed the Defence Committee on this issue. He dealt with a complex and difficult case remarkably well for someone who had been in his post for only a short time. He, I hope, recognises that all is not well in the armed forces, that we need to get it right, and that

      1527
      the Government's proposed scheme will give rise to widespread concern and dissatisfaction.
      The way in which we are informing service personnel about the proposals is not adequate. I do not think that the leaflet goes anywhere near appreciating the complexity of the issues, and the MOD does not even provide personnel in the scheme with a detailed analysis of how they would benefit if they changed their arrangements. Does the Minister dispute that? I should welcome an intervention from him explaining how people in that position can obtain definitive details of the benefits that they would lose and those that they would gain, but I do not believe that the MOD can provide such details.
      The Government's proposals lack clarity. New clause 2 gives us an opportunity to do things properly by allowing the House to examine recommendations submitted to it.
      Hugh Robertson: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
      I support the new clause, although I shall probably speak in its favour much less eloquently than the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire)—who, as usual, spoke extremely well—and the two Liberal Democrats.
      We should be in no doubt that one overriding factor ought to influence our deliberations. Our armed forces are wholly unlike any other part of society, for a simple reason: they are expected to fight and, occasionally and regrettably, to die for their country. It is perfectly reasonable for them, in return, to expect security in their retirement.
      Sadly, we live in an age in which members of the public distrust Government, and I am sorry to say that members of the armed forces distrust the MOD. I do not particularly like that, but it is a fact of life. That is why we need the form of independent governance offered by new clause 2. Although I welcome the Government's proposals, they do not go far enough. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the new clause.
      Mr. Caplin: I was going to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on his technological skill in being able to access a website. He can explain that to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) later. But then the hon. Gentleman made a rather poor joke about football, revealing his lack of understanding of the game. Because he is an Aldershot Town supporter, however, I will forgive him. I shall confine myself to congratulating his team on reaching the Nationwide Conference final play-off. My team is in the second division play-offs, which will take place in a couple of weeks. We greatly look forward to them. That was a digression, and may represent the only point of agreement in this exchange. We shall see.
      There are a number of issues with which I want to deal in this important debate. I welcomed the comments of the hon. Members for Aldershot, for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), who themselves
      1528
      welcomed the announcement that I made to the House last week. What I shall say now constitutes a response to the views of both the Select Committee and the Standing Committee considering the Bill. In the Standing Committee we discussed at length the whole issue of independence, and shared views on the various legal niceties in which we would have to become involved.
      I hope that the House will accept that, given that it is only seven days since I made the announcement, some details are still being worked out. My officials are in discussions with the chairman of the pay review body as we speak on the details of how we will conduct the reviews. I understand why the House is so interested in the discussions so, when they are complete, I undertake to make a further statement to the House in the usual way to keep Members advised of progress. I make that undertaking because we are talking about the new scheme and the first review might not take place until 2010, so that the scheme has time to settle down.
      The hon. Member for Aldershot and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West have asked why we chose the period of five years. A number of pension schemes choose a period of five years to look at the way in which things have changed, if at all, in that period. I was a trustee of a pension scheme before coming to the House and my experience is that there were sometimes very small changes over a long period in the nature of pensions in the wider economy. Considering the changes is one of the remits that the AFPRB will naturally have. Five years is about the right time. It will allow the scheme to come in and allow the body to take stock of it in order to prepare a report for 2010.
      Hugh Robertson: I take what the Minister says at face value. However, like him, I worked in the pensions industry for a while, albeit on the other side, before coming to Parliament. We were reviewed every three years, and almost every commercial firm is engaged in rolling three-year reviews. That is standard in the commercial world. The time period could be appreciably shorter than five years.
      Mr. Caplin: I accept that entirely. Triennial valuations are not uncommon in pension funds. However, in this case, we are not valuing a fund, and that might be the difference. We are asking the AFPRB to review the scheme as a whole and its conduct as the main armed forces pension scheme.
      I want to say a few words about the work of the Select Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West knows, I very much value the work that she and her Committee undertook on this issue. As Members will recall, we made sure that the response to the Select Committee was published in time for Second Reading. It was published in record time as opposed to the normal period of eight working weeks that we could have taken if we had wanted to. We did that because I believe that the Select Committee plays an important part in maintaining a watching brief on many of the issues relating to the armed forces. I hope that it will continue with its brief, and one or two interesting inquiries are under way at present. We all wish the Committee an interesting time whenever it gets to interview those people whom they invited last night to appear before it.

      1529
      I turn to the issue of choice. I have used the word "choice" constantly throughout our debates, because the armed forces will have a choice when we get to the period after 6 April 2005 provided, as the hon. Member for Aldershot reminded me, the Bill gets through both Houses. I should have added that proviso earlier.
      It might help Members if I remind the House of what I said at 4.45 pm in a sitting of the Standing Committee. I pointed out:
      "New clause 13"—
      which was tabled by the hon. Member for Aldershot and his colleagues—
      "would require the Ministry of Defence to provide each service person eligible to transfer with a comparative benefit statement. I have already indicated that we intend to do that, and I recognise the importance of ensuring that our current service personnel have the information they need to make an informed decision on which pension scheme will meet their personal needs."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 24 February 2004; c. 218.]
      The view that I expressed then has not changed at all, except that we are progressing our work on how that advice should be offered.
      2.45 pm
      We are in discussion with a consortium of independent financial advisers on the services that they might be able to provide and the terms under which the services might be provided. I make it clear from the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Government that the Ministry of Defence and the chain of command are not licensed to give such advice. Therefore, in the transfer period window—it will not be April 2005, but could be a period of more than two years—people will get an individual pension benefit statement and they will then choose whether they wish to move to the new scheme. They will have the opportunity to seek independent financial advice to help them to make their decision. That will help us to avoid the problems of pension misselling that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall reminded us about. That took place in the 1980s, and I know quite a lot about it.
      I fully expect the arrangements that I have described to be in place in good time to enable the transfer arrangements to take place. Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know that I am reluctant to suggest dates for the introduction of computer system technology, and they have accepted that it might be wise of me not to do so.
      I come now to the new clause. We have taken an important step forward in inviting the AFPRB to carry out work for us in a professional way and on a quinquennial basis. As I have said, if the body feels in any of its annual reviews that it wants to make recommendations about parts of the terms and conditions, it will be free to do so. However, completely separate from that—I emphasise that this is applicable only to the pension scheme—there will be a piece of work to deal with the pension scheme itself.
      The new clause seeks to establish a much wider role for the AFPRB. In my statement last week, I tried to set out the basis of the discussions and agreements that I have reached with the body and its chairman to bring about the change. The role that I have announced deals directly with the concerns that were expressed in
      1530
      Standing Committee and on many other occasions about the need for external and independent validation of the armed forces pension scheme.
      The AFPRB will compare pension scheme arrangements with practice elsewhere in the wider economy and consider the extent to which those arrangements meet the recruitment and retention needs of our armed forces. It will publish the observations in an annual report after the completion of the first five years of the scheme in 2010, and the Government are committed to responding publicly to that report.
      The work that I have asked the AFPRB to undertake is clearly focused on the armed forces pension scheme and the current pension arrangements that we are discussing in the context of recruitment and retention. It would not be appropriate for the body to consider as part of its remit any of the legacy issues that the hon. Member for Aldershot and others have raised.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Why not?
      Mr. Caplin: For the reasons that I have set out. The AFPRB is being asked to look at the new pension scheme and to report on that and its conduct in relation to a quinquennial review. It is not being asked to look back on the legacy issues that the hon. Gentleman has already accepted occurred primarily under the Conservative Government.
      Mr. Hancock: I am delighted that the Minister has given way—he is being extraordinarily generous. I understand his reply to a certain extent, but if the AFPRB is not the appropriate vehicle through which to decide legacy issues, who will decide on such issues? Who will take proper account of the plight of servicemen who have been denied pensions so far, or of those who have problems with their pensions? What about widows and other groups such as the Gurkhas?
      Mr. Caplin: The AFPRB is clearly not the right vehicle. Since I have been in this post, I have always been happy to debate issues such as reserves and cadets with Members, and if the hon. Gentleman wants to debate this issue further, he can do so. I do not believe that the AFPRB, which will deal with the recruitment and retention of our armed forces, is the right vehicle for examining the so-called legacy issues raised by the Forces Pension Society, among others.
      I cannot see why the AFPRB should get involved in the transfer arrangements for existing personnel; that would certainly be the wrong way to go. I have described the way in which we anticipate that the transfer procedure will be conducted. A pension statement will be provided, and it will be possible to seek independent financial advice. We certainly have not discussed the idea that the AFPRB should get involved in decisions on transfer arrangements.
      I cannot support new clause 2, and if it is pressed to a Division I shall urge my hon. Friends to resist it. My reasons for not supporting it are simple. We have made progress in the past three months in terms of external validation of the pension scheme. That is a big and important step for this House in the scrutiny of armed forces pensions, and it constitutes a new validation of the pension scheme itself. That is the right way to go

      1531
      about matters. The AFPRB has the right skills and ability for the task, and working on a quinquennial basis will benefit the new armed forces pension scheme in the long term. I shall therefore resist the new clause if it is pushed to a vote.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I want to start on two notes of agreement: the prospects for Brighton and Hove Albion, and for Aldershot's return, hopefully, to the Football League. I thank the Minister for his good wishes, and I convey my fraternal greetings to Brighton and Hove Albion. On a serious note, I welcome the Minister's recognition that an improvement could be made, and his having made it. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), and to the hon. Members for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), for their support for new clause 2.
      In his closing remarks on new clause 2, the Minister seemed to acknowledge its merits and to accede to the extension of the AFPRB's remit to one or two other areas that were not envisaged. He said that in his view, the AFPRB is exactly the right body to conduct the review of the pension arrangements. I of course agree, but it is also the ideal body to examine legacy issues and transitional arrangements.
      Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman is probably not surprised at my rising to reply. The term "pension arrangements"—if I did indeed use it—is one to which the industry is well accustomed. It uses that term to describe a new pension scheme, as many Members will testify. Which pension legacy issues does the hon. Gentleman think should be dealt with under the terms of new clause 2(12)?
      Mr. Howarth: In fairness, most of them. The Minister is as familiar as I am with the arguments concerning post-retirement widows. There is also the "trough" issue, which has exercised us all. These are difficult issues, and I am not suggesting that the Minister is uniquely to blame in this regard. I have tried to facilitate a sensible debate in this place, which is what the public want, rather than the trench warfare that we sometimes engage in. That said, they seem to like a bit of that as well, particularly on a Wednesday and in the light of the new leader of the Conservative party.
      We all have constituents who are very exercised about these issues, and who write to us about them. I genuinely felt that the new clause was a means by which I could offer not just the Minister but all of us a forum through which these issues could be resolved. Those who are concerned and feel hard done by would respect a decision taken by the AFPRB; however, I suspect that they are less respectful of the decisions of Ministers. The approach seemed a sensible one, and I would not want to put a limit on the legacy issues to which new clause 2(12) refers.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent raised the question of a three-year or a five-year review. Frankly, I am not fussed, so long as the AFPRB's remit enables it to address issues of concern as they arise. My hon. Friend made an extremely useful
      1532
      point by way of reference to the pensions industry, but as long as the AFPRB has the power to consider such issues at any time, my concerns will be met.
      The Minister mentioned individual benefit tables, which are extremely important to all our constituents and to those who serve in the armed forces. He said in Committee that he was working on a plan to ensure that they are provided, but it would help if he were kind enough to tell us how matters are progressing. Given that the 6 April 2005 deadline is approaching, the fact that the plan is not yet in place is a cause for concern. The Minister suggested that for those who continue to serve and who straddle the 6 April 2005 date, there will be a two-year window of opportunity for them to make up their minds. If he cannot provide individual benefit tables, will he undertake to ensure that the two-year period is a rolling window of opportunity? We do not want to discover that, 12 months after the date of introduction of the new scheme, people have only a year in which to make up their minds.
      Mr. Caplin: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and it is important that we get the pension benefit entitlement statements out to serving members of the armed forces. I assure him and the House that I shall make a careful review of the progress that we are making towards achieving that. We will try to ensure that we meet the timetable. We have followed the good example of a civil service scheme, which we briefly discussed in Committee. That scheme also used, I think, a two-year window. If that were to change, I would come back to the House to explain why.
      3 pm
      Mr. Howarth: That is excellent. What we all want to know is that the Minister will keep us informed of progress on a regular basis. The Minister also suggested that the transitional arrangements were not appropriate matters for the pay review body to consider. Again. I believe that they should be and that failure to include them is a lost opportunity.
      I do not, however, intend to press the new clause to the vote, notwithstanding the splendid support that I have received across the Chamber, for which I am extremely grateful. I have two reasons. First, the Minister has already acceded to some of our requests, so it would be churlish to kick him in the teeth and tell him to go away and do better. We would like him to do that, but, secondly, he has explained that he is still working on the details. In fairness, I am bound to give him the opportunity to conclude those details.
      Hawks in the other place will be watching our proceedings closely, among whose number are certain gentlemen of a greater rank than the Minister or myself, who stand by to protect the interests of those who were once under their command. The pressure will be on the Minister to work out the details in time for them to be considered in the other place. As I said, I shall not press new clause 2 to a Division, but I hope that it will have been noted in the other place that the remit of the pay review body could readily be extended to cover issues that are of concern to many people.

      1533
      For reasons that I have explained, I believe that it would be sensible to withdraw the new clause and I sense the feeling of the House that that is right. I would not stand in the way of any other hon. Member who wanted to press the new clause, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      BURDEN OF PROOF
      'The power of the Secretary of State to modify an Armed Forces Pension Scheme may not on any occasion be exercised in any manner which would or might alter the onus on any person of proof as provided for by Article 4(2) or the benefit of reasonable doubt as provided for by Article 5(4) of the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc.(Disablement and Death) Service Pension Order 1983.'.—[Mr. Gerald Howarth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 2 dealt with one of the key new issues in our proceedings and it was appropriate to debate it at some length. Other provisions were dealt with in Committee and the House should have an opportunity to debate them again, but I hope that we can make rather swifter progress than on new clause 2.
      New clause 3 provides for the existing burden of proof in compensation claims to be retained. The Government are seeking to change the existing rules concerning the onus and burden of proof. As matters have stood for the last 60 years, there is a compelling presumption in favour of a claimant whose appeal is brought within seven years of leaving the service. That is for a very good reason. The factors to which claimants are exposed in service life are in many ways different from those in civilian life. It is another example of many where it has been demonstrated that our armed services are different from the rest of society.
      We believe that it is wrong for the Government to say that the proposals use the modern "balance of probabilities" standard of proof. There is nothing modern about this. For 60 years, Parliament has recognised in respect of service personnel that it is appropriate to have different standards of proof, just as there is a difference between civil and criminal standards of proof. To suggest that it is not unfair discrimination against service personnel is mischievous. The truth is that, by changing the standard of proof, a valuable right that recognises the particular factors in service life is being withdrawn.
      The Royal British Legion, which represents 93 per cent. of all claimants, has analysed a representative sample of cases and demonstrated that, if the standard of proof were altered, 57 per cent. of all cases would not be eligible for a war pension and that a further 62 per cent. would fail on appeal. All the Minister would say in Committee was that he did not agree with the methodology of the Royal British Legion, but I remind him that that organisation, at the expense of voluntarily raised funds, represents people who are taking on their former employer to try to get a better deal for disabilities that they believe are attributable to their work in the service of the Crown.
      1534
      The Select Committee said:
      "Because of the special risks that Armed Forces personnel are required to run, and because they are likely to be involved in situations of great uncertainty, with uncertain effects on their health, we continue to believe that the onus should remain on the Government to prove that service was not responsible for causing or worsening a condition for which a compensation claim is made."
      The Select Committee even sought to help the Government by attempting to meet them halfway. It proposed a double test under which a claim would fail either if
      "the claimant is unable to prove on the balance of probabilities that a condition was due to service"
      or if
      "the MoD is able to prove on the same standard of proof that the condition is not due to service."
      Ministers did not even consider that. All the Minister did in Committee was to ask me whether I was backing the Royal British Legion or the Select Committee. I explained that we were backing the Royal British Legion's argument, but it was, of course, the same as the Select Committee's argument. As I said, the Minister failed to recognise that the Select Committee sought to meet him halfway by providing a compromise solution, and it was inconsiderately brushed aside.
      Is it the Government's intention to remove a standard of proof that has stood the test of time and recognises the special factors of service life in order to deprive such a large body of former service personnel an entitlement to a war pension? We do not believe that the proposed new tariff system is an acceptable substitute for the current arrangements and unless the Minister can respond more positively than he did in Committee, I am afraid that we shall have to press the new clause to the vote.
      Mr. Caplin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me and the House, as we have had only 24 hours to examine the new clauses. Does new clause 3 apply both to the pension scheme and the compensation scheme or only to the pension scheme? From reading it, I am not clear about that.
      Mr. Howarth: I suspect—I may need to take advice—that it deals principally with the burden of proof in compensation cases. Mutatis mutandis, as they say in Rome, what applies there might also apply to pensions. The Minister may wish to develop his point in his reply. I do not want to drag the debate out, as we had an extensive discussion in Committee. The issue was a matter of great concern to the Select Committee and it is a matter of concern to the Royal British Legion. There are wide-ranging concerns and the Government have not made a proper case for change. I take the view that, if it is unnecessary to change, it is necessary not to change.
      Rachel Squire: First, I declare an interest. I am the honorary vice-president of the Dunfermline branch of the Royal British Legion Scotland. My association with that organisation has clearly influenced my views, as have veterans throughout my life.
      I welcome the opportunity to raise the concerns of the Royal British Legion Scotland and the Royal British Legion in respect of the proposed new compensation

      1535
      scheme. As has been said on several occasions, under the present system a claimant will receive a war pension if the Ministry of Defence cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that an injury or illness was not caused by events occurring during that person's time in service. The proposals in the Bill will mean that service personnel will have to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, their injury resulted from their time in service.
      The Royal British Legion has told me that it believes that the proposals will mean that 60 per cent. of all new claims from ex-service personnel will fail. Another factor is the introduction of a time limit, which will mean that claims must be made within five years of an incident taking place.
      Angus Robertson: Does the hon. Lady agree with the Royal British Legion that claimants will be deterred from making claims if the onus of proving responsibility is placed on them? In other words, they will not make a claim in the first place.
      Rachel Squire: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In my constituency experience, I have found it difficult, in other circumstances, to persuade people to register claims when similar barriers and pressures are encountered.
      That leads me to my next point, which is that many people are unaware of time limits placed in respect of claims, for example under employment legislation. They are often unaware of what they are entitled to claim.
      I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take into consideration as well the fact that, when a claim must be made within a five-year period, the condition to which the claim could legitimately apply may not have made itself felt. In other words, a person may not know that he or she is suffering from an illness or injury, as a complaint may take many years to develop.
      Another problem arises in connection with handling claims when medical records are inadequate or incomplete. I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether he or his civil servants have consulted other Departments about the problems that can be encountered when a person tries to obtain medical records and other records from a long time ago. If there has not been wide consultation on that matter, I suggest that talks be held with ministerial and civil service colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. I have been involved with compensation claims lodged by miners and I know that some of the problems and delays arising out of those claims have been owing to the inadequacy or lack of medical records that go back several years.
      Although I accept that the present compensation scheme is an unusual benefit, I believe that our armed forces have deserved it in the past and that they will continue to deserve it. I agree with the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and my colleagues on the Select Committee: our service personnel run special risks and are involved in situations of great and constant uncertainty. The impact that that can have on their future health is beyond easy regulation or surveillance.
      I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider retaining the current burden of proof in the new compensation scheme. At the very least, I hope that he
      1536
      will say that consideration will be given to the double test proposed by the Select Committee, that he will take the new clause away for further examination and that the matter will be brought back to the House for further discussion.
      3.15 pm
      Mr. Breed: I agree entirely with the two previous speakers. I want to make two additional points.
      First, the Government claim that the new compensation scheme is in line with modern practice. although, as has been said, it is not particularly modern. However, the MOD appears to have been selective when it comes to the aspects of modern pension and compensation schemes that it wants to introduce. It seems to me that the selection has revolved around whether the Government can save money. I suspect that the motivation behind the proposal is not so much a desire to modernise the scheme as to make further cost savings. Everyone accepts that it will be much harder for complainants to succeed with the cases that they bring. That being so, fewer claims will be paid and money will be saved.
      Secondly, even the existing system is unfair. Claimants have to fight an unequal battle. The MOD has unlimited resources to fight a claim and can prevaricate for years. If even more inequality is to be introduced by changing the standard of the burden of proof, that would be grossly unfair to people who want to make a claim.
      The Royal British Legion does a magnificent job in supporting claimants, although at terrific cost, as no legal aid is available for compensation claims. The Select Committee deliberated for a long time on this matter and came up with a wholly reasonable solution. If that solution were implemented, some practical problems might arise and there could be great scope for prevarication, but the Select Committee at least attempted to resolve the matter and recognised the need for fairness. It behoves the Minister to say exactly why the MOD wants to change what is a fundamental aspect of compensation claims.
      The new scheme will shift the burden away from the MOD and on to claimants. It has been pointed out that that will make it harder for people to make claims. As a result, a significant number of people will be deterred from even beginning an attempt to take on the MOD.
      I am glad that it appears that the matter will be put to a vote. I and my colleagues will certainly support the new clause.
      Mr. Hancock: I am slightly more optimistic than my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed). I hope that the Minister will see that the Government are making a shabby and shameless proposal in respect of compensation claims and that he will therefore accept the new clause. Anything else would fly in the face of what the Minister said that the Bill attempts to do.
      People in our armed forces and their families must be treated fairly and equitably. That was the conclusion of the investigation by the Select Committee into the current legislation. In the much wider review that the Committee conducted in 2002, we looked specifically at the burden of proof. I defy any hon. Member to say that

      1537
      it is easy to get information about service personnel out of the MOD. Those seeking compensation find it extraordinarily difficult to obtain their medical records and a later amendment refers to that problem. The Defence Committee report also explains how difficult it is to obtain any proof from the Ministry of Defence. Some service personnel who have photographs and medals to prove their service in a certain location have been told that they were not in those places, because of the inaccuracy of the Ministry's records. How can the burden of proof be placed on those seeking compensation, not on the MOD? That is what happens under the current system, but the proposals in the Bill beggar any belief in fairness and justice. I thought that social justice and fairness under the law were high priorities for our party of government. It may aspire to provide those things to all citizens, but obviously not to members of the armed forces.
      The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) mentioned the coal industry. Together with my local newspaper in Portsmouth, I am pursuing, on a daily basis, claims on behalf of service personnel, ranging from admirals to able seamen, who have been affected by asbestos-related illnesses, many of which do not materialise for 20 or 30 years. Trying to satisfy the standard of proof for such claims is all but impossible.
      The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said that in Committee the Minister asked him whether he supported the position of the Royal British Legion or the Defence Committee. That question is beyond belief, because they were saying the same thing. Every day, the Royal British Legion picks up the pieces of shattered and broken lives and fights to get people the compensation that they have been denied. Hon. Members are right to say that the Bill will mean that fewer people will make claims. We may say, cynically, that the MOD wants to make it so difficult that people will not make claims. It is already difficult to obtain the evidence needed to make a successful claim and the Minister failed to recognise that the Royal British Legion made that exact point and so did the Defence Committee.
      The Defence Committee offered an olive branch in the form of a solution that would enable the MOD to meet just over 50 per cent. of the ambitions of the Royal British Legion. The MOD refused. It would not even agree to retain the status quo, because it wants to screw down on those making a claim. Claimants will have to meet a standard of proof that goes beyond what most of us would consider reasonable. Some of those hon. Members who will he persuaded to vote with the Government today may, in a year or two, contemplate fighting a constituent's case for compensation. With the proposed standard of proof, they will find it very difficult to obtain the compensation that their constituent deserves.
      I ask hon. Members not to shame this nation by voting against new clause 3. That is what most reasonable people would expect—[Interruption.] The Minister may be cynical enough to believe that this is a laughing matter, but those of us who deal with such claims regularly will know that my comments are heartfelt. I often meet claimants who cannot satisfy the standard of proof required. The MOD frequently asks for more evidence before agreeing to consider a case when it knows very well that the information needed has
      1538
      been in its possession and has either been lost or shredded. That is not good enough. The new clause offers a little hope for people who should get much more support. The Government should be ashamed of their proposals.
      Mr. Caplin: For the record, I was not laughing and I take this matter very seriously. I draw the House's attention to the Government's response to the Defence Committee. It might be helpful if some hon. Members who have contributed to the debate were to refer to the report of the Committee that we have been considering, which is the one that was published in December, and our response, which was published in January. Paragraphs 69 and 70 of that report deal with the compensation proposals and detail why the Government have put them forward.
      We have a technical problem with the new clause. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) graciously confirmed that he intended it to affect the compensation scheme, but I am advised that as drafted it would affect the pension scheme. In saying that, I am trying to be helpful and I recognise that he has raised an issue for debate in connection with the compensation scheme.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: We are always delighted when the Minister seeks to be helpful and we appreciate it. The technical issue may need to be addressed, but the Minister is a most capable man and it is not beyond his wit to provide the changes necessary to give expression to the will of the House.
      Mr. Caplin: I do not know about that, but I shall do my best.
      I recognise the role that the British Legion plays in many cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) is the president of the Dunfermline branch—
      Rachel Squire: Vice-president.
      Mr. Caplin: I suppose that we all know someone else who could be the president of the Dunfermline branch of the Royal British Legion. I met the British Legion this morning, together with the parliamentary Gulf veterans group. We had an interesting 45 minutes of discussion and I certainly value the work that the organisation does. We are in further discussions.
      In Committee, I said that we doubted the validity of the issue that the British Legion had raised about 60 per cent. of cases. We have now joined with the British Legion to consider the methodology that it used and we suspect that it will come to accept that its conclusions were not quite accurate. We shall also discuss the compensation scheme.
      The balance of probabilities is the key and we consider it right to adopt that standard of proof, as outlined in the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made that clear on Second Reading, in answer to an intervention by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson). When we decided to adopt that standard of proof, we asked an independent firm of consultants to consider that aspect of the compensation scheme. The consultants confirmed that
      "the proposed standard of proof is reasonable."

      1539
      I accept that the onus has moved from the MOD to the individual, and I shall outline my reasons for believing that to be a reasonable change.
      The Department has clear responsibilities. I understand and accept that. We have to ensure that service records and medical records are up to date. I do not know how many more times I can say this, but I have made it clear— starting at the Select Committee on 5 November—that if there is a failure, especially in medical record keeping, in relation to compensation cases, the Department will accept responsibility. I said that in the Standing Committee, I said it in the Select Committee and I have just said it again on the Floor of the House. The point is also reflected in our response to the Select Committee.
      At the Ministry of Defence, we understand, I hope, our responsibility for record keeping. If there is a failure, especially in medical record keeping, we shall accept responsibility. We are not trying to get out of paying compensation; far from it. We want to ensure that we pay compensation to the right people at the right time.
      One of the things that the new scheme will allow us to do, which we are not allowed to do under the current one, is to pay compensation to those who are still employed in our armed forces. The existing scheme requires people to leave the armed forces.
      I believe that the "balance of probabilities" standard of proof that we have adopted for the compensation scheme is in line with practice in most occupational pension schemes and in the civil courts. The "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof is not appropriate to a no-fault occupational scheme and would be out of line with current good practice, where evidence-based decisions are the norm, taking account of modern medical understanding and record keeping. As I said, we are clear about the responsibilities for record keeping that lie with the Ministry.
      3.30 pm
      Sir Robert Smith: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Caplin: I was just about to end my remarks, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate.
      Sir Robert Smith: Can the Minister clarify how wide-ranging his commitment is? Would the assumption that the claim was valid apply in all cases where records were missing, especially those of Gulf war veterans?
      Mr. Caplin: No, that is not what I said. I said there would still be a need to lodge a proper compensation claim, but that there are clearly responsibilities on the Ministry of Defence to ensure that proper records apply. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, we are discussing a new compensation scheme, which will be effective from 6 April 2005 and will apply to all members of the armed forces. Obviously, any events that occur up to 6 April 2005 will come under the current compensation arrangements; we are discussing only the new compensation arrangements this afternoon.
      1540
      In the light of my comments, I hope that the hon. Member for Aldershot will understand why I have to resist the new clause.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Once again, I extend my gratitude to the hon. Members for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) for their support for the new clause. I know that, like us, the Minister regards the issue as important and does not take it lightly.
      I welcome some of the undertakings that the Minister has given, especially on medical records. All Members know that that issue has been very badly handled by the Ministry of Defence for a long time and that, from time to time, our constituents suffer accordingly. I am also pleased that the Minister is making up to the Royal British Legion and talking about methodology. That is welcome.
      I hear what the Minister says about modern medical understanding, which is to be applied to the claims under consideration, although I have to say that there is no reason that modern medical understanding should not be applied to the existing standard of proof. There is no reason why it would not be equally helpful to the MOD in resisting a claim from someone "modern medical understanding" felt was not injured as a result of service to the Crown.
      The argument has been well rehearsed and the issue is clear. The question is simple: are we to give the balance of advantage to those of our fellow citizens who put their lives on the line? This is not just another occupational pension scheme and nor is it just another occupational compensation scheme; it is a scheme for some very special people in our land—Her Majesty's armed forces. The Opposition and other Members feel that we owe it to our armed forces to give them the benefit of the doubt, and that means the Ministry of Defence having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that their injuries were not sustained by service to the Crown. Given the Minister's statement, I intend to press the new clause to a Division.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided:

      Division No.161]

      [3.34 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Burns, Simon

      Amess, David

      Burstow, Paul

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cameron, David

      Bacon, Richard

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Baldry, Tony

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Barker Gregory

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Chope, Christopher

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clappison, James

      Bercow, John

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Blunt, Crispin

      Conway, Derek

      Boswell, Tim

      Cotter, Brian

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Curry, rh David

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Brazier, Julian

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Breed, Colin

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      1541

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Paice, James

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Doughty, Sue

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Evans, Nigel

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Robathan, Andrew

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Flight, Howard

      Forth, rh Eric

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Francois, Mark

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Gamier, Edward

      Ruffley, David

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Selous, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Greenway, John

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Grieve, Dominic

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

      Gummer, rh John

      Hancock, Mike

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Heald, Oliver

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Hendry, Charles

      Spring, Richard

      Hermon, Lady

      Squire, Rachel

      Holmes, Paul

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Streeter, Gary

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Syms, Robert

      Jack, rh Michael

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Thurso, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tredinnick, David

      Lamb, Norman

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Lansley, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Walter, Robert

      Leigh, Edward

      Waterson, Nigel

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Whittingdale, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Wiggin, Bill

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Wilkinson, John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Willis, Phil

      Malins, Humfrey

      Wilshire, David

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Mercer, Patrick

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      (Macclesfield)

      Norman, Archie

      Younger. Ross, Richard

      Öpik, Lembit

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ottaway, Richard

      Mr. Hugo Swire and

      Page, Richard

      Mr. John Randall

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Beard, Nigel

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Ainger, Nick

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Berry, Roger

      Allen, Graham

      Best, Harold

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Betts, Clive

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Blackman, Liz

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Austin, John

      Borrow, David

      Bailey, Adrian

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Banks, Tony

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Barnes, Harry

      Brennan, Kevin

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Battle, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      1542

      Bryant, Chris

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Burden, Richard

      Burgon, Colin

      Healey, John

      Burnham, Andy

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Cairns, David

      Heppell, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Caplin, Ivor

      Heyes, David

      Casale, Roger

      Hinchliffe, David

      Caton, Martin

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Challen, Colin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Chaytor, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hutton, rh John

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Coaker, Vernon

      Illsley, Eric

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cohen, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      Jamieson, David

      Colman, Tony

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Cranston, Ross

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Crausby, David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      David, Wayne

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Denham, rh John

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kidney, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dobson, rh Frank

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lammy, David

      Edwards, Huw

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Efford, Clive

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lepper, David

      Farrelly, Paul

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fisher, Mark

      Linton, Martin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Love, Andrew

      Flint, Caroline

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      McCabe, Stephen

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foulkes, rh George

      MacDonald, Calum

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      MacDougall, John

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Gerrard, Neil

      McKechin, Ann

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Gilroy, Linda

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McNulty, Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Grogan, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hain, rh Peter

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mendelson, rh Peter

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hanson, David

      1543

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Short, rh Clare

      Martlew, Eric

      Simon, SiÔn (B'ham Erdington)

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Merron, Gillian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)i

      Moran, Margaret

      Morgan, Julie

      Soley, Clive

      Morley, Elliot

      Spellar, rh John

      Mountford, Kali

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Olner, Bill

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Organ, Diana

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Perham, Linda

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Picking, Anne

      Trickett, Jon

      Pickthall, Colin

      Truswell, Paul

      Pike Peter (Burnley)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard Kerry

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ward, Claire

      Purnell James

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Quin rh Joyce

      Watts, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      White, Brian

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Wicks, Malcolm

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

      Wills, Michael

      Wilson, Brian

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Winnick, David

      Woolas, Phil

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Worthington, Tony

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Salter, Martin

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Ms Bridget Prentice

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 4

      FULL CAREER PENSIONS
      'The Secretary of State shall provide mechanisms to ensure that all personnel in this scheme who have completed 35 years service, but are not retained in service after their 55th birthday. receive pension benefits which are based on 66.67 per cent.of their final salary.'.—[Mr. Gerald Howarth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord)With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Early departure—

      '(1)Those serving 18 years and having reached age 40 (whichever is later) shall be entitled to a system of Early Departure Payments.

      (2)Individuals meeting the requirements of subsection (1) shall receive payments until the preserved pension comes into payment at age 65.

      (3)The Secretary of State shall by order set out details of these payments.

      1544

      (4)The payments will be monitored by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body which will submit to Parliament a report on any changes.'.

      Mr. Howarth: The last vote was close, and I am sure that the Minister will take the message back to his Department.
      The objective of new clause 4 is to allow people to earn a full career pension in the armed forces. Under both the current arrangements and the new arrangements, the armed forces pension scheme is the only scheme in the public sector that does not offer genuine full career benefits up to the public sector benchmark or the limits allowed by the law, even for those who serve a full career. Only a very few—those who join when they are very young or those who reach a senior rank and are therefore allowed to serve beyond the age of 55—can accrue maximum benefits.
      It has been calculated that it is virtually impossible to earn more than 62.5 per cent. of one's final salary unless one joins extremely early or one is promoted to a high rank and invited to stay on. It is perhaps a paradox that the Labour Government—should I call them the new Labour Government or the tarnished Labour Government?—are proposing a scheme in which those on the highest salaries command the best final salary pension arrangements, and I am sure that others have also noticed that.
      The unusually low normal retirement age of 55 is required not by the armed forces but by the employer for reasons, many of which are entirely legitimate, relating to the age profile of personnel. It is physically demanding and arduous to be a member of the armed forces, and it is therefore right and proper that those services predominantly employ the young and fit, so the unusually low retirement age of 55 is legitimate. The low retirement age is not a perk of the job, and it is not a dispensation to soldiers, sailors and airman to retire at 55 because they have done such a good job. It principally benefits the employer, the Ministry of Defence.
      The new arrangements will seriously inhibit the opportunity to earn a full career pension through service. Few servicemen and women join young enough or serve long enough to earn full career benefits, and extending service length while the retirement age is low will exacerbate the problem. It is disingenuous at best to structure a scheme in which more than 90 per cent. of its members are debarred from earning a full career pension without buying additional voluntary contributions. The normal retirement age is a misnomer; it is actually the age at which the full career pension is payable. Allowing personnel to remain in service for 37.5 years would allow them to earn a full career pension at the public sector benchmark and the current limit of the law, but the majority, who are constrained by the normal retirement age of 55, cannot obtain a full career pension.
      We believe that the scheme should be altered to allow those who serve a full career to earn full benefits of 66.67 per cent. Options to achieve that include increasing the normal retirement age, increasing the terminal grant, improving the accrual rate—as Members of Parliament have in order to assist ourselves, the fact of which has not been lost on the services—or introducing shared-cost additional voluntary contributions. Such measures

      1545
      are widely available in other schemes for occupations where short careers are common—not only Members of Parliament, but, for example, the police. It really is an issue out there that we have changed our scheme to suit the particular requirements of service to this House. I personally think that those changes are entirely reasonable and appropriate and reflect the fact that most of us provide a service to the House of Commons, but what is good enough for us we should regard as good enough for our armed forces.
      The fact is that at 55 the armed forces employee has very limited prospects of earning a second career pension of any comparable value and is therefore uniquely disadvantaged among those employed in the public sector. That experience is shared in this House. Members who leave, voluntarily or involuntarily, at the age of 55 and having served in particularly important Departments such as the Ministry of Defence might well find themselves with handsomely rewarded consultancies or directorships; but for every one of those, I venture to suggest that many others will have been in the foot soldier category and not find such lucrative employment possible. A reflection of that fact of life informs the current scheme and should inform the new scheme.
      The new clause would place on the Secretary of State a requirement to provide a mechanism to deal with that. We did not spell out what that mechanism should be, but left Ministers with the flexibility to devise a scheme that uses some of my suggestions to enable the intent of the new clause to be met.
      I mentioned the parliamentary scheme, but let me for the record remind the House that the police service scheme's accelerated accrual rate in the last 10 years of service could be replicated for the armed forces. The Government are fond of saying that considering comparable public sector schemes is part of their benchmarking exercise in trying to come up with the right solutions for the armed forces pension scheme. The police are an example of a public service that is similar to the armed forces, as police officers also—all too often, sadly—put their lives on the line for the security of our nation. The police service's scheme recognises the particular difficulties that its employees face. That gives the Minister something to go on, and I hope that he will accept the new clause.
      New clause 5 would add to the Bill the provisions of the early departure scheme, details of which were given to Members only during our considerations in Standing Committee—they were not available on Second Reading. The new clause sets down the bare bones to give the scheme specific parliamentary protection and to leave it less vulnerable to ministerial manipulation— although, in fairness, the Defence Committee thought that the scheme had enough flexibility to enable Ministers to manage the business of manning control in the armed forces.
      The immediate pension scheme is a not inexpensive benefit that accounts for about a third of the pensions budget. That substantial amount of expenditure has meant that benefits for full career servers and their dependants were depressed well below the benchmark and modern good practice.
      1546
      The Ministry of Defence proposes to change from the immediate pension scheme to the early departure scheme for three principal reasons. First, it will improve the benefits for full career servers and their dependants in the overall cost-neutral constraint that applies to the Bill. Secondly, it will comply with Green Paper proposals on the wider subject of pensions, which will make it illegal to pay a pension to someone who has not reached the age of 55. Thirdly, it will remove the inequities between officers and other ranks that are inherent in the immediate pension scheme and are caused by different accrual rates for qualifying periods.
      Both the immediate pension and the early departure schemes were and are designed as manpower control tools to improve retention. That is a matter for principal personnel officers and is not pensions business, but the efficacy of the proposed early departure scheme as a manpower control tool is speculative. We simply cannot judge its effectiveness today. We know the current effect of the immediate pension scheme on retention and, to a lesser extent, recruitment. However, the proposal contains an element of leaping in the dark. The early departure scheme will be used for manning control and we shall not know for probably 20 years whether it will prove efficacious in Ministry terms in retaining the skills that we need to keep.
      4 pm
      Angus Robertson: The Government are not taking a leap in the dark when we consider the examples that the Ministry of Defence has worked through to compare the early departure scheme payments with the immediate pension scheme payments. Under the new scheme, the amounts are halved per annum. That is the effective difference for all ranks. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that will make the new scheme more attractive to those who are currently serving? Will they wish to change to a scheme that will mean the effective halving of their annual income?
      Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He is right that the new scheme puts especially those who leave early at a disadvantage. As the Under-Secretary said earlier, those who are currently serving and remain in service on 6 April next year will have to decide for which scheme to opt. They must determine whether to choose the new scheme and substantially reduced benefits. They will have to trade that against, for example, the welcome salary multiplied by four for death in service under the new scheme. Again, that is equivalent only to the provision that the House makes for its Members and therefore, although it is welcome, it is not exceptional.
      As I said in Committee, I envisage some difficult conversations in military households throughout the land, especially when Her Majesty's armed forces are called on to undertake war-fighting operations or dangerous peacekeeping operations. There will be pressure on soldiers from wives who say, "If you are killed and you stay in this scheme, I get one and a half times your salary, but if you opt for the new scheme and you are killed, at least the children and I will get four times your salary." Against the current background, that will be a compelling argument because it is relevant today, but not perhaps in 15 years, when the person becomes entitled to an early departure scheme payment.

      1547
      The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) is right. A staff sergeant who leaves the service at the age of 40 on a pensionable salary of —30,820 will get a lump sum of nearly —30,000 under either scheme, but his annual pension will effectively be halved. His early departure payment at the age of 55, uprated for inflation, would be about a quarter or a third less than he would receive under the immediate pension arrangements. The overall saving to the Government that has been calculated in that case would be about —57,000. Equally, it has to be said that if that same staff sergeant retired at the age of 54—which is much less likely, as they tend not to stay on that long—there would be a cost to the Government of —56,000. Given the present profile of service, however, it is much more likely that the Government will save money.
      I do not wish to labour these issues, because they were extensively debated in Committee, but concerns have been raised in the Defence Committee about the early departure scheme. We can see the purpose of it. It is true that it will deliver —100 million a year in savings to the Ministry of Defence, which could be redeployed elsewhere, but it will disadvantage some of those who are currently serving and will be serving. The issue will cause considerable grief in households up and down the land, and the least that the Minister can do is to ensure that the scheme is put in the Bill. I look forward to hearing his comments when he winds up this debate.
      Rachel Squire: I welcome the details that the Government have provided on the early departure scheme since the Select Committee produced its report and since our Second Reading debate. I was not on the Standing Committee, so I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister a couple of brief questions. First, given that the early departure scheme will not attract index linking to inflation, how does the Ministry plan to deal with the fact that the real value of the scheme will apparently decrease over time? Secondly, what consideration has been given to the possibility of payments to personnel differing substantially over time in the early departure scheme, possibly leading to grievances and disputes between personnel who find themselves receiving very different payments?
      Mr. Breed: I should like to make a couple of points in support of the two previous speakers. I just do not believe that it is beyond the wit of the MOD to address the full career pension issue. The current concerns seem totally disproportionate to the likely cost involved. If the Government could address some of the issues that are engendering criticism and objections without it costing them a significant amount within their total budgetary constraints, I hope that even at this late stage they will consider doing so, and give us an indication accordingly. The percentage difference is relatively small, and the measures seem likely to apply to so few people that the issue ought not to be such a running sore for some.
      Secondly, in relation to the early departure scheme, I want to mention the issue of erosion over a period of time. Thankfully, we live in low-inflationary times. I pay tribute to the Government for that—it is very welcome
      1548
      indeed, notwithstanding the slight interest rate rise earlier today—but many of us are beginning to grow used to it. However, we are discussing schemes that will have effect long into the future—who knows what will happen then?
      We do not want to make the mistake, which was made in the past, of producing a so-called pension trough. It appears to me that we held back during a period of high inflation and wage restraint, so we have had the trough going forward. That subject has been debated. Without any index linking and without a clear indication of how the Government would address that particular potential problem, the early departure scheme runs the risk of experiencing exactly the same difficulty in a few years. If we are to learn from the past. perhaps we should envisage that the pension trough issue will arise again if we go into a period of high inflation, and undergo some pay policy restraint. We must face up to the issue, even if it is not totally apparent in today's inflationary climate.
      Angus Robertson: I want to make a brief contribution on a subject that I raised in an intervention, which involves the early departure scheme and, in particular, how it might impact on communities that are perhaps viewed as more peripheral and which have a low-wage economy. Some of those communities also have a significant military footprint, which is certainly the case in my constituency, where a third of all service personnel north of the border are stationed.
      The early departure scheme is not an academic exercise. It is a real, important issue affecting the income of many people, particularly in lower ranks, when they make decisions on their future and where they see themselves and their families living. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is right that many people will have to make a difficult decision on whether to remain in the current scheme or to transfer to the new one.
      Politicians are often accused of not having a particularly long-term view. I want to try to break that mould in a small way in addressing this scheme and how it may impact in 10, 20 or even 30 years' time. That is what we must do in considering the issue. I want to paint a theoretical picture, although I would be grateful if the Minister confounded me and reassured me that my fears are misplaced.
      According to some trade union estimates, the area that I represent—Moray—has the lowest average wages in Scotland, although central Scotland has areas of significant poverty and low wages. It is also a fact that many hundreds, if not thousands, of service personnel take early retirement at an age when they can still enjoy a second career. They do so with great happiness. Moray is a tremendously beautiful part of the country with a high quality of life and there are job opportunities, but, because of the nature of the market, those jobs are not particularly well paid.
      One reason for many of those service personnel being able to remain in the community to which, often, they have moved from elsewhere in Scotland or down south is that they have a cushion that is provided through the immediate pension scheme. I am concerned that, if those who enter the service or choose to go into the early departure scheme see that annual payment effectively halved, a significant number might choose not to remain.

      1549
      The House should remember that I am painting a picture of what things may be like in 10, 20 or 30 years' time. The population projection for my constituency is a decline of up to 38 per cent. by 2018, so the potential double-whammy of significant population decline and economic disincentive caused by the new scheme will not help the area.
      I have raised the issue with the Minister, and he has signalled an interest in and understanding of the question. I am keen for him to signal that he understands that there may be a significant impact on communities in Scotland, and I imagine that that is the case not only in Moray but in Fife and around the Clyde. Is he confident that the new early departure scheme arrangements will not have a negative impact on the number of retiring personnel who wish to stay on and contribute in an important way to local economies, such as those in Moray, Fife, the Clyde or elsewhere in the UK?
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Mark Francois: I want to make two brief points in this debate. I should declare an interest, as I am the president of the Rayleigh branch of the Royal British Legion—and proud to be so—and I am in the process of applying to become an associate member of the Rayleigh branch of the Royal Naval Association, which is based in part on the fact that my father, Reginald Francois, served in the Royal Navy in the second world war.
      I wish to address my remarks mainly to new clause 4. First, I want to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) about the comparison with the pension scheme that Members of the House enjoy. I am pleased that the Ministry of Defence has decided to match the four times death-in-service benefit, which I am sure will be popular among service personnel and their families, and it is appropriate that there is now equanimity between the benefit that we enjoy and the benefit that those who are prepared to fight on behalf of our country will enjoy.
      It is important to remember that, relative to the MOD's scheme, our pension scheme is contributory, which is not always brought out when it is reported in the press. Members who chose the option of fortieths will now be paying 9 per cent. of their gross salary, so it is a fair comment that we are chipping in from our salaries under our scheme. I entirely understand why those in the services, who are very sensitive to changes in their pension arrangements, for reasons to which I will refer in a moment, would look with understandable scrutiny at our scheme, and perhaps would not be slow in making comparisons with any changes that relate to them. If I were a serviceman. I would be doing exactly the same, and it is right that we in the House should acknowledge that understandable desire to match in some respects what we have.
      That leads on to my second point, which I have raised previously in the House in other contexts: the importance of retention in the armed forces. Arguably, people in this day and age are much more sensitive to pensions and changes in pensions than perhaps they were 10 or 20 years ago. The pensions market and the structure of pensions have changed a great deal in that time. There has been the business of Equitable Life and
      1550
      other problems in the pensions industry, which I will not rehearse again this afternoon. Suffice it to say that, because of a number of those changes and events, people now pay much closer scrutiny to their future pension than they might have done two decades ago, and that affects their career planning. In the context of this debate, that also firmly affects the decisions that they and their families make about whether, as they approach middle age, they retain their post in the armed forces or move on to seek an alternative career. Ministers must therefore be careful before they change any of the arrangements, as they may start to see a knock-on effect on retention if they get some of the issues wrong.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot dealt very well with the technicality of that, and the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) made a thoughtful contribution about how such things play out over the long term. I remind the Minister that although recruitment figures for the armed forces remain healthy, almost as many people are leaving at the moment as are joining. The key is the net figure and the overall ability to retain skilled and experienced personnel. That is even more important, because no matter how enthusiastic the recruits, they cannot, at least in the first few years, make up for the experience that the armed forces lose when an experienced non-commissioned officer, such as a colour sergeant in the infantry or a staff sergeant, decides to leave the Army. We face the danger of a gradual hollowing out of our armed forces as more and more experienced personnel leave and are replaced by recruits without experience. That is a worrying trend over the long term, and Ministers must deal with it if they are to be consistent. As I have said, I have raised the point before.
      The future pensions of servicemen and women are becoming increasingly important to their calculations and their decisions on whether to stay or go. I issue a plea to the Minister, as others have done: the Government must think very carefully before making any long-term changes. They must be very mindful of the likely effect of such changes on the retention of experienced key personnel. After all, it takes a great deal of time and money to train them. The Government must be extremely careful in everything they do that affects service pensions, because it will begin a knock-on process that may prove very difficult to reverse if Ministers get it wrong.
      Mr. Caplin: I welcomed the speeches of the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). Perhaps the hon. Member for Moray and I could discuss his points in more detail outside the Chamber. I found them especially pertinent, given my ministerial responsibility for veterans. As for the hon. Member for Rayleigh, I was particularly interested in what he said about recruitment and retention. As he and his hon. Friends know, I pay close attention to those issues. The 20,000 people who leave each year become veterans, and it is important for us to look after their interests as well.
      Angus Robertson: I appreciate the Minister's invitation to discuss with him the issues that I raised. May I now ask him to put something on record? Does he believe that the new early departure scheme will not

      1551
      have a negative impact on the number of retiring personnel who wish to stay on and contribute, in an important way, to low-wage economies, often in peripheral areas?
      Mr. Caplin: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making—we have touched on it briefly before—but I have done no detailed work on it. That is why I suggested that we discuss it at some point in the future.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) mentioned index-linking. We have adopted the same approach to the early departure plan as we currently apply to the immediate pension. It is not index-linked. but it will be once a person reaches the age of 55, which seems to us appropriate. My hon. Friend will recall that at one stage there was a slight error on the MOD website; we corrected it in response to the Select Committee's report.
      As for my hon. Friend's second point, I do not expect any major changes in early departure plans. As currently happens with the immediate pension, people will sign on for the terms offered to them at the time. I do not envisage any small changes in those terms.
      The 66.67 per cent. of final salary mentioned in new clause 4 will obviously have a cost implication, of which I am sure the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is aware. Under the Bill, personnel who serve until the normal retirement age of 55 and have served for 35 years under the new pension scheme will receive pension benefits comparable with those available under the current scheme, which will be paid much earlier than those in most other schemes. As the hon. Member for Rayleigh pointed out, dependants' benefits will be significantly improved. Personnel who wish to improve their pension benefits further will have the opportunity, as they do now, to purchase additional voluntary contributions. The extended accrual period of 40 years will provide sufficient headroom for them to receive benefits up to the current Inland Revenue limits should they wish to do so.
      The new scheme has been designed to be equitable, treating officers and other ranks in the same way with a common, even accrual rate. The Select Committee's report applauded us for that. The new clause would benefit only a limited number of personnel who serve a full career, as the majority will have left before the new early departure point—18 years' service, at a minimum age of 40. I feel that it is therefore counter to equality of treatment.
      I shall also deal briefly with new clause 5, and I do not think that the hon. Member for Aldershot will be at all surprised by my response. I do not know how many times he has heard this argument, but I do not propose to accept the new clause for the reasons that I outlined on Second Reading and in Standing Committee. Such details should not, in my and the Government's view, be included in primary legislation.
      As the hon. Gentleman rightly acknowledged, I gave the Standing Committee two detailed notes on the early departure plan and put copies in the Library. He was kind enough to say in Committee that they were "clearly written" and "relatively easy to understand". I take that
      1552
      as a compliment for a Ministry of Defence document of that type. The documents will form the basis of the separate statutory instrument setting out the scheme rules. However, it is important that I point out that the early departure plan is not part of the new pension scheme, as the benefits paid under it are not pension benefits.
      I have no particular difficulty with some of the separate points made in new clause 5. Indeed, the first three subsections simply repeat details that were set out in the notes that I published previously. The only new point is in subsection 4, which seeks to embrace the early departure plan within the scope of the independent, external validation review of the new pension scheme that we debated earlier.
      As I have just said, EDP benefits are not pension benefits, and that is a large part of their attraction to our armed forces. They have allowed us to develop more flexible arrangements that, I hope, will better meet the needs of our service personnel while providing the savings to fund significant improvements to widows' benefits and to help offset the rising cost of longevity. However, I want to make it clear that we plan for the AFPRB to look at the level and broad design of the EDP within its quinquennial review and as part of its broad remit with respect to remuneration.
      I do not intend to accept the new clauses, but I hope that what I have said reassures the House. Perhaps we can move on.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to hear that the Minister has found another purpose for the AFPRB, which serves further to undermine his earlier argument against my proposals. I certainly welcome the fact that he has suggested that the early departure payments scheme should be extended to the AFPRB for its consideration. I am sure that the House will welcome that.
      I appreciate the support of all the Members who have said kind words about the new clauses. In particular, I recognise the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) made and that the Minister rightly picked up. The litmus test is what the scheme will do for retention. We cannot be sure what it will do, because the jury is still out. The backing of the Scottish nationalists has extended the range of support for the new clauses, so the Government should listen carefully because support for them is coming from across the House.
      I take the point that the Minister makes about not including the provision in the Bill, but I am sorry that he feels unable to do that. I also think that he is being unfair on the issue of the full career pension. There is simply a difference of view between us. He rightly said in Standing Committee that there was a cost implication, and I fully accept that there may well be. Cost implications surround the issue and one of the tricks is to find a way of giving the best possible service to our armed forces that is consistent with exercising a proper constraint on public expenditure. The Minister and his Department know the arguments just as much as I and my party know them. However, we all feel that our deliberations should be determined by what is best for our armed forces. Clearly, nobody has a blank cheque—I have no more of a blank cheque than the Minister has—but the issue that we must bear in mind is what is in the best interests of our armed forces.

      1553
      4.30 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh described the pensions that we receive as Members of this House as contributory, the implication being—I know that he did not mean it—that the armed forces do not contribute to theirs. There is widespread resentment throughout the armed forces at the idea that their pension is a perk—a free gift from the Ministry of Defence and the Government. It is not. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) knows better than anybody else, members of the armed forces pay for it. When considering salaries, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body discounts the amount that, in its view, service personnel are getting as value for their pension. The value of that abatement is currently 7 per cent.—it was 11 per cent.—so the idea that the armed forces do not contribute must be scotched once and for all. They receive a lesser salary than they would get if the appropriate contribution to meet the worth of their pension were deducted from their salary.
      Mr. Francois: The point that I was trying to make is that although the media often acknowledge that members of the armed forces contribute to their pensions, they do not always acknowledge that Members of Parliament contribute to theirs. I was simply trying to make that point in the interests of balance. Service personnel rightly chip into their own pensions, and we thank them for it.
      Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend has put that point firmly on the record.
      Unfortunately, time is running out and we have other important business to attend to. I hope that the Minister has noted our concerns, particularly in respect of full service career pensions; I suspect that these matters will be taken up in another place. We will simply have to wait to see how the early departure scheme works out, but in the interests of moving on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 7

      WIDOW'S PENSIONS FOR LIFE
      'From 6th April 2005 existing widows and widowers currently in receipt of an unattributable Forces Family Pension shall retain that pension for life.'.—[Mr. Gerald Howarth.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      New clause 8—Date of marriage—
      'From 6th April 2005 widows and surviving registered unmarried partners of all service personnel shall receive a full widow's Forces Family Pension based on their spouse's or partner's length of service and final salary regardless of that date of marriage or registration.'.
      Mr. Howarth: I regard these matters as extremely important, and in the absence of a satisfactory answer
      1554
      from the Minister, I might well have to invite my hon. Friends and others to press the new clause to a vote. I do not suggest that as a threat; rather, the business arrangements of the House are such that it will probably assist you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I explain my position at the outset.
      New clause 7 deals with widows who have unattributable pensions—in other words, widows whose husbands died from natural causes rather than as a result of service. Under the current scheme, certain widows—here, I include widowers—retain their pensions for life should they care to remarry or cohabit, and others do not. A distinction is made according to whether the spouse's death was attributable to service or not. The new scheme will remove that distinction, and will allow all widows and unmarried partners, of whatever sexual orientation, to keep their pensions for life.
      Nevertheless, the changes laid before Parliament in this Bill will create a group of disadvantaged widows: existing non-attributable widows. Those whose husbands died from natural causes will still lose their pension should they elect to remarry or to cohabit. That small discrete group will still be forced to choose between financial well-being and happiness in a future relationship. We regard that as indefensible. The group at risk is tightly defined and small—in other words, the existing non-attributable widows and those tragically created between now and the introduction of the new pension scheme in about 2007. Only about half may be expected to remarry.
      The Government have already conceded the principle that widow's pensions for life are appropriate. They introduced them in 2000 for one type of service widow— the attributable widow whose husband died as a result of service. At that time, existing widows were included retrospectively and the Government also planned to introduce such pensions for the other type—the non- attributable widows, but not including such existing widows.
      If the Government do not take the one further small step of including existing non-attributable widows, they will wilfully create a new group of disadvantaged and aggrieved people and a serious and unnecessary fault line within the scheme. Indeed, I venture to suggest to the Minister that they will create a new legacy issue. It would be a small, magnanimous and entirely appropriate step—wholly in line with the Government's own agenda—to include existing non-attributable widows. The Government have rightly tried to create fairness in some respects, but long-standing inequity has been exposed, so they should use the opportunity provided by the new Bill with its new scheme to start afresh and correct that inequity.
      The Minister's predecessor suggested that if we established a precedent under this scheme, there would be a read-across to all other public sector schemes, but I do not believe that that would happen. It has always been the Conservatives' submission—and, I believe, that of the Select Committee—that our armed forces not only are different, but need to be different. There should therefore be no automatic read-across. We must be allowed to make particular provision for a particular category of people whom the entire nation recognises as

      1555
      different from the rest of us. The commitment of the serviceman is unique, so I see no reason why we cannot make a unique case in this respect.
      I do not accept that it will cost us billions of pounds to provide the scheme because other groups of public sector workers will then expect the same treatment. I hate using the expression "public sector workers" in respect of Her Majesty's armed forces. Servicemen are not public sector workers; that is not to decry such workers, but to deny comparability between the two. We know that members of the armed forces are unique.
      A service widow is also unique in that the requirements of the service caused her to be disadvantaged while her husband was serving—she was often unable to earn an occupational pension because of the frequent requirement to follow the flag. It was often impossible to develop a long-term career. A splendid lady, Mrs. Jenny Green, whose husband died in a Tornado accident, persuasively put that case yesterday. As she said, it was Ministry of Defence policy to involve wives in welfare duties at any RAF station.
      A friend of my parents used to be the commander at a RAF station in Germany. He married late in life and his wife rather resented the fact that she had not realised that she had joined the RAF by default. It was her job in a wholly unpaid capacity to act as the welfare officer, getting all the wives on the station together. That was the position that prevailed. Wives had to travel with their husbands and were unable to pursue a career. The husband's career often depended on his wife's involvement in the wider service. Today, the Government pay for welfare officers to do the job, but in the old days. they had the wives to do the job on the cheap, as it were, and many a wife and widow across the country will recognise what I am describing.
      As Jenny Green also pointed out, stakeholder pensions are not a viable option for service wives and widows because they are often unable to build up a personal pension in their own right, as other civilian widows and wives have the opportunity to do, neither can they afford the full national insurance contribution for a full DSS widow's pension.
      All in all, I hope that the Minister will accept that the people involved belong to a very specific category. They have been uniquely disadvantaged, and it would be sensible for us to make provision for them. The nation would be grateful as well.
      In addition, those women who receive pensions at the moment lose them only if they remarry. There is therefore no question that the Government or the MOD will have more costs to bear if the new clause is accepted, as current payments will merely have to be maintained.
      Mr. Caplin: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that what he proposes from the Dispatch Box is now official Conservative party policy? In the likely event—I should say the unlikely event that the Tories ever return to power, will the policy be implemented in their first manifesto?
      Mr. Howarth: I am afraid that the Minister got it right first time. It is likely that we will assume office next year, but I do not want to be too partisan as there is genuine
      1556
      consensus across the House on some of these matters. Of course I speak on behalf of the Opposition, and my argument is that the people involved deserve to be shown some consideration.
      For the benefit of people outside the House, I want to make it clear that the Minister has not addressed the serious issue that is at stake. He has chosen to cut the cake in a certain way, with the result that the people about whom I am speaking have been carved out. They are deeply resentful, and do not feel that they should have been treated in that way.
      The Conservative party is not in government at the moment, and I do not know the state of the books, but I can tell the Minister that I will not be browbeaten or intimidated into saying that we would not help those people. On behalf of the official Opposition, I say that we will do our level best, when we return to government, to find ways of helping these people. That is not a spending commitment, as I do not know how much money is involved. Frankly, the truth is that the Minister does not know either. He cannot tell the House how much money is involved in dealing with these people, and neither can I. Therefore, the basis of his question to me is entirely specious. However, the Opposition believe that these splendid people should be helped and supported.
      New clause 8 deals with post-retirement marriages. When people die who married after retirement from the services, their widows, in certain circumstances, are not eligible for a pension. Pensions for widows of post-retirement marriages were introduced on 6 April 1978—I think that that was the last time that the Labour party was in government—to comply with the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. However, the change benefited only those serving at that date, and only service from that date qualified. The review of the armed forces pensions announced last September introduced full dependants' benefits for unmarried partners, with effect from 6 April 2005.
      Special factors undoubtedly apply to service personnel who are not applicable to any other group of public or private sector workers. The pattern of service life militated against early marriage. Service people were stationed abroad for long periods, with limited opportunities to meet suitable potential future spouses. They therefore tended to marry later, often after having completed distinguished military careers.
      For officers, early marriage was formally discouraged up to 1973, through the denial of allowances and quarters. The strains on marriages of enforced separation and exposure to danger also probably led to the incidence of divorce being higher in the armed forces than elsewhere. The services' normal retirement age of 55 is well below the norm of 60 or 65 elsewhere. and the vast majority of service people are forced to retire at or below 40 because of service manpower policy. In consequence, the probability of service people marrying for the first time, or for a subsequent time, after leaving the armed forces was, and remains, higher than elsewhere.
      At yesterday's meeting, it was interesting to hear one lady say that she had received letters from a number of people who had decided not to get married during their service careers. The reason was that they knew that part of their contract with the nation was that they had to put

      1557
      their lives on the line. They did not want to have the responsibility of getting married and then leaving their families with less than adequate provision in the event of their death. It is not an academic argument: it is supported by fact.
      The post-retirement marriage pension rules bear heavily and unfairly on the armed forces whose unique conditions of service, as we all know, make them a special case. Serving personnel continue to be uniquely disadvantaged by the pattern of their employment, which is not the case in other public sector schemes and marks them apart as a special case. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the matter. He heard some of the forceful arguments that were advanced yesterday. I thought that they were persuasive and I hope that the Government will accept the new clauses.
      4.45 pm
      Joyce Quin: I first became interested in the issue covered by new clause 8 through the situation of a constituent who had married a serviceman who had retired from the service before 1976 and therefore fell foul of the subsequent changes, which were welcome in other respects but did not benefit her. Some cost would be involved in making the changes retrospective and I wondered whether my hon. Friend the Minister had any recent estimates of the likely cost. His predecessor wrote to me a couple of years ago and suggested a figure of —50 million. The number of people in such circumstances is likely to have fallen, and it would be useful to know whether any estimate has been made more recently.
      I do not wish to pre-empt my hon. Friend's response, but if he does not envisage a change in the law to allow retrospective claims, I wonder whether individual cases could be considered on grounds of hardship. The constituent I mentioned lives in straitened circumstances and I know that her late husband would have wanted her to have benefited from his pension. There are probably other hardship cases that should also be considered sympathetically.
      Mr. Hancock: I wish to associate myself and my colleagues with new clauses 7 and 8. There can be few hon. Members who have not deals with this issue at some stage in their parliamentary careers. The right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) mentioned the possibility of considering individual cases on hardship grounds. I have tried to make that happen in the past 20 years, but there is no flexibility in the system. Under the present regulations, the MOD cannot make payments to help widows of service personnel who do not fit the criteria for the receipt of pensions. Unfortunately, those widows have had to fall back on the good offices of the British Legion or other service-related charities for hardship grants.
      We are trying to give justice to those few people who were denied justice when the legislation was changed in the 1970s. New clause 8 would go some way towards doing so and the cost would be nowhere near the £50 million that was envisaged two years ago. The number of people who might be affected has diminished considerably in that time.
      New clause 7 would rectify the injustice faced by widows of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of this nation. The costs involved are already
      1558
      accounted for, because if the widow receiving a pension did not remarry, the MOD would have to continue to pay it. It is only when she marries that the MOD benefits. New clause 7 would merely put right a wrong that most of us have come across in our constituencies. Whether we are in government or opposition we have told our constituents that we sympathise with their case and will take it up. It is a question of natural justice and this is our opportunity to put it right. I am delighted to be associated with the new clauses and I hope that the Minister will welcome and support them.
      Mr. Caplin: I begin by telling my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) that the costs that she was given by my predecessor remain, broadly, the same. I shall be more than happy to receive written details from her about the individual case that she mentioned, to see whether the Department can offer her constituent any assistance. That offer is open to other Members, and the number of letters that I sign shows that they take it up regularly—many such Members are in the House this afternoon.
      The proposed new armed forces pension scheme includes provision for non-attributable widows' and widowers' pensions to be paid for life. Existing members can transfer to the new scheme if they want to benefit from that provision. The proposed new clause would cover existing widows and widowers who are not provided for—I accept that—in the new scheme.
      In the majority of public service schemes, non-attributable widows' and widowers' pensions cease on re-marriage but, as in the armed forces current scheme, can be reinstated on second widowhood or divorce if the individual is otherwise worse off financially than when first in receipt of their armed forces pension. Although we are able to make changes for the future under the new armed forces scheme, which, as I think the House now understands, will be paid for by adjusting benefits elsewhere, the change under the new clause would carry with it no offsetting saving. I have been working hard to ensure that I could give the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) some figures on the policy that he has just been announcing—he said that he was speaking for the official Opposition and that it was their policy. The cost of his retrospectivity proposal in year 1 would be £500 million, but I hear what he said about the Conservative policy and I shall return to it shortly.
      I shall speak briefly on new clause 8. It relates to rules for the current armed forces pension scheme, which are set out in prerogative instruments rather than in primary legislation. The new clause relates to widows who did not receive a widow's pension if their husbands served before 1978 and the marriage took place after their husbands left service. I accept what Jenny Green said yesterday at the event attended by the hon. Member for Aldershot and me, but that is how the armed forces often operated in those days. If I were to accept the new clause, such people would be provided with a pension from the date of introduction of the new scheme, but that would not include the widowers of post-retirement marriages.

      1559
      The new clause proposes that the pension should be based on the length of service and final salary, as under the new scheme. However, the current scheme provides benefits, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, based on representative pay and reckonable service.
      Mr. Howarth: Is that not changing? Under the new scheme the pension will be based on final salary; it is based on representative pay at present.
      Mr. Caplin: That is what I said. The current armed forces scheme is based on representative pay and reckonable service. The new scheme will be based on length of service and final salary. I was comparing the two schemes.
      Post-retirement widows' pensions were introduced in 1978 for service after 1978, following the introduction of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. If my memory serves me right, the late Baroness Castle was responsible for that splendid piece of legislation, and we all know who her special adviser was at the time—our current Foreign Secretary.
      The change was introduced non-retrospectively in schemes across the public sector, so there is no distinction between servicemen and public sector employees in this instance. The cost of extending post-retirement widow and widowers' entitlement to all current and deferred pensioners would be more than £;50 million, according to our current calculations, as I indicated to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West. Such an extension would be contrary to the policy of successive Governments.
      In conclusion, the Conservative party had 18 years in power to deal with such issues, but it never once introduced a proposal in the House to do so. It now finds it convenient to do so—the convenience of opposition, the convenience of opportunism and the convenience of increasing public spending when it well knows that its shadow Chancellor is looking for major and significant cuts in the defence budget.
      Mr. Howarth: The Minister is completely wrong: there are no planned Tory cuts in defence expenditure, so he is just trying to mislead the public again. I am genuinely disappointed. It is very pleasant to see that the Secretary of State is now present.
      The Minister referred to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). who made a very useful contribution to these proceedings. He said that she should write to him, and he would try to do something about the case that she raised. He said that everyone is writing to him, saying, "Let's do something about this." Well, let us do something about it.
      The hon. Gentleman cannot stick £500 million on us because that figure is simply not true. The people who currently receive pensions are being paid by his Department. They cease to be paid if they remarry. I put it to him that he cannot quantify how many will elect to remarry, thereby forgoing the pension that they now receive. The Minister is adducing a disingenuous argument. My commitment to the House and to those in
      1560
      the country who are concerned about such matters is that the next Conservative Government will review the issue with a determination to do something about it.
      To accommodate some of those people, the Secretary of State introduced a new scheme to enable attributable widows to benefit if they remarry, but he did not do so by telling the House that there was a compensating cut elsewhere in his pension provision for our armed forces. He was not reslicing the cake; he was just providing a welcome addition. We welcome the fact that he has done that. We believe that the funds should be made available to meet the requirements, certainly given the 1.7 per cent. saving that the Government will make from rejigging the mortality and longevity issues.
      There is another, final point that I want to nail in what the Minister said. He keeps on saying it, and it is unfortunate that the Government keep on doing so because they believe in supporting our armed forces. As I said before the Secretary of State arrived, I believe that the Government have the interests of our armed forces at heart. I do not claim a monopoly of that for the Opposition. There are differences of view. Certain things could be done better than the Government are doing them, but I am not suggesting that they are cavalier about our armed forces. However, constantly to equate them with other public sector services and say that if we did something for the armed forces we would have to do it for everybody else is not acceptable. The public believe that our armed forces are different, and we do too. Most Members of Parliament, whatever their party, believe that the armed forces are different, and it is because of that, because their commitment to our country is unique, and because they put their lives on the line for our country—they are doing so as we speak— that we ought to give them the best that we can offer them. They certainly deserve that, and it is the very least that they are entitled to expect. It is the very least that we can do for our armed forces, and it is irrelevant to suggest that we must compare them with other public sector workers. If the current rules mean that we have to do so we should make special provision in law—
      It being Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on consideration to a conclusion, pursuant to Order [22 January].
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 252.
      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 1

      AMENDMENTS TO PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS ACT 1943
      Amendments made: No. 1, in page 7, line 43, leave out from second 'which,' to end of line 45 and insert
      'applications to a Commissioner for leave to appeal under this section must be made;'.
      No. 2, in page 7, line 46, leave out 'appeals and'.—[Mr. Caplin.]

    Schedule 3

      REPEALS
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 12, line 7, at end insert—
      'Naval and Military War Pensions, Section 6.'.&c., Act 1915 (c. 83) —[Mr. Caplin.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Caplin: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I begin by thanking my hon. Friends the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who conducted affairs from the Chair during
      1564
      proceedings in Standing Committee. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who dealt with the clauses relating to appeals tribunals on behalf of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. I thank the Clerks and officials in the Ministry of Defence who have been dealing with the Bill, in some cases for a long time.
      It has been a feature of our debates on Second Reading, in Standing Committee and again today that the armed forces, both regular and reserve, are held in the very highest regard throughout the House. Members on both sides of the House have rightly paid tribute to their professionalism, courage and skill. The Ministry of Defence is a good employer and as such we must make available high-quality conditions of service for service personnel. The new pension scheme does just that.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I take the slightly unconventional step of intervening on the Minister at this stage to associate myself entirely with what he just said to ensure that there is no doubt beyond these walls, especially among those serving in Iraq, that we hold our armed forces in the very high esteem that he described.
      Mr. Caplin: I am grateful for those comments.
      We had an interesting debate that centred on the new part of the arrangements following the announcement that I made last week in relation to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. which will provide a regular external validation of the new pension scheme that will compare it with other schemes in the market. I am delighted that the chairman and members of the review body have agreed to take on such a task.
      Everyone who has been involved in our discussions will recall that concern was expressed that the Government should provide independent oversight of the arrangements provided for our armed forces in this respect. In Committee, I made it clear that I recognised the intent behind those concerns and that I would consider how best to respond on Report. Last week's announcement was made in response to those concerns, and I hope that today's debate has been helpful in highlighting the way in which the review body will deal with the matter. Its reviews will take place broadly every five years, but that does not preclude it from considering pensions issues if it feels that it should do so in the course of its normal work.
      We are in active communication with the review body to determine the details of how the system will work. We agreed it only in the past couple of weeks and I shall return to the House with a further statement when we have more details. I am confident, however, that the change will provide for more independence in reviewing the terms of the new pension scheme while helping us to ensure coherence across the broader remuneration package of pay and pensions. It should also provide additional reassurance for service personnel, and for Members of both Houses, by ensuring effective independent validation of the appropriateness of the pension provisions for our armed forces, including those

      1565
      who choose to transfer to the new scheme and those who will be members from 6 April 2005, subject to the completion of the legislative process. I feel sure that hon. Members will acknowledge that that represents a major step forward in tackling the concerns that have been expressed in the past few months. It also addresses the desire for stronger controls in legislation over the scheme's benefit structure.
      Before I conclude, I want to be slightly partisan and present two challenges to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). I hope that he does not have a scripted speech because he might wish to respond. My first challenge is about benefits being payable on an equal basis, irrespective of sexuality. In Committee, he said:
      "My party's view was set out admirably by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex in the debate."
      He means Second Reading. He continued:
      "We shall have to see how the land lies when we come into government, and review the position at that point."—[Official Report. Standing Committee B, 10 February 2004; c. 143.]
      The hon. Gentleman has had three months to consider the matter. Does he stand by that comment or will he support the Bill and the equal benefits that it provides for all members of our armed forces?
      I shall outline my second challenge. The hon. Gentleman clearly supports the legacy issues, as he showed yesterday and a few moments ago. In Committee, I said that I would calculate the amount of public spending required and I have done that. The total for the first year is £661 million. Every subsequent year, he will need £127 million for the legacy proposals that he presented this afternoon. Does he intend to pursue that as Conservative policy? The equivalent of £661 million is, for example, the single living accommodation project and the service family accommodation upgrade project. They would both have to be abolished to cover the sort of funding that his proposal would require. He can either play the politics of opportunism in opposition or make a serious point at the Dispatch Box about the legacy issues that the Conservative party never tackled. I am sure that he will respond to those challenges.
      I am confident that the new schemes constitute a good deal for our service personnel: a pension scheme that is based on final salary, against the trend in the wider economy; a significant improvement to the benefits to widows and dependants; the introduction of common terms for officers and other ranks that also deal with equality issues; and a compensation scheme that focuses on the more severely injured and, for the first time, makes lump sum payments for pain and suffering. The chiefs of staff strongly welcome those aspects of the new arrangements. They perceive them to be an important part of a package that offers a high level of assurance to service personnel and their families, now and in future. The Bill is essential to providing the new schemes and I commend it to the House.
      5.23 pm
      Mr. Howarth: I note that the Under-Secretary is getting frightfully excited. He raised 'several issues—two in particular—with me. The Government have introduced changes that extend the benefits to unmarried partners and the Opposition have accepted that. I hope that that will allay his concerns on the matter.
      1566
      The Under-Secretary tried to stick on me a figure of £500 million a few moments ago, but it has now increased to £661 million. I knew that the Labour party was the master of inflation but that is excessive. He is the Under-Secretary and suggests that some of my proposals would cost £661 million. I do not recognise those figures and I do not believe that he will be able to justify them. He might be able to, however, and the House will look forward to his placing copies of his calculations in the Library.
      I made a specific point to the Minister—I am not going to let him get away with this—about extending the benefits to unattributable widows who remarry. He has no way of knowing how much that would cost, because it is impossible to quantify. He extended the benefits to attributable widows in 2000, but he never made any corresponding cuts to accommodate that. He knows very well that only a very small number of people are involved, and they are being paid at the moment. They cease to be paid when they remarry. He has no way of knowing how many would remarry, in the event of his acceding to our suggestion, so his objections are just ministerial bluster. He even suggested that the proposal would have to be funded by cancelling the single living accommodation improvements. He flagged up the fact that he was going to make a partisan point and he did not disappoint. The public outside will have noted it and I think that they expect our debate to be conducted on a slightly more elevated scale than that.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said on Second Reading that we would not divide the House at that point, but that
      "we reserve our position and will judge the Government on any progress made in Committee."—[Official Report, 22 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1499.]
      We have now considered the Bill in Committee and only one change has been made. We welcome that change, and, along with the Minister, we wish the members of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body well in undertaking their enhanced remit. However, that change is modest and fails to deal as comprehensively with the needs of Her Majesty's armed forces, and those who have served, as the measures that we proposed in new clause 2—which the Minister would not accept— would have done.
      Furthermore, some of the criticisms levelled at the Bill by the Defence Committee, at the outset and subsequently, remain outstanding. Save for the one change that the Minister has made, there is nothing in the Bill that presents the House with any greater opportunity to scrutinise what is being proposed. It is an enabling Bill that gives unfettered power to the Secretary of State to draw up whatever pensions and compensation schemes he likes. The only scrutiny available to the House will be through a one-and-a-half-hour debate on the relevant statutory instrument, the detail of which will be unamendable. Our original criticisms, and those of others, therefore remain. The final details of the early departure payment scheme were not available on Second Reading. They were produced in Committee, which we welcome, but some of the original criticisms on that issue still stand.
      We judge the Bill by its ability to do justice to the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces, who have given—and, as we speak, continue to give—outstanding

      1567
      service to our country. It is our view that their contract with the nation sets them apart from every other group in the country. Their commitment to lay down their lives in the defence of the people of these islands and of the wider interests of the United Kingdom places them in a wholly special category, deserving of the very best that the nation can give them. That means that they are, quite literally, a special case.
      We are therefore disappointed that the Government have not reflected that special status in the schemes that lie behind the Bill. Comparing their benefits with those available to "other public sector workers" betrays the Government's reluctance to distinguish sufficiently between the needs of the armed forces and of those operating elsewhere in essential public services. The burden of proof in compensation is one example of the Government's thinking that it is perfectly in order to apply tests
      "in line with the practice of other occupational pension schemes and the civil courts."
      This is not another occupational pension scheme. We believe that the scheme applied to Her Majesty's armed forces should start by being at least as good as those available elsewhere. That is why, for example, we welcome the improvement of the death-in-service benefit from one and a half to four times' salary.
      I hesitate to do so, but I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) will forgive me if I quote from her speech on Second Reading.
      Mr. John Bercow: Read it out.
      Mr. Howarth: I genuinely do not wish to embarrass the hon. Lady, but I do wish to echo her words, and I think the House ought to reflect on them. She said:
      "On pensions, the proposals essentially amount to 'making ends meet'. We do not consider that that is what our highly valued and professional armed forces deserve … The proposals are based not on what the forces deserve, but how much money they get at present."—[0fficial Report, 22 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1507.]
      I therefore invite the House to decline to give the Bill a Third Reading. I invite the Government to address the serious concerns that have been expressed across the Floor of the House and to bring back a Bill that reflects the desire of our country to have the very best for those who are placing their lives on the line for our security. I can tell the Minister that, if he does not do so, there will be trouble in another place. I suspect that even if he gets his Bill tonight, this will not be the last he sees of it.
      5.31 pm
      Rachel Squire: I shall be brief because many hon. Members wish to speak.
      The Bill has been the focus of much attention from hon. Members and constituents, who have a commitment to and high regard for the standards and professionalism of our armed forces. They are also committed to providing one of the best possible schemes for pensions and compensation for former and current personnel.
      From the Bill's publication, my response has been mixed. I want to touch on the areas that I have always welcomed, the areas of continuing concern and the areas
      1568
      in which welcome progress has been made. First, I have always welcomed aspects of the Bill such as the effort to modernise pension and compensation arrangements in the armed forces, rather than never considering them at all, and the decision to put officers and other ranks on an equal footing so that all will be able to start accruing a pension as soon as they enlist and claim early departure benefits at the same age and after the same period of service.
      I also welcomed the improved provision for widows and other dependants, especially when the serviceperson has been killed in action; the introduction of benefits for unmarried partners; the focus of compensation payments on the most severely injured and disabled; and the establishment of an independent appeals system for contribution claims.
      That leads me on to mentioning some areas of continuing concern. The first is the cost-neutrality issue. I and others have deep reservations about a scheme that makes some improvements but seems to do so at the cost of others—improvements that appear to be paid for by armed services personnel. Many of us do not think that cost-neutrality should have set the framework for the scheme, leading to no more than a reshuffling of the pack. The scheme should not have been formulated on that basis. Rather, it should have been formulated on the basis of what our armed forces deserve.
      The second issue of concern is consultation and how it has been carried out with Parliament and with serving and retired personnel, their widows and families. The review of the scheme was announced in 1997. It started in 1998, yet here we are, six or seven years later, being asked to approve an enabling Bill.
      The time scale for implementation of the new schemes is very short: we are less than a year from new members and serving personnel having to make a complex choice between the existing scheme and the new scheme that the Bill will introduce by April 2007 at the latest.
      The Government have said that they will produce individual benefit statements for service personnel—I welcome the Minister's comments on that today—to enable them to make a choice. But we are still waiting for the computer system that will produce such statements. We do not know when that will happen and how we can ensure that all personnel are fully informed and able to get the best possible independent information on the new proposals before they are forced to make a choice. The third area of continuing concern regards the compensation payment scheme, changes to the burden of proof and the introduction of the time limit.
      In terms of progress made, I welcome the way in which the Government have listened to the concerns raised on both sides of the House, the information that we have had so far on the early departure scheme and the review by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. I hope that the Minister's and the Ministry of Defence's continuing discussions with the chairman of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body will lead to improvements in those areas. I hope that the Minister and all involved will continue to listen and make further improvements. I and many others intend to continue to examine closely what is happening. I owe that commitment to former and current service personnel, their widows and their families.

      1569
      The pressures on our service personnel increase, as they continue to provide a core part of this country's and this Government's global influence. We all hope that they will live to have a long. healthy and happy retirement, but some die in the service of their country and others develop illness and injury. The Bill should recognise and reward their service, their sacrifice and that of their families, but it still only does so in part.
      5.37 pm
      Mr. Breed: May I put on record on behalf of Liberal Democrat Members our admiration and gratitude for all the services that the armed forces provide, especially at this time? As we discuss these issues — there is recognition across the House that they are very much a special case. Their commitment to us and to the country deserves an appropriate commitment to them.
      Although some welcome benefits have been included in the Bill, such as the increase in death-in-service benefits and the extension of dependants' benefits more widely and on more equal grounds, inevitably, there are a number of concerns, which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) has just mentioned, which we had hoped would have been grappled with in Committee. Although we welcome the slight improvement in respect of the wider remit of the pay review body, it is a great disappointment that some of the real substance of our concerns has not been met.
      What lies at the heart of that is the decision about cost neutrality, which has cast a shadow, over almost all our concerns. I said on Second Reading, and it was reiterated in Committee, that it was an unnecessary straitjacket to apply cost neutrality to the costs and budgets of the pension scheme rather than to extend it to the whole remuneration budget. The provisions for pay and pensions are inextricably linked, and it is unnecessary to impose such a tight constraint, which has a considerable effect in not being able to deal with some relatively small financial issues.
      I was interested when the Minister added up quickly the cost of the legacy issue. I had asked him for some figures previously, which could not be made available, but fairly instantaneously it became possible to work out precisely what next year and subsequent years were going to cost. I do not think that bandying such figures about is particularly helpful.
      The Minister then went further, saying that he was going to knock out single-person accommodation. That extends the whole issue of cost neutrality. Either cost neutrality means precisely that, or it affects the whole budget. What the Minister said did not exactly align itself with what he has said before. If the total budget were involved, we could presumably take money from that to deal with some of the legacy issues that a number of Members have mentioned. I hope that those issues will be re-examined in another place. Perhaps by that time actuarial figures will be available, so that a more comprehensive discussion can take place about the real costs in the cost-neutral stra tjacket that the Government have imposed on themselves.
      I am also concerned about the burden of proof and medical records. I think that the two issues are linked. Although the Standing Committee did not discuss medical records in detail, I mentioned then that one of my other responsibilities was lay membership of the
      1570
      General Medical Council. The GMC is often confronted with a lack of medical records. illegible medical records or incomplete medical records, but such records are a vital part of any case for compensation, whether or not the MOD is involved.
      I welcome the Minister's assurance that if the MOD cannot find the medical records and the claim seems reasonable it will accept the claim, but that does not exempt the MOD from ensuring that the best possible systems are there to ensure that all medical records are readily available and up to date. Given the proposed changes in the burden of proof, about which many of us are worried, the ability to put a proper case will depend much more on the medical records. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, if the MOD is to help claimants to make a proper case—and we should bear in mind all the other problems with which it will have to deal—this matter will need proper attention.
      Nevertheless, Liberal Democrats welcome many of the benefits conferred by the Bill, particularly the compensation for unmarried partners. We have called for that and other measures for some time. We are prepared to support the Bill overall, but in the hope that further debate in the other place and further reflection by the MOD will deal with some of the long-standing legacy issues. I do not believe that that would cost anything near what the Minister has suggested, and I think that it would right wrongs that have existed for far too long.
      5.43 pm
      Hugh Robertson: One of the remarkable aspects of our debates on the Bill has been the degree of cross-party consensus. Let me record, in particular, my appreciation of the work of the Select Committee, which has enabled us to have a much more informed debate than we could have had otherwise.
      Much of the Bill is welcome. I am especially pleased about the commitment in the explanatory notes to the continuation of the final salary defined benefits scheme, which I think particularly appropriate to service in the armed forces. I also welcome the equal treatment afforded to officers and other ranks, while adding the caveat that it can only go so far, as the two groups have different levels of responsibility and exposure. I also greatly welcome the increase in death-in-service benefits, the increase in widows' benefits and the Minister's movement on the AFPRB. However, as I said earlier, I wish that he had gone further.
      As several hon. Members have said, it is fair to make the point that a number of issues remain of serious concern. The first is the fact that the Bill is only an enabling measure, but there is also the fact that the payment of pensions will be deferred from the age of 60 to 65. That is unfair when the retirement age remains at 55 and given that the increase in longevity is not yet five years.
      There is a lack of opportunity for anyone to earn a full career pension. If one serves until the age of 55, one will accrue 35/70ths and, if one adds on the lump sum, one can get only 62.5 per cent. of one's salary. That, of course, is in the best-case scenario.

      1571
      As other hon. Members have remarked, the impression runs through the Bill that it has been drawn up on a cost-neutral basis and not on the basis of what the armed forces deserve. As we heard earlier, there are also changes to the proof of entitlement to compensation. That is particularly damaging, because it is bound to encourage a compensation culture when the guiding principle should be that the United Kingdom owes a strict duty of care to those injured in the service of their country.
      I am afraid the impression remains that the one certain winner from all this will be the Treasury. It will benefit from cost neutrality. the deferment of the payment of pensions and, on top of that, the overall decrease in service numbers, which means that fewer pensions overall will have to be paid. Elements of the Bill have attracted adverse comment from bodies as diverse as the Defence Committee, the Forces Pension Society, to which we all owe a particular debt of gratitude, the Royal British Legion and a number of other veterans' organisations, including the widows who presented a petition in Committee Room 14 yesterday.
      The House has a special duty of care to the armed forces. Cost neutrality should not have been the basis of the review, because improvements in some areas are inevitably matched by savings elsewhere. At a time when our armed forces are so widely deployed and in so much danger, I believe that that is an entirely inappropriate message to send. On that basis, we shall vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
      5.47 pm
      Angus Robertson: I express the appreciation of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru for the work done by our servicemen and women. I also wish to put on record our commendation of the Government for certain changes in the Bill, not least the death-in-service lump sum, the widows' or widowers' pensions and what are known more generally as equality issues. Those are major improvements.
      It is disappointing, however, that improvements to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, the burden of proof, full career pensions and widows' and partners' pensions that have been discussed in the context of the new clauses have not been taken on hoard. Any one of those reasons, or all of them collectively, would be enough for me to vote against Third Reading. However, I shall vote against Third Reading because of an issue that I raised on Second Reading and in discussion with Ministers. It relates to the impact of the early departure scheme.
      Ministers and other Members are aware that certain parts of the country. which have low-wage economies and which are dependent on the contribution that retired service personnel make, are underpinned by the current pension arrangements. Not long ago, I caught first sight of the figures. They were shared with the spokespeople for the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, but not with the major opposition parties in Scotland or Wales or any of the political parties from Northern Ireland. I hope that the MOD will take that point on board when other important information is made available.
      1572
      In the letter to the Chairman of the Defence Committee, it was pointed out that, under the new scheme, annual payments to retired personnel under the early departure scheme would be halved. That will have a detrimental impact in my constituency and in many others. The Minister said earlier that no detailed work had been done on the question, and that fact alone is enough for me to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
      5.50 pm
      Mr. Hancock: Every Member who has spoken has paid tribute to the men and women of our armed forces, and rightly so. We recognise the debt that the nation currently and historically owes to them. Today's debate has touched on many of the issues that this House has neglected to deal with in the past. We had an opportunity today to put right a number of wrongs, but we have chosen not to do so.
      Like others, I welcome the improvements made in respect of equality—long and hard have they been fought for—but we missed the opportunity to take the initiative, and to offer pension benefits to members of the Territorial Army who, in some cases, have been deployed on active service as frequently as three times in two years. That issue could and should have been recognised, and the Minister could have responded positively this afternoon. I regret the fact that we were unable to vote on it. It was worthy of voting on, so that the Government could measure the depth of feeling.
      This legislation is supposed to be complimentary to the men and women of our armed forces, and it is on compensation and the burden of proof that I draw a line in the sand. It is already extraordinarily difficult to fight the Ministry of Defence successfully in compensation cases: the burden of proof is already stacked against the individual concerned. The Minister suggested that the situation will improve, because medical records will be better kept and readily available, but in response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), he said that he was talking about the future, and that the many servicemen and women affected by Gulf War syndrome will not be covered. Their medical records do not exist, and they have no clear way forward in proving that the burden of proof lies with the MOD. We are going to make it incredibly difficult for people to fight cases in future. Even the Minister suggested that fewer claims for compensation will be made because of the way in which the burden of proof is being shifted. That must be reason enough not to vote for this legislation.
      I hope that there will be a significant vote against the Bill on Third Reading, and I shall join those Members who do so. I cannot possibly vote for the Bill, given that many of my constituents and others are already proving unsuccessful in making their compensation cases. Such claims should not be made even more difficult to make.
      We also missed an opportunity to put right the obvious mistake that was made with the widow's pension; indeed, we missed such opportunities in the 1970s, the 1980s and the early 1990s. Sad to say, despite the fact that every Member probably recognises the justice of the widows' and widowers' case, this Government have again failed to recognise the mood of the country, which is that the House should support such people, and that they should get what most reasonable people believe that they deserve.

      1573
      In common with other hon. Members, I welcome the movement that has been made, but sadly, there has been far too little of it for us to accept that the legislation is worthy of the men and women whom we have praised so highly here today. The measure of our support for them is not how often we pat them on the back when they are fighting on our behalf, but the way that we treat them throughout their careers and afterwards. It is also the way that we respect and treat their families when, tragically, our servicemen and women do not return from the actions that we have sent them on. I ask hon. Members to reject the Government's position and to put down a big marker by saying that the Bill is simply not good enough.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 113.

      Division No. 163]

      [5:55 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Chaytor David

      Ainger, Nick

      Clapham, Michael

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Allen, Graham

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cohen, Harry

      Austin, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Bailey, Adrian

      Colman, Tony

      Banks, Tony

      Corston, Jean

      Barnes, Harry

      Cranston, Ross

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Crausby David

      Battle, John

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      David, Wayne

      Berry, Roger

      Davis, rh Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Best, Harold

      Dawson Hilton

      Betts, Clive

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blackman, Liz

      Denham, rh John

      Blizzard, Bob

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Borrow, David

      Dismore Andrew

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Breed, Colin

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bryant, Chris

      Edwards, Huw

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Efford, Clive

      Burden, Richard

      Farrelly, Paul

      Burgon, Colin

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Burnham, Andy

      Fisher Mark

      Burstow, Paul

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Flint, Caroline

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Foster. Don (Bath)

      Cairns, David

      Foster. Michael (Worcester)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE Fife)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Caplin, Ivor

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Carmichael, Alistair

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Casale, Roger

      George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

      Caton, Martin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Challen, Colin

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      1574

      Grogan, John

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Martlew, Eric

      Healey. John

      Meacher, rh Michael

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Merron, Gillian

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hesford, Stephen

      Moffatt, Laura

      Heyes, David

      Moran, Margaret

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Morgan, Julie

      Holmes, Paul

      Morley, Elliot

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Mountford, Kali

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Olner, Bill

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Organ, Diana

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Hutton, rh John

      Perham, Linda

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Picking, Anne

      Illsley, Eric

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jamieson, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Pound, Stephen

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Purnell, James

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kemp, Fraser

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Khabra, Piara S.

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

      Kidney, David

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Ruddock, Joan

      Lamb, Norman

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lammy, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Salter, Martin

      Lepper, David

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Leslie, Christopher

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Linton, Martin

      Sheridan, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Short, rh Clare

      Love, Andrew

      Simon, SiÔn (B'ham Erdington)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Skinner, Dennis

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Soley, Clive

      McDonnell, John

      Speller, rh John

      MacDougall, John

      Squire, Rachel

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      McKechin, Ann

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      McWalter, Tony

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Mallaber, Judy

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      1575

      Thurso, John

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Willis, Phil

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Wills, Michael

      Trickett, Jon

      Wilson, Brian

      Truswell, Paul

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Woolas, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Ward, Claire

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Wyatt, Derek

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      White, Brian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Charlotte Atkins and

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Mr. John Heppell

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Clappison, James

      Amess, David

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Collins, Tim

      Bacon, Richard

      Conway, Derek

      Baldry, Tony

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Barker, Gregory

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bercow, John

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Evans, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fallon, Michael

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Brady, Graham

      Flight, Howard

      Brazier, Julian

      Forth, rh Eric

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Burns, Simon

      Francois, Mark

      Burt, Alistair

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Butterfill, Sir John

      Gamier, Edward

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Grayling, Chris

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Chope, Christopher

      Grieve, Dominic

      1576

      Gummer, rh John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hancock, Mike

      Robertson, Angus (Moray)

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Heald, Oliver

      Hendry, Charles

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Ruffley, David

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Howard, rh Michael

      Selous, Andrew

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Shepherd, rh Mrs Gillian

      Jack, rh Michael

      Simmonds, Mark

      Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Spring, Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Steen, Anthony

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Streeter, Gary

      Loughton, Tim

      Syms, Robert

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Maclean, rh David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Tredinnick, David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Viggers, Peter

      Maples, John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Watkinson, Angela

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Whittingdale, John

      Mercer, Patrick

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Wilkinson, John

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Norman, Archie

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas

      Ottaway, Richard

      (Macclesfield)

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Mr. Hugo Swire and

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Mr. John Randall

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Maajid Nawaz
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  6.9 pm
  Mr. David Amess: Maajid Nawaz, Ian Nisbet and Reza Pankhurst, together with their families, are very grateful to Mr. Speaker for giving me the opportunity of raising in the House their imprisonment in Cairo for the last two and a half years.
  Constituents constantly bring their problems to Members of Parliament and it is nit usually the role of an MP to decide whether a constituent is right or wrong on the issue they raise. I see the role of a Member of Parliament as enabling fair play—to ensure that the issues constituents bring to our attention are dealt with fairly. That is what my parliamentary colleagues and I are trying to do.
  There are two fundamental issues in this case. First, are the three men guilty or innocent? I believe that they are innocent. Secondly, if they are guilty, is the five-year prison sentence that they have been given a fair one? On every conceivable analysis, that sentence is not fair.
  Mrs. Abi Nawaz, the mother of my constituent, first came to see me in April 2002. Since then, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms), have done everything we possibly could to support our constituents and obtain justice for them.
  Maajid was in Egypt as part of his university course, because he was required to spend a year in either Egypt or Syria. It is ironic that he chose Egypt because he thought it would be the safer of the two countries. How wrong he was.
  My colleagues and I have raised the plight of the men detained in Egypt on several occasions in the House. We held an Adjournment debate on 5 November 2002. We have put questions to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. We held meetings with Baroness Amos, when she had responsibility for middle eastern affairs, and with her successor Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean. We also held a meeting with the Egyptian ambassador. I am especially pleased that Mr. Speaker selected this subject for debate this evening, because on Tuesday my colleagues and I will meet the Foreign Secretary, when we shall outline why we want the Prime Minister to make a plea for clemency to President Mubarak.
  Time has certainly run out for those men. The three were arrested on 1 April 2002, accused of belonging to the Islamic Liberation Movement. Maajid is a member of the Islamic Liberation party, which is not proscribed and, as I said in 2002, that is at the heart of the problem. After a long trial and a delay in delivering the verdict—the verdict was delayed twice, which was cruel beyond belief—on 25 March they were sentenced to five years in prison.
  Maajid was arrested at 3 am on 1 April 2002, without a warrant. He was taken from his house at gunpoint, an experience that was extremely frightening, as anyone
  1578
  can understand. His wife was left at the house with their child and had no way of getting in touch with the outside world. Maajid's mother could not be contacted, as her telephone had been disconnected. Furthermore, his wife could not speak Egyptian so she was in complete isolation and very frightened. That in itself is an issue for the Government to address.
  On 18 December 2003—shortly before the original date for the delivery of the verdict, which was Christmas day—I visited Maajid and his fellow detainees in prison in Cairo. The Egyptian authorities were extremely accommodating to the visit, and I praise the way that the embassy dealt with the situation. I was given full access. We had a full and frank discussion about what had taken place since April 2002, and I make no complaint about their treatment then.
  After the arrest on 1 April, however, the men, along with a fourth Briton, Hassan Rizvi, who was later released, were held for 10 days at the state security intelligence premises—this is the real issue—where torture is commonplace. They were threatened, blindfolded, tied up with rope and deprived of sleep. They had to share blankets to keep warm, and they ate with their hands tied in front of them. I do not think that they were lying to me; I think that that is the truth, and I believe that they were treated like dogs.
  The rub for the Government in terms of my asking for a plea for clemency is that their confessions were extracted under duress. Maajid was then denied access to the British consul for roughly a week, and he was denied access to lawyers for a month and a half, so I believe that Egypt was in direct contravention of the Vienna convention on consular relations.
  The three men were found guilty on three charges. Bizarrely, the three men were not all found guilty on all three charges, but they were all given the same sentence—five years. Again, that is extraordinary. On the first charge, they were found guilty of
  "promoting by speech or writing the goals of a group founded in violation of the provision of the law—the Islamic Liberation Party, which calls for dispensing with the constitution and laws, preventing the state institutions from performing their work, promoting among themselves and others the group's call for considering the ruling regime as oppressive and rising against it, with a view to destabilising a state based on Islamic teachings."
  On the second charge, two of the men were found guilty of
  "possessing printed literature promoting the Islamic Liberation Movement's message and of distributing the literature and showing it to others."
  On the third charge, one was found guilty of
  "possessing a printing instrument, a computer, which would be used for propagating the Islamic Liberation Movement's message."
  I believe their total innocence in this matter, but even if they were guilty—I do not believe that they are guilty—to sentence them to five years in prison is totally outrageous and, again, a further reason why a plea for clemency should be made.
  The trial was heard by the Emergency Supreme State Security Court in Cairo. The whole trial was absolutely bizarre, with 24 men brought into the court in a cage. Refreshments were served during the trial. Some of the

  1579
  detainees were ill. It did not compare to the way that trials are held in this country. That is an exceptional court, and I believe that it violates international fair trial standards and denies defendants the right to appeal against a verdict. During the trial, the men were not allowed interpreters or bail. The prosecution failed to disclose evidence and had to be ordered to do so by the judge.
  After visiting Maajid in prison in Cairo and being in regular contact with his mother, a huge campaign has been mounted to support the plea for clemency, which must be made in a short time. I have received letters from the headmasters of the school that Maajid attended—Westcliff high school for boys— and support from Westcliff high school for girls. I have been inundated with letters supporting a plea for clemency. Chalkwell Group of Churches and Churches Together in Southend have assisted me in getting religious ministers to write to President Mubarak to support the plea for clemency.
  I have also received support from Amnesty International, which recognises that Maajid Nawaz, Ian Nisbet and Reza Pankhurst are prisoners of conscience, convicted solely for their peacefully held views. Amnesty International is calling for them to be set free without conditions. I also pray in aid the Jubilee Campaign, which also supports the plea for clemency. According to the human rights annual report 2003, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has supported 11 appeals for clemency. The Minister for Trade and Investment, who will respond to this debate, will be aware that about 2,500 British subjects are held in prisons throughout the world. It would be irresponsible of the Government to support every Member of Parliament who wanted a clemency plea to be made on behalf of a constituent, but my parliamentary colleagues and I would not have spent two and a half years constantly raising this case if we did not fundamentally believe that our constituents are innocent. The criteria for clemency were established for 2001, and the grounds on which Maajid and his fellow detainees qualify are compassion and medical reasons. Other criteria are prima facie evidence of a miscarriage of justice and cases where the prisoner is a minor. Our constituents qualify for clemency on each of those criteria.
  I had an opportunity to speak to Maajid's mother before this debate, and she told me in great detail how he and his fellow detainees felt about the present situation. It appears that their mail is being tampered with, and it takes a long time for them to receive any. However, I would like to share with the House a tiny extract of a letter from Maajid to his mother:
  "I have finally met Rabia and Ammaar"—
  his wife and child—
  "I can't describe all the emotions that I felt, and continue to feel upon seeing them. Initially, I was overwhelmed by the whole experience, as if it wasn't real. I'd finally got to see my wife and child after two years of separation, it was almost surreal. Then, I felt absolute joy at being able to sit and talk with them, something that is usually taken for granted, and being in their company made all my troubles seem to go away."
  Maajid and his two fellow detainees are very emotional about their present situation, as everyone in the House can understand. They have suffered a terrible
  1580
  ordeal, and I urge the Minister to take action, as time is running out for these young men with young families. The only person who can help now is our Prime Minister. We have excellent relations with Egypt. As responsible parliamentarians, we want terrorism to be defeated in all its many forms. That is not a trivial matter, but it would be a huge miscarriage of justice if those three British subjects became innocent victims and were unfairly used as an example. I therefore urge the Minister to reflect on the situation, talk to the Foreign Secretary before our meeting on Tuesday and support the request from my parliamentary colleagues and myself for the Prime Minister to make a plea for clemency on behalf of our constituents so that we can ensure that justice is done and they are released from prison in Cairo as soon as possible.
  6.24 pm
  The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Mike O'Brien):I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this debate on Maajid Nawaz, a British national detained in Egypt. I welcome the opportunity once again to set out the assistance that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has provided to Maajid Nawaz and the other two British nationals who remain in detention in connection with this case.
  On 1 April 2002, Maajid Nawaz, a student at the university of Alexandria, was arrested along with three other British nationals. The men had been arrested under emergency laws and were accused, along with a number of Egyptian nationals, of being involved in the revival of the Islamic Liberation party, also known as Hizb ut-Tahrir. British embassy officials in Cairo immediately sought confirmation of the arrests from the local authorities and sought consular access.
  Our consul and vice-consul were allowed to visit Maajid Nawaz and the other detainees on 11 April 2002. Every effort was made to secure information on the judicial process under which the men would be prosecuted. Our ambassador met senior Government officials to seek information. My right hon. Friend Baroness Amos, the then Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for consular matters, met the Egyptian ambassador to London to raise our concerns. Subsequently I made representations on a visit to Egypt and met senior Government representatives there. From April 2002 we pressed at various levels, including at a high level, for the Egyptians to charge or release the men. On 4 August 2002 it was announced that Maajid and the others were to face charges, and that Hassan Rizvi was to be released.
  The trial was held in an emergency high state security court. There were a number of delays and adjournments throughout the trial process. In July 2003 the judge adjourned proceedings and said that he would announce the verdict on 25 December 2003. However, on 25 December 2003 the judge announced a further adjournment until 25 March 2004.
  I should make it clear that we do not normally interfere with the judicial processes of another country. The courts are an independent body, or ought to be, and adjournments are a judge's decision. However, we have

  1581
  sympathy with the deep frustration and disappointment of the men and their families at the delays and adjournments in this case. Ministers and senior embassy officials in Cairo made our concerns clear to the Egyptian authorities and urged that the trial be brought to a conclusion as soon as possible.
  My right hon. Friend Baroness Symons wrote to the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Maher, in January 2004 to express her concern at the length of time it was taking to conclude the case and to seek some reassurance that a verdict would be given at the next court hearing on 25 March. We also made it clear that there were Members of our Parliament who took a keen interest in the case and were determined to ensure that the concerns of their constituents were brought to the notice of the British Government, and that we did our duty in bringing them to the notice of the Egyptian Government. I congratulate the hon. Gentlemen and others who have made the case so forcefully on behalf of their constituents.
  Our ambassador in Cairo listed our concerns with Ahmed Maher and emphasised the importance that we attached to a decision at the next court hearing. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary also raised our concerns during a telephone conversation with Ahmed Maher in January 2004. On 25 March 2004 the judge delivered his verdict. Maajid Nawaz, Ian Nisbet and Reza Pankhurst were sentenced to five years. That includes time already served. Under the Egyptian legal system we understand that the men are eligible for release in or about December 2005.
  I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's request for the Government to campaign for Maajid Nawaz's release and for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make representations to the Egyptian President. We have considered that. Our view remains that it would be inappropriate for the Government to consider raising concerns that we may have about the verdict until we have a clear understanding of the judge's summation. We need to know the legal and factual basis upon which the men were convicted in order to put a considered argument to the Egyptian authorities.
  We understand that the judge has now issued a summation of his verdict, which has been passed to the President for ratification, and that the men are considering their options in consultation with their Egyptian lawyer. One of the issues that it would be helpful to explore at next week's meeting is whether the families plan to appeal to the President, whether it is appropriate for the British Government to make representations on the back of that appeal or whether it is appropriate for the British Government to make representations and for the families to decide separately how they should deal with their legal rights. Those matters need clarification, and I understand that the families are currently taking legal advice, which they should obviously do.
  I now want to turn to the allegations of mistreatment and torture. During the first visit by consular officials, we were concerned to learn that Maajid and the other men alleged that they were mistreated and tortured in the initial days of their detention. We take all allegations of torture and mistreatment seriously and raised our
  1582
  concerns about the allegations as soon as we learned of them, and we have continued to raise our concerns at a high level within the Egyptian Government. Ministers and senior officials asked for an investigation into the allegations and for the men to be allowed access to an independent medical examination.
  In September 2002, the Egyptian prosecutor general told our ambassador in Cairo that he had been asked to conduct an investigation into the allegations. During a court session in October 2002, the judge read out a statement from a forensic medical examiner, which said that there was no evidence apparent on Reza Pankhurst's body to support the allegations that he had been tortured. In November 2002, the Egyptian Foreign Minister informed my noble Friend Baroness Amos that the authorities had concluded that there was no medical evidence to support the allegations. We considered that response to be unsatisfactory. Ministers and officials continue to raise concerns that this issue has still not been fully addressed or satisfactorily investigated.
  Throughout the men's detention, we have been active in trying to ensure their welfare. Since their arrest, the men and their relatives have raised concerns about prison conditions. Through representations by Ministers, senior officials and consular staff, and by working with the families, we have succeeded in getting more benefits for the men than would normally be allowed in the Egyptian system, including access to reading material, radio and television. The men can also make phone calls to their relatives during consular visits, which is usually strictly against rules. The men are due to be moved to newly refurbished cells in the near future, and we also achieved significant improvement in the transport conditions from the prison to the courts. We have made regular consular visits to the men, kept in close touch with their families in the UK and in Egypt, and have helped facilitate family visits on a number of occasions.
  In conclusion, I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who have constituency interests in the matter that Ministers in London and senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials in Cairo have taken a close personal interest in this case and have been actively involved since the men were first detained. The case has received considerable ministerial and senior official attention, and senior Ministers in the Egyptian Government and their officials can be in no doubt about the seriousness with which we regard this case.
  Consular staff in Cairo have worked extremely hard to ensure that we have done all that we properly can to assist Mr. Nawaz and the other men since their detention on 1 April 2002. We have raised the case at every possible opportunity and will continue to do so. In London, our consular directorate has tried to maintain close relationships with the families. The meeting on 11 May will involve hon. Members, the families and other representatives, and we hope that it will be an opportunity to discuss how we can move forward given the verdicts.
  The matter is difficult because we need to seek the cooperation and assistance of the Egyptian authorities, but we have also made clear our particular concerns about how the matter was dealt with. Our public

  1583
  comments have therefore been balanced, and I know that the hon. Gentleman understands that point. We will continue to press the Egyptian authorities for a full and satisfactory response on the allegations of torture and mistreatment. We have done quite a lot for those
  1584
  men, which is right in view of the nature of the case. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to do all that we properly can for Maajid Nawaz and the other two men who have been detained.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Ports
[Relevant documents: Ninth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2002–03, 783-I, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 6076.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the distinguished hon. Lady who chairs the Select Committee on Transport to open the debate.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I frequently feel extinguished.
Shipping is the main transport method for international trade. The United Kingdom's ports are gateways that carry 388 million tonnes of international trade, 95 per cent. of the country's international freight by tonnage and 75 per cent. by value As we highlighted in our report, 177 million tonnes of domestic freight also move through our ports system. In 1999, 32 million international passengers and 38 million domestic passengers used United Kingdom ports. We highlighted those figures because, as sadly seems the case with so many major transport facilities in the United Kingdom, it seemed to the Committee that the port system has for far too long been neglected by many Governments.
It is worrying that the United Kingdom is now completely out of step with its European counterparts. Our ports system has undergone a considerable change. It is now almost entirely privately owned, yet the people with whom we compete in continental ports still remain largely in the hands of their state systems. That is not a difficulty in usual circumstances because our system is a ports industry that is perfectly capable of competing with almost any system. It means, however, that when we debate the influence of European institutions and the changes that are brought about by European law, we see a considerable difference.
I come to the matters that are of particular concern to the Select Committee. We said that it was essential that we received a clear statement of the Government's policy on ports. Investment decisions would be made more comprehensive and easier if there were confidence that the Government recognised the importance of the sector. We said that ports were vital to the United Kingdom's economy and that the Government's policy must ensure that the ports industry remains healthy and internationally competitive. Unless we receive a clear statement of the Government's support, it will increasingly become clear that the forward planning that is absolutely essential will not be carried out in an informed and sensible manner.
We need a regulatory framework that ensures that ports are operated in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. However, the Select Committee
510WH
was worried by the fact that the sort of information—its statistical basis—that enables one to plan the development of the ports industry was still not available. The Department for Transport acknowledged that, but unfortunately does not seem to have a sense of urgency in respect of accurate statistics. We said that it was a disgrace that there was so little statistical information about such a vital industry.
We also said that it was becoming increasingly clear that because our economy is growing and we have an affluent society, more and more goods are being imported into the United Kingdom. Unless we have the capacity to handle such traffic, we shall rapidly run into real problems.
The difficulty is already becoming apparent, but it has become even more urgent with the recent decision by the Government to reject the Dibden bay application on grounds that carry some considerable problems for deciding the future of our ports industry. Given the growth of sea container traffic, why do the Government not appear to have addressed the chronic shortfall in container capacity in UK ports? That will become clear by 2006, because the size of container ships is changing—they are getting larger—and containers are getting bigger and heavier.
We are faced with a problem of British ports being unable to handle such traffic in sufficient capacity in the way that one would have expected. In the light of a national container port capacity problem, how do the Government intend to look at planning applications in future? They inform us that they are going to consider applications individually, yet on considering the decision that was taken on Dibden bay, we see that one of the phrases used was that the decision was being looked at in relation to possible alternatives. The rather frightening thing was that that interpretation appeared to include continental ports. Are we now to consider planning applications for UK ports in relation to container ports elsewhere on the continent? If that is so, it explains why P&O announced, on the day after the Dibden bay decision, that it would put an enormous amount of investment into Flanders.
We all know what an efficient port system is to be found in Rotterdam and Antwerp. However, I do not regard myself, as a British Member of Parliament, as having any responsibility for encouraging development in both those highly successful areas. That is a matter for their own nationals, and I suspect that they carry out such matters with considerable efficiency.
We need a clear statement from the Government on how they are going to consider further planning applications. At what point do the Government consider that it is likely that they can justify support for a new deep-sea container port being built in the United Kingdom, when such a proposal impacts on internationally designated nature conservation sites? Would it be when the last proposal is submitted and there are no alternatives in the UK, or would that still not be a sufficient reason to meet the overriding public interest test? I hope that the Minister will make that very clear this afternoon.
The Government do not appear to have carried out any analysis of the social and economic consequences of capacity constraints, either at a regional or national

511WH
economic level. Given that they consider ports to be in the national interest, how can such decisions be taken without any such information?
We said that we not only needed to know how much additional capacity was required but, in order to operate ports efficiently, we needed to know what links they were going to have with other forms of transport. What clear evidence was there that the railway system was to be planned to provide efficient links? What clear planning was there going to be in the funding and development of road, as well as rail, infrastructure? Where would these important physical links be made, and how soon? What was the timetable?
We said that we valued the work that was being done on health and safety in the ports system. However, we thought that the Government should have an identifiable set of national targets on health and safety, and that they should publish a timetable for the implementation of such targets. There is a current review of the Dock Regulations 1988, but it has not yet been made available. Those revised codes must give clear, practical guidance.
There is, whichever way we look at it, a shortage of dedicated port inspectors. There is no point having efficient health and safety rules if they cannot be monitored and enforced. That must be a Government responsibility and we expect them to fulfil it with some urgency. Lest it should be thought that I am being unduly unkind, I must pay tribute to the fact that the Government have understood that transport cannot manage unless practical planning is put into the way that it operates in future.
We understand that we are party to European environmental legislation, but we would also like to point out that the rules have been interpreted, not for the first time in European institutions, in different ways in different countries. Some member states seem to be interpreting their environmental rules in one way and the United Kingdom appears to be disadvantaged by our interpretation of them. It is essential that we know not only how we are going to control the various directives, but that they are plainly interpreted on the same basis. The habitats directive should not prevent port development or the expansion that we desperately need, because we have not had the opportunity to agree a general process.
We should also remember that we are in competition with continental ports. It is all very well talking about the need for us to work in friendship and to co-operate with continental ports, but they are in commercial competition with British ports. Therefore, decisions that are taken in the UK that appear to be directed or, at least controlled, by European planning can have an inordinately damaging effect on employment, economic regeneration and the future of various regions and of various cities.
I do not want to talk for too long today because Select Committee Chairmen have a privileged position and should not exploit it. However, I will say one thing before I end. The Government need to plan urgently for the future of our ports system. Without that, our economy will begin to lag and we will have problems to confront not only in the ports, but throughout the United Kingdom.
512WH
We face difficulties in the south. The decision has been taken about Dibden bay and there are those who believe that the three other ports applications that are coming up will be advantaged by that decision and will be able to look forward to a better situation. My fear is a simpler one; the grounds on which that decision was taken will impact on all of those other planning applications and may stop any coherent and properly planned development in the immediate future.
We know that we do not have sufficient capacity; that is not a guess. We also know that as an island we import and export practically every kind of good it is possible to create and to buy. Yet we seem content to allow ports to develop in a piecemeal process and to allow planning applications, which are vital, to be decided on a basis that at its best is doubtful in its environmental advantages and at its worst will have a direct impact upon the commerce and the economy of this island.
The report is a good one, and I am glad to see so many people this afternoon who want to debate it because they understand how vital the industry is. The report leaves us with many questions still to pose. It also records the urgent need for Her Majesty's Government not only to accept that UK ports are essential, but to give them the support that they need, and to ensure that many of our major decisions are not in any way impacted by those that are taken elsewhere without taking account of the British people's interests.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chamber thanks the hon. Lady for the brevity of her contribution to this important debate. I seek to help hon. Members. It is possible that there will be Divisions during this debate. If so, I shall suspend the sitting for 15 minutes for each Division. In total, including the Government spokesman who will wind up and the two Opposition spokesmen, 11 Members have indicated their desire to speak. There may be one other; he has not yet indicated whether he wishes to participate. I ask the Members who are to speak to bear that fact in mind.
2.45 pm
Mr. John Denham: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), as the House should be, for her Committee's work and for the excellent report that it produced. There was so much common sense in that report about the need for a ports strategy that those of us who represent Southampton felt that it would colour the way in which subsequent events would turn out. That was not the case.
I shall be brief, and make only a few points, the first with some regret. The decision on Dibden bay will have a huge long-term impact on the port of Southampton's future growth. The transport world in general, and container traffic in particular, is changing. It is not a world in which anyone can stand still or say, "We will not do that; we will leave things as they are."
There is no doubt that the port cannot go forward in the way in which it wanted; it will face real challenges in the long term. The impact will not be immediate as the port is currently packed, and capacity is very tight nationally. However, the ability to win the longer-term growth for which many of us had hoped is now severely constrained.

513WH
I do not want to rehearse the arguments that were rehearsed at great length during a long public inquiry. However, I will make a few points The Government have rejected the idea of a coherent ports strategy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich has said. In their response to the Select Committee report, the Government said clearly that they favoured a market-based approach to the development of ports.
If ever there were a port or a port proposal that was prepared to stand and fall on whether the market would support it, it was the Southampton proposal for Dibden bay. There would have been £600 million of investment; not determined or at all dependent on public subsidy or public investment, but determined purely by the market. Had the scheme got the go-ahead, it would have succeeded or fallen purely on whether the business interests had felt that they could make money out of the proposal.
What that illustrates about the wider process—here I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said—is that the Government do not favour a market-based process. If they had, Southampton would have had the chance to be tested in the market place. As soon as other factors are brought in, as can be done quite reasonably—environmental issues, strategic planning issues—the proposal is not purely market-based.
The problem of Southampton, of the inquiry and of the way in which the decision had to be reached once the inspector's report came out was that strategic and environmental issues were critical in the Southampton case. The crux of the issue was the extent to which Southampton was critically important to the UK, particularly in terms of whether some of the environmental issues from the internationally recognised site of special scientific interest could be seen in the context of the wider needs of UK plc, rather than as a series of local planning issues.
The inspector found himself having to come to a conclusion about the future of Dibden bay without the benefit of any Government strategic ports policy against which he could reach conclusions. The inspector had to reach a decision about whether Southampton was critically important to UK plc not only without a Government ports strategy, but without any official Government projections on the need for port capacity in the UK.
In retrospect, it is not surprising that the inspector decided that although there was a demand for more container capacity in the United Kingdom, because that could theoretically be provided at a number of other sites he could not reach the conclusion that it had to take place in Southampton. Therefore, he could not say to Ministers. "You should deal with the environmental issues in that wider UK context," and he recommended that the application be turned down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, this is unsatisfactory. One is bound to reach the conclusion that a lot depended on the order in which the cases went before the public inquiry; on who first rehearsed the issues of strategic importance.
Mr. John Randall: There is an obvious comparison with the Government's White Paper on aviation where—regrettably for those of us who live near Heathrow—there was guidance and a strategy, something that is clearly lacking for the ports.
Mr. Denham: That is an interesting point. I live about a mile from the end of the runway in Southampton and I can see the planes going over the top of my house. The number of flights has increased dramatically in the past year.
It was enormously helpful to have those Government projections as a basis on which to debate with Ministers, the operators and the public matters such as what might happen and how the undoubted business benefits could be balanced with the environmental impact. I do not think that the inspector in the Dibden bay inquiry had the benefit of anything like that amount of background of Government policy. I respect the Minister enormously for the work that he does, but his system is neither fish nor fowl; it is neither a market-based approach nor one based on strategic planning. We have to find a better way forward.
I do not want to rehearse every possible argument, but I wish to say a couple of other things. As the Minister and many of my constituents know, I have always recognised the importance of the environmental issues that are at stake in Southampton water. It was the hope and belief of many who followed the inquiry, including me, that Associated British Ports had done enough to satisfy the environmental concerns. I acknowledge that the inspector did not make a recommendation in favour of the scheme largely for environmental reasons, so I understand why Ministers came to the conclusion that they could not simply overturn that recommendation.
However, I hope that they recognise that, in this process involving the port of Southampton, it was not possible to examine properly strategic needs. There was the possibility—reflected in the exchange of letters between ABP and English Nature that explored what sort of compensatory package might be put in place if the scheme went aheadߞfor Ministers to have said, "We should examine the environmental issues in more detail." In essence, everything stands or falls on the particular case that ABP made. It put a lot of effort into making that case, but this issue needed to be decided in the national interest, and I do not think that we had the opportunity to do that.
At the time of the announcement, I was disappointed that Ministers said so little in recognition of the current and future importance of the port of Southampton, notwithstanding the decision that has just been taken. I hope that the Minister will say three things in this debate. First, I want him to put it clearly on the record that, albeit without a port strategy to back him up, he recognises the importance of the port of Southampton to the local, regional and national economy. Secondly, I want him to say that he will leave no stone unturned in looking at ways to assist the port of Southampton to make the best use of its current constrained capacity. The Minister knows that it is possible and desirable to upgrade the rail links from Southampton to the midlands to allow a larger flow of containers—and a flow of larger containers—by rail, and I hope that he will

515WH
be able to say positive things about the way in which he will approach that, and about the crucial investment decisions that have to be taken.
Finally, and I speak only for myself on this point, I hope that the Minister will confirm that if it were possible to revisit the idea of port expansion or development in Southampton—perhaps using a scheme with less environmental impact, or one designed differently in light of the experience of the inquiry—the scheme would be given proper and honest consideration, and would not be treated as part of a decision that had already been taken.
I shall end my remarks, because I see that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is waiting on the Opposition Front Bench; he was, of course, my predecessor in Southampton, Itchen. He and I are well aware that there are more votes to be won by opposing proposals on environmental grounds than by supporting proposals that might have an environmental impact, as was shown when I beat him by 500 votes shortly after he supported, and I opposed, the destruction of Twyford down for the M3 motorway. However, in this case, I believe that the needs of the port of Southampton should be considered
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he now very much supports the decision taken in respect of the M3? Without it, the port of Southampton would not be viable at all.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman may, of course, reply, but I hope that if he does, he will be brief, as the issue does not have a direct connection to the report.
Mr. Denham: But it does have a direct connection to the port of Southampton. Also, less destructive alternatives were available. In future, the issue of Dibden bay may well have to do with whether alternatives can be found that allow expansion to take place and do not have the undesirable impact on the environment that caused concern at the inquiry. However, I will leave my remarks at that.
2.57 pm
Bob Spink: I rise with some trepidation, because I commence by criticising the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). In saying that the report was good, she seriously undersold it; it is excellent. I thank her and the Committee for their wonderful work. The Transport Committee is an excellent exemplar of the Committee system. I attended, and spoke in, the last debate held on one its reports on overcrowding on trains. I congratulate the Committee on this important report, presented by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich in a balanced, measured and helpful way. Her mild criticism of the Government response was quite justified.
I have a local issue to raise. Hon. Members will be delighted to hear that I will not repeat the 25 pages of evidence that I gave to the public inquiry on Shell Haven port, which is adjacent to my constituency. I simply
516WH
make the point that there are four schemes under consideration for so-called superport status: Shell Haven, Southampton, Felixstowe and Harwich. Each appears to be being considered in isolation. That was a point that I made strongly at the public inquiry for Shell Haven. Such decisions cannot be taken piecemeal. It does not smack of joined-up Government or of any reasonable, coherent national strategy to make those decisions in isolation from each other. There is a possibility of allowing over-capacity and sub-optimal decisions on existing and necessary infrastructure.
There are obviously nationally important strategic decisions to be made on superports, and so there must be a coherent approach; however, that is not yet forthcoming from the Government. That, at least, is my perception; no doubt the Minister will correct me. We need a framework in which such nationally important decisions can be taken. In saying that, I echo what has been said by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich—I nearly called her right honourable; she should be.
Shell Haven is just to the west of my constituency, and adjoins it. The development would have a dramatic and adverse impact on my constituency, as it would on the whole of south-east Essex. First, there would be green belt loss, which would be substantial for the area. Secondly, as the excellent Minister, who is listening carefully to my words, will confirm, the infrastructure in south-east Essex is inadequate. I have regularly asked questions on that subject; indeed the Minister answered one today. That part of Essex is already overcrowded and congested, and it needs substantial investment to get it right. Even if the Shell Haven port development were to happen, as I suspect it might, the job creation that would flow from it would not balance out the other difficulties to which I shall refer.
There is the problem of over-development in southeast Essex, which, in itself, will lead to a loss of green belt land, which would be against the wishes of the local community. A substantial number of extra houses—probably tens of thousands—would be built if the Shell Haven port development were to happen. There would also be the serious issue of dredging the Thames of 32 million cum of spoil to deepen and widen the channel, which the ships would need to access Shell Haven port.
Some 80 per cent. of that dredging would come from my constituency, which goes up to half way across the Thames and includes that channel. That would put great pressure on Canvey island's sea defences. All hon. Members will know that the island has a population of about 44,000 people, many of whom live some 6 or 8 ft below sea level and rely on the sea defences. To dig a huge channel a quarter of a mile wide, removing the spoil from in front of those sea defences, might well result in the sea defences slipping into the Thames, which would not be of any help to my constituents—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may remember that 53 people from my constituency drowned in the 1953 flood, so this is not a laughing matter for them. I know that everyone in the House takes this seriously.
There is also the impact on the local fishing industry. It is a small but very important industry, as it is part of our community and part of the soul of south Essex. The dredging would seriously damage the sole spawning

517WH
grounds in the Thames, and virtually destroy the whole of the local inshore fishing industry, which is a serious matter.
The ships going up and down the channel day in, day out would cause a wake. Canvey point, which is to the east of Canvey island, is already eroding by several feet every time it has been measured over the years. That erosion would be dramatically accelerated by the wake of the ships passing to Shell Haven port.
There are also the environmental and wildlife issues, which have been raised by several NG0s, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Friends of the Earth, under the excellent ports watch initiative. They believe that developments such as Shell Haven could blight not only wildlife, but people and communities. We want a joined-up government approach to this matter, because we do not want the decisions on superports to be taken in isolation. There is much work for the Government to do on that policy.
3.4 pm
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I welcome this debate because it gives us the opportunity of getting some answers that we were unable to get from the Minister and the Department in the Government response, which was rather less than satisfactory. I shall highlight some of the areas of concern.
The ports industry makes a vital contribution to the UK and worldwide, and it is essential that in the UK we have real competition in the marketplace. However, the industry is under increasing pressure. There are deteriorating infrastructures in and around our existing ports. There is a poor safety record that must be examined and is referred to in the document; ports are more dangerous than mines were. Future investments must improve the safety record. There is also the question of interference through European legislation, and national legislation also puts pressure on the development of ports.
It must be understood that shipping is the main transport method for international trade. We rely heavily on international trade for our well-being. We depend on ports for moving freight and passengers. As we are an island, it is absolutely essential and fundamental that we increase and improve our port facilities. After all, the key function of ports is to transfer passenger or freight traffic between transport modes.
In a Scottish context—the Chamber would expect nothing less from me—we must consider the up-to-date position because there has been a complete change in the politics. When the inquiry was up and running, I asked the Minister, as well as other members of the Department, about the devolved aspects of ports and in particular the development of ports. We were told that some areas were devolved but others were not. That confusion could be detrimental to any expansion in ports north of the border.
I seek assurances from the Minister that those issues will be addressed so that if a policy is created, it will cover the whole of the UK and not just England. The report concentrates on England and more particularly on developments in the south-east, because that is where most big ports are located. However, we must take account of the whole UK. National policy rather than isolated projects is essential for progress.
518WH
The UK is faced with national as well as international competition in terms of where and if new ports are to be developed. In the modern world of transportation, most freight moves in containers. In the UK, a link between Halifax and Hunterston would not be considered wrong. In real terms, competition in the industry is between Halifax and Rotterdam rather than anywhere in the UK. Competition must be considered internationally as well as nationally.
The idea that all ports be based in the south-east is analogous to a football stadium having all its exits at one end, with 50,000 or 60,000 people leaving a stadium out of one exit. One could understand the confusion and complication in that scenario, and I argue that the same applies with ports. We must bring into the equation of expansion the question of social progress and growth in all areas of the UK.
Something that must be considered, perhaps more than anything else, is the question of rail connections. As it stands, the Strategic Rail Authority could decide to concentrate all of its investment in areas around the southern ports, to the detriment of expansion or investment elsewhere. In that sense, we must ensure that the Government's intervention allows the SRA to consider infrastructure developments throughout the UK and not, as I suspect could happen, only in the south of the country.
There are other matters to consider, including the integration of freight. Currently, half of all airport freight each day flies over Scotland. Given the locations that we could identify, it would make a lot more sense to have freight integration tied to airports and rail. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is present, and I have no doubt that he will speak with great expertise about Hunterston, so I will not dwell on it. However, Hunterston, which is just north of my constituency, would be in a very good position to be involved in such integrated development. That is important in the question of inland transportation of freight.
Southern ports will compete for access, but we can see that they are becoming congested in terms of both road and rail. I argue that we should be considering the question in a different light.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I cannot separate the Cunninghames. I therefore call Mr. Brian Wilson.
3.12 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this early stage to pursue the Cunninghame theme.
I would not wish to be outbid by anyone in my respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), and I congratulate her on the content of much of the report. However, I want to extend her comments about the impossibility of separating UK ports policy from what is happening on the continent in light of the Dibden bay ruling. I am sure that she would recognise that we cannot compartmentalise our small island of Great Britain. As such, it puzzles me that a United Kingdom Parliament Select Committee report on ports policy, a regional document, does not once mention Hunterston, the deepest water port in not only Scotland or Britain, but western Europe.

519WH
How we are to have a wide-ranging review of port strategy without mentioning the port that is most relevant to future developments in shipping—that is, ever-larger container vessels—is a curiosity. That is water under the bridge; I wrote to my hon. Friend on that point after the report was published. I have no wish for recriminations on that point and want only to reinforce it.
In parallel with air transport, the subject must be considered not against a local canvas, but with a UK, European and global perspective. We cannot draw lines between Scotland and England in producing such a report and strategy. There is no physical or trade division between Scotland and England. The road and rail networks join up, so the movement of freight into, out of and within our small island must surely be considered as a single entity.
My alarm about the restricted scope of the Select Committee report has been compounded by the significance that has obviously been attached to planning inquiries going on in the south of England. Although Hunterston has been mentioned tangentially at some of those inquiries, there has been no opportunity at any of them to promote the case for Hunterston within the wider canvass of UK ports strategy. Today's debate is an important opportunity for me to say "Hunterston, Hunterston, Hunterston". It must become part of a national debate about port strategy. The policy cannot be determined by stealth or incomplete analysis through planning inquiries in the south of England—or Select Committee reports that de facto restrict themselves to the south of England—without acknowledging the much wider context.
I would contend that, given the pattern of freight movements in the UK, it is impossible to have a rational consideration of any proposal in the south that does not also consider the currently under-utilised options to the north. The football turnstile analogy has been used, but the football pitch analogy is more common; you cannot have both sets of goalposts at the same end.
The message is a simple one, although I shall not go into the detail of every port's merits today. It would be perverse to continue port development in the crowded south of England while neglecting what Hunterston has to offer to the whole UK. I am not against anyone here today, and do not want to interfere in any constituency interests that will arise. Hunterston is not the whole answer—it is not directly opposed to anyone—but we cannot have a debate about UK port strategy without recognising that that port is seriously under-utilised. It is the deepest water facility in the UK, from which a credible proposal has now emanated for a container port and a container hub.
As I have said, the future is about ever-larger container vessels, requiring deeper water than exists anywhere in the south of England. Whatever does not go to Hunterston is not going to go to any of the ports in the south of England that are being discussed in public inquiries. Inevitably, it will go to the continent. That returns to the opening point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich.
Hunterston, with a channel depth of 40 m without dredging, could take even the largest vessels that are currently envisaged, making it unique among British
520WH
ports. I want to say something about the acceptability of this proposal in my own area. Some MPs from the south of England have occasionally spoken to me about public inquiries, and have wanted information about Hunterston to use against proposals that are relevant to their own constituencies. Clearly, there are huge environmental arguments about all the proposals that have been put forward. Dibden bay has now been ruled out, but the position is different at Hunterston.
It has been recognised for decades that Hunterston is one of the deepest water ports in the world and the deepest in western Europe. It should be the key to economic growth, not only in north Ayrshire but to the west of Scotland. It should be a major new factor in the economy of Scotland and the northern half of Britain; that is Hunterston s potential importance, and I do not overstate it. There is a crisis in port capacity in the UK and if we do not make our own arrangements, there will be an inevitable to loss of port business to the continent of Europe. Hunterston's day has finally come, and that opportunity must not be allowed to pass.
Let us look at it in a UK context. More than 60 per cent. of the freight that comes in to the southern ports ends up north of Birmingham. Why should this Government, with all their other environmental and transport priorities, encourage or even allow further port development that can lead only to further road congestion and environmental damage? It is not a case of Hunterston seeking to serve the south-east of England. A tiny proportion of what came through Hunterston would end up in the south-east of England.
Why should the northern half of Britain not be served from a port that is located within the northern part of Britain? The logical answer is to approach the challenge from another direction and to establish Hunterston as the deep-water container port for northern Britain and a hub port for onward transmission to appropriate parts of the continent. There are already pretty good road links that could easily be improved. There is also a direct rail link because Hunterston already exists as a significant coal port, but the road and rail links could be put in place to link it up to the main UK transport arteries.
Clydeport, which owns Hunterston, is part of the same company that owns the Manchester ship canal. There are clear synergies in linkage between Hunterston and the Manchester ship canal where significant proposals are coming forward for parallel developments. Clydeport, with the full support of all relevant agencies, has researched and prepared an extremely credible and exciting plan for the container port of Hunterston as a major contribution to Britain's and Europe's ports infrastructure. I hope that the Minister will indicate today that the significance of this proposal is recognised by Government and that port strategy is being formulated across the UK. It does not make any sense to fragment the United Kingdom in this context.
3.22 pm
Mrs. Louise Ellman: The Select Committee's report on ports, admirably guided by my hon Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), has drawn attention to the importance of ports in the national economy as well as

521WH
in regional economies and has pointed specifically to environment, transport and planning issues. The Government's reply indicates a general support for our ideas, but is not very clear on what specific actions the Government are prepared to take I should like to concentrate my comments on current issues concerning the port of Liverpool, which are a good example of the major points drawn out in the Committee's report on ports nationally.
Liverpool's successful bid to be European capital of culture in 2008 was won on the theme, "The World in One City". It drew attention to the importance of the port and maritime issues in Liverpool's past and for Liverpool's future. Indeed, the port of Liverpool, which is owned by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, is increasingly important in developing the economy of Liverpool, Merseyside and the north-west as a whole and in promoting employment. More than 30 million tonnes of cargo a year go through the port of Liverpool. That figure is growing. The company has invested more than £100 million over the past five years. It employs more than 800 people. Some 5,000 people are employed in the port area or in business directly as a result of port activities.
According to a university of Liverpool economic impact study, around 30,000 people in the Liverpool and Merseyside area are employed in businesses associated with the growth of the port. The excellent Mersey maritime initiative is working with 500 port-related businesses and helping them to grow and prosper. That is all based on the success of the port of Liverpool. The port's growing business is worldwide. The growing trade with Ireland is extremely important, as is the trade with the far east, the Indian subcontinent, Australia, South America, the North Atlantic trade group, the Mediterranean and elsewhere. Cruise liners are ready to make a major return to Liverpool, again marking the growing success of Liverpool as a city and the importance of its maritime connections.
I should like to focus attention on two issues relating to Liverpool that are referred to in more general terms in the national report on ports. The first is the importance of Liverpool having a new deep sea terminal. Reference has been made to the importance of a strategy for ports, and the Government have been asked to consider a national strategy for ports. What is clear to us in Liverpool and the north-west as a whole is that the application that the port of Liverpool is making for a deep sea terminal at Gladstone dock is extremely important for the port's future. With a deep sea terminal, larger cargo ships will be able to enter the port and trade can be developed with the far east, linking with hub ports in the Mediterranean. An environmental impact assessment is under way. If successful, the port will make an application for a harbour revision order, which I understand will go to the Department for Transport.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider the section of the Select Committee's report that talks about the difficulties that some areas have encountered with planning decisions? The difficulties are not only with decisions, but with the complexity of the process and the time taken to reach decisions. I ask him to ensure that he comes to a favourable decision on the application by the port of Liverpool for a deep sea terminal. He can do that by considering the situation in Liverpool, Merseyside
522WH
and the north-west and by realising that if the application is not approved, we will again lose business to the continent and reduce the impact of our shipping and maritime sector, not only in the north-west, but in the country as a whole.
The second, more general issue is transport links to ports. The Committee's report talks about the importance of rail and road links to ports to aid access to and from ports and terminals in order to encourage business. The 10-year plan speaks about the hope for an 80 per cent. growth in freight carried by train over the 10 years. Some of that relates to ports, as the Minister's reply to the Committee's report acknowledges. However, it is not yet clear how the objective will be achieved. There is certainly great disappointment that the proposal from Central Railway for a dedicated freight route has been turned down. I hope that that can be revisited. It is not clear how increased freight will be carried on the west coast main line to meet the targets. How does the Minister see the proposed developments in freight on that line being linked with growing business, specifically at the port of Liverpool?
Mr. Chope: Will the hon. Lady address the threat to the port of Liverpool posed by the proposal for a 70 square mile wind farm on the main sea lane into Liverpool?
Mrs. Ellman: That is certainly a pressing issue. It is of great concern to the Committee that there appears to have been no consultation with the port of Liverpool before the proposal was put forward. I hope, therefore, that the Department concerned will change how it goes about its assessment of the suitability of locations for wind farms. I anticipate that the Committee will have more to say about the issue on a future occasion, perhaps in a debate in this very Hall.
In relation to the development of freight on trains, associated with the development of the port of Liverpool, I again draw attention to the importance of integrated transport and of inter-modal links of different types of transport with ports. In the Government's reply to the Committee's report, they state:
"The Government take ultimate responsibility for the provision of these inter-modal links."
I ask the Minister when he replies to say how the Government are exercising their responsibility in relation to inter-modal links connected with the port of Liverpool. There are several issues to consider, including, for example, the height of rail bridges between Crewe and Liverpool, congestion between Switch island and the port of Liverpool and the still outstanding decision about progress on the second Mersey crossing at Halton. What progress is being made on developing NETA to link the north-west, the northeast and Yorkshire and facilitate trade through the port of Liverpool to central and northern Europe, which are increasingly important trading areas?
Some of the transport issues that I have raised are national issues, requiring national decisions; investment in major freight lines, the west coast main line and bottlenecks on roads and motorways, for example. However, regional action can make a difference in some issues. In the Minister's reply to the report, he places

523WH
great stress on the importance of the regional planning process and on regional transport strategies. I add to that the importance of regional economic strategies. The regional development agencies, including the northwest development agency, have a major role to play in developing those issues, and the north-west development agency is fulfilling that role.
More powers are required to be able to move more quickly and urgently from regional economic strategy to action. I hope that the Minister can assure us that when the draft Bill on the proposed regional assemblies for the north-west, the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside is placed before the House, it will contain strengthened powers in relation to transport so that action can be taken on such issues, including the matters I have raised, at a regional level.
My remarks attempt to connect the major principles set out in the Select Committee report on ports with key issues facing the increasingly successful port of Liverpool. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge the progress that can be made on those issues. To ensure that the ports of the country and the region fulfil their potential in developing employment and regional prosperity, regional and national action is required. I hope the Minister's comments will take us further along both those roads.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now move from the northwest to the south-west.
3.34 pm
Ms Candy Atherton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and her Committee on their excellent report. I am pleased to be taking part in the debate, which comes at an apposite time for the port of Falmouth and its docks. I found some difficulty in listening to parliamentary colleagues discussing much larger docks and ports that they represent. Falmouth is much smaller, but it is important in our neck of the woods.
Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will have heard that the Division bell is sounding.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.
3.35 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.50 pm
On resuming—
Ms Atherton: Having said how pleased I was about the debate and congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, I was about to say that Falmouth is the third deepest natural harbour in the world. Whether someone is in command of an international cruise ship, a ro-ro ferry or a dinghy, it has
524WH
offered a safe have from the storms of the Atlantic for hundreds of years. The original packet ships, which took money and mail to the former British colonies, sailed from Falmouth. Today, the town and the port host one of the world's for most builders of so-called super-yachts, Pendennis shipyard, and one of this country's most successful ship repair companies, A&P. Recent reports for the South West of England Regional Development Agency have described Falmouth as having the most important and best-equipped ship repair yard in south-west England and as having the only port in the area with brownfield land available and ready for development. We have plans for the Falmouth docks and port.
About five years ago, I was approached by Cornwall Enterprise, the county council's economic development company, and asked to approach the Royal Bank of Scotland, which is the parent company of A&P, the ship repair company based in Falmouth. I wanted to talk to the bank about the problems facing the whole port and the opportunities that were presented in Falmouth. Those opportunities emanate from the problems that Cornwall faces.
It might be helpful for hon. and right hon. Members if I provide a little bit of background. Cornwall currently receives objective 1 funding from Europe, as a result of the Prime Minister, proposing that it should be separated from Devon for statistical purposes. That happened after representations from myself and hon. Friends. Since 2000, we have been able to invest in our economy to assist in catching up with the rest of the UK and northern Europe. Sadly, our economy was so small in comparison with that of the rest of the UK that even with that extra support, our GDP has continued to slip further back from its level at the time when we first received objective 1 funding. We now stand at just 59 per cent. of the EU average—on a par with the Greek islands—which is dramatic, as I am sure hon. Members will agree. Other parts of the south-west have double the GDP of Cornwall. Nowhere else in our country do we have such huge regional disparities.
When I was first elected by Falmouth and Camborne, I dreaded hearing from my staff that A&P was on the phone, because I feared that it might pull out of the port and the town. The wharfage was often empty, particularly in summer months. In winter, both then and today, a steady stream of P&O ferries arrive for refit. I am pleased to say that A&P successfully tenders for Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service refits, which come into the port. Seven years ago, however, the number of employees in the docks was declining dramatically.
I do not have to tell the House that ship repair is a difficult business and is not hugely profitable. The famous port of Falmouth was and is in need of major infrastructure investment. One of the biggest challenges facing the town is that the main channel is in need of serious dredging, and modern buildings need to be created. Currently, there are Victorian buildings throughout most of the docks.
As I said, we have a dream for Falmouth. On one side we would have the super-yachts built and repaired by Pendennis shipyard, which, incidentally, built the Lord's media centre. If people look carefully at the centre, they will see that it is a boat tipped at 90 degrees.

525WH
We in Cornwall are very proud of it. With regional development agency help, the company has recently invested in new dock facilities and become a regional training centre. It is raising skills through apprenticeships and other training schemes. That part of the dream has been realised, but there are other areas to complete.
Next door will be A&P, which has been working with the RDA for several years—too many years—on developing a marine business park. A&P operations would be relocated within the docks and there would be new opportunities across this large brownfield site. Falmouth marine school and other training facilities might relocate or locate anew there, and the Royal Yachting Association's centre of excellence for sailing might operate from within the port. Smaller and even larger ship repair companies might be brought together; we estimate that they might provide work for 2,500 skilled employees. Falmouth docks would be a major centre for Cornwall and the whole UK.
Between 600 and 700 people currently work for A&P, which is the highest number for many years. The docks are probably the biggest private sector employer in Cornwall, and they pay workers more than the national minimum wage; the minimum wage is often paid in Cornwall because the tourism sector is dominant there.
Visits by cruise ships are a new development, and 50-plus cruise ships visit Falmouth each year. Indeed, some of them depart from Falmouth, So we get the added bonus of holidaymakers staying in local hotels before and after they cruise. It is important to some of them that they do not need to fly in these times of heightened international tension. I want a cruse terminal to be set up in Falmouth and the channel into Falmouth to be dredged. The RDA has not co-operated as I would have liked. It has been discussing with A&P how to take things forward for almost five years. That is a long time.
There are serious issues about contamination in the channel. English Nature believes that it is the most contaminated channel in the United Kingdom. We do not have a facility for dealing with contamination from dredging. Germany and Holland have heat treatment processes. Perhaps the Minister will examine whether we can have them in our country.
I am passionate about these docks; they are important to me. I believe that some heads need to be knocked together. The RDA needs to work with the objective 1 funding people, A&P and everyone else to resolve this situation because the people of Cornwall demand it and need it to happen.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On this occasion, we move from the south-west to the south-east.
3.57 pm
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). I sailed from both their ports many times in my seafaring career during the heady and glorious days of the Glen line and the Blue Funnel line, and it is good that they have visions and dreams for the future of their ports. I hope that the Minister can make those dreams come true.
526WH
The distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), opened our debate by reminding us that 95 per cent. of all our trade—all our imports and exports—is carried by sea and arrives and departs through UK ports. She and others spelled out the huge national strategic importance of our ports industry, but people would not think that it had that importance if they were to compare the amount of Government initiatives, policy, funding help and so forth for road, rail and air transportation with that for ports and the shipping industry. That is a common theme for Governments over the past 20 or 30 years.
If shipping is the poor relation of the transportation industry, the ports industry is the poor relation of the maritime industry. With the majority of the industry now in private hands or enjoying trust status, there has been a tendency for all Governments to allow everything to be controlled by the market. However, as the Transport Committee report concludes, that philosophy is badly flawed, because there are distortions that are caused by regulation, Government rules and the influence of European Union directives, and they all serve to skew the normal workings of the market.
In common with all hon. Members who are present, I have the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Transport Committee, but I will risk incurring her wrath by venturing to say that the report itself, despite all its attributes and its excellence, is also skewed to some extent. It is skewed in favour of container traffic and the large container ports at the expense of small ports, our great port industry activities, such as general cargo transport and cruise liner traffic, and the important ro-ro ports such as Dover, about which I will say more later.
Matching the container capacity of the country to growing demand and competing with our European partners is, of course, very important, and it is very topical. However, I shall confine my contribution to what the report refers to as landside road and rail links to the ports. The report draws attention to the fact that ports already provide half the total rail freight traffic in the country, and it recognises the potential for additional volumes. However, Government initiatives to promote or encourage any meaningful growth in rail freight connections are, quite frankly, meagre and faltering, especially in relation to the links to the ports.
The Government accept and everyone else agrees about the huge benefits that flow from maximising rail freight: reduced congestion and pollution and increased UK competitiveness. However, on current trends, few if any of the ambitious targets set by the Government and spelled out by Members this afternoon seem likely to be met. Many ports are already connected by rail, and their volume of use could be increased quite easily. Other ports, such as the port of Dover, could be easily reconnected to the rail network with very little help from the Government. That is the sort of help that ports in mainland Europe have always enjoyed and continue to enjoy today.
Dover is drawing some benefit from EU funding. The FINESSE—freight intermodality and exchange on seas and straits in Europe—project is providing some £50,000 to fund a study into the feasibility of enhancing

527WH
intermodal links at Dover. However, if we proceed with such ambitious plans, all the costs will be likely to fall on the Dover Harbour Board.
Freight traffic across the channel is forecast to double in the next few years. Shifting a proportion of freight from road to rail and reopening the Dover rail ferry, for instance, would help to ease the pressures on our road connections to the channel ports, which are already failing to cope with today's traffic volumes. Against that background, it was disappointing to witness the suspension of the freight facilities grants and the freezing of any new projects. We look to the Minister to bring us better news on that front today.
I am the first to acknowledge the record amounts of funding pledged for transport by the Government in the 10-year plan and other ventures. However, from the perspective of the east Kent ports and most of the ports around the UK, the money does not seem to be reaching the parts that it should.
The vision of an integrated transport system is still some way off. Vital to such integration is the extension of the channel tunnel rail link to Dover. That would meet the growing demands of our two new cruise liner terminals and provide a tremendous boost to the east Kent economy. We eagerly await the publication of the report from the Strategic Rail Authority.
The Select Committee draws attention to the shortcomings of the current system to ensure that ports are adequately served by appropriate road links and other land-based infrastructure connections. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the 25-year campaign to convert the last seven miles of the A2, the traditional road route into the port of Dover, into a dual carriageway. That is hardly a revolutionary innovation or a bank-busting project, but we are still waiting. He will also be well informed about the impact of Operation Stack, which regularly closes down the M20 approaches to Dover docks and converts the whole motorway into a giant lorry parking lot. He knows all about the awful local congestion that occurs regularly—it happens at least twice a week—in the last few miles of the port approach road at the end of the A2 along Town Wall street.
Resolution of the first two problems lies largely in the hands of Conservative-controlled Kent county council, which is the strategic planning authority. However, encouragement from the Government to complete this important unfinished business would be most welcome.
To help resolve the local congestion that I have just mentioned, the port needs reconfigured access to the ferry berths at the eastern docks. Feasibility assessments have been made and plans have been drawn up; all that remains is the small matter of funding. The harbour board has invested massively in the trust ports over the years and it is currently bringing in line new berths and planning for future expansion. The harbour board and everyone else accept that ports need to fund their own portside development, but that the funding of road and rail access is something different.
Dover port was greatly encouraged by the assurances given in the Government document, "Modern Ports: A UK Policy", which said that the 10-year plan
"focuses on land transport in England, including improvements in surface access to ports and airports."
528WH
The document stated that the plan would not look at private investment in the ports industry. It continues:
"It does, however, take account of likely future trends in the use of ports when considering surface access issues."
It was clear at that time that the Government were committed to providing necessary access for the landside of ports.
The Select Committee's recommendation No. 99 was also welcomed. It said:
"The operation of a port is dependent on intermodal links, which must form part of any United Kingdom ports policy. Whilst the Government is keen to allow market forces to determine port investment and operation, landside links cannot be funded on a commercial basis. The Government must therefore be directly involved in planning, funding and development of road and rail infrastructure to UK ports and set a timescale for such development."
Even the Government's response in January held out the prospect of help and funding. After mentioning the work on impact and intermodal studies, regional plans and so on, it went on to say:
"Government decisions is on the funding of schemes to improve port access will be taken in the light of this work and of other transport investment priorities within the resources available. Developers will also be expected to contribute to the costs of surface access improvements required to service new developments … the Highways Agency continues to work in partnership with port operators, planning authorities and regional development agencies to identify and meet the needs of the ports industry."
That all sounded encouraging, but unfortunately, the Highways Agency—at least the branch in the southeast—disputed the clear intention of the Government's "Modern Ports" document and the minutes of the Transport Committee meeting, and it sought legal advice to back its view. On 26 February this year, Jim Boud, divisional director of network strategy in the south-east, wrote to Dover Harbour Board:
"The question of whether or not the Port of Dover should be treated as a developer with respect to the provisions of Circular 4/ 2001 has been the subject of correspondence".
He went on to say:
"The purpose of this letter is to summarise the current position in the light of legal advice on this topic which has recently become available."
I shall not quote the letter at length because of time, but Mr. Boud goes on to say that the port of Dover must be considered as a developer and that, as a developer, any of its projects to increase or improve access must fall back to the port. The letter continues:
In this context it is clear that the funding of localised proposals aimed at serving individual ports, such as your suggested improvement to the Eastern Dock Access should not be Government responsibility and must therefore be funded from other resources available to Dover Harbour Board."
That sets the tone for the funding of vital access links around the coast at all our ports.
The Government have produced the first ever 10-year plan for transport, Ministers have committed themselves to an integrated transport system and Labour has committed itself to the biggest ever package of public spending on transport, but there are no plans or proposals to ensure that our port capacity meets present or future demands. Funding for rail freight connections to the ports seems to be diminishing, not

529WH
increasing, and improved access roads to the ports to reduce congestion and meet increasing volumes of trade do not attract any funding help.
Trust ports such as Dover are essentially private enterprises, so perhaps they should not receive help or funding. However, we should compare that lack of encouragement for Britain's ports with the abundance of subsidy and support meted out to another private enterprise—the channel tunnel, which was in direct competition with the channel ferries. Apparently, no one is able to see the direct contrast between the billions of pounds that supported the tunnel and the situation with the ferries. That private project was provided with a direct link to a six-lane motorway and the construction of a seven-mile extension to the M20-A20. The site was engineered directly into the national rail network, all at great expense to the taxpayer. That has not done Eurotunnel a great deal of good, and by any real test of commercial business, the company should be bankrupt, which is what Dover predicted all those years ago.
The points that I have tried to put across this afternoon demonstrate why shipping and ports in particular, despite all their success stories, have always been looked upon by Parliament and the Government as the poor relations of other transport areas, but I live in hope that the Minister can persuade, me otherwise.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now go back to Southampton.
4.11 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I hope that after my speech there will be no further attempts to outbid my expressions of effusive congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on the production of the report. [Interruption.] The Minister seems to suggest that it might be otherwise.
The report is excellent and timely. It encapsulates a large number of the problems and the possible ways forward that relate to the strategic dimension of ports around our island. Depending on one's definition, there are about 300 serious working ports in the United Kingdom and they have many different problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) has mentioned several matters, such as ro-ro ports, passenger ports, short sea shipping ports and various other ports. It was right that the Select Committee report spent time on the strategic ports—hub ports—in the United Kingdom and their relationship with the container trade. As we know, the container trade will increase substantially in years to come and the report reflected on several suggestions, all of which pointed in the same direction and dealt with issues such as what capacity would be needed and what growth is likely to occur in the next few years. The report concluded that this country has a severe problem of matching the ability of our ports on both the waterside and the landside, and of ensuring that container traffic can be dealt with by major hub ports in future years.
Whatever we may say about the capacity of the 300-odd ports in the British Isles, the majority of containers come from deep-sea sources and up the English channel, and their choice is to turn either left or right. They land in the United Kingdom, Rotterdam, Antwerp or Le
530WH
Havre. If they land in the UK, by and large they will land either to the east of London or to the west of London. That is probably not a bad thing because it means that one way or another the containers can go out from those hub ports to the east and north of England. Moreover, a good proportion of the containers that land in Southampton go to the midlands without going through London on the landside.
As for the bulk of the deep-sea container traffic, we must seriously worry about two hub ports and their future capacity, although with respect to my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the Felixstowe area, I recognise that several ports constitute the hub area on the eastern side of the country.
The Government have said that the market should decide how future capacity should be determined. As we have heard from hon. Members today, the Government do not have a port strategy that would determine where a port should be developed. I do not think that the majority of my hon. Friends whom I have heard discussing the subject in recent years have said that a port strategy should determine where a port should be. However, it should surely determine how we as a nation can ensure that we have the ability to deal in a looser way, from a port point of view, with the various traffic that comes into the UK. That was a central part of the conclusion of the Select Committee report.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said, the Government are stating that they wish to see progress on the future of container ports more or less determined by the market, but they are actually not determining the future of those ports exactly by what the market wants. That is the case because of the inquiries that are taking place; indeed, he mentioned the recent outcome of the one concerning Dibden bay.
Until recently, we had three inquiries that were either under way or about to be under way, which between them could largely determine how that hub-port strategy might proceed. In the context of those inquiries, I am reminded of the lecturer who told his students that, as far as their education was concerned, they were getting a bit lazy in their ways. He was going to set them a surprise exam and he told them on the Monday that it was going to take place during the week. He said, "I will give you a day's notice, but not more than that. I will not tell you which day it is going to be on, because it is going to be a surprise. You will have to be on your toes."
The students went away and thought to themselves that if there was no announcement by Thursday, one was bound to be made on Friday, which meant that the exam could not take place on Friday and would have to happen on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. They also thought that it could not take place on Tuesday, because the lecturer said that they would have a day's notice. Therefore, they decided that it would have to occur on Wednesday or Thursday, and that if they had not had an announcement by Tuesday, it would take place on Thursday, which would mean that it would not be a surprise. That meant that it must be on Wednesday, although that would not be a surprise either. Therefore, there is no such thing as a surprise examination.

531WH
That will all be in Hansard. What I conclude from it is that there is the possibility that all the inquiries could result in a no and we would then have no strategy. We go through sequential tests where each case has to be decided on its own merits within its own area. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen said, the inspector in the case of the Dibden bay report was dealing with nothing against something. What was the national strategic consideration for Dibden bay? We are not sure. On the other hand, what were the environmental considerations? We had quite a few of those.
Like my right hon. Friend, I have always said that the Dibden bay inquiry should have been balanced in terms of those two considerations and the future of the port of Southampton into the bargain. We could get to a situation where the second inquiry is turned down. We will then know that, come what may, the third inquiry will have to be agreed whether or not it has any merit, because we will not otherwise have a national ports strategy. That would be like the surprise examination to which I referred.
That does not seem the right way to deal with the strategic issue of our future ports, because if we had a hub ports strategy—a strategic vision of what we need for our future ports—Southampton would undoubtedly be in it, as I have said; it is inconceivable that it would not be. Yet we appear to have made the decision, on the basis of an inspector's report and in the planning inquiry, that Southampton cannot expand its capacity to deal with an issue that we know needs to be dealt with from a national point of view because of particular considerations that do not relate to an overall strategy. If we are to move towards a more strategic view of hub ports, would it not be a good idea to ensure that ports such as Southampton can continue to play their role in terms of how containers and ships load and unload their cargoes in the UK? A number of issues would be important in that context.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover said, the only railway line leading to a major port that is currently being uprated in terms of freight is that leading to Felixstowe. There are no advanced plans for other ports; proposals and suggestions have been made, but nothing has happened. That has taken place against a background of rapid change in the nature of containers coming into hub ports.
We know that the industry standard will be the high box container. Already, 20 per cent. of container traffic coming into Southampton is made up of such containers. Southampton has one of the best records in the country for sending containers out of its port by rail to other parts of the country—recently, the figure went up to 35 per cent.—and that capacity will be eroded because it simply cannot get those high box containers on to the rails.
The alternative may be to distribute the containers by road—an alternative that seems diametrically opposed to some of the objectives for freight in the Government's 10-year transport plan. Otherwise, those boxes may be transhipped. Indeed, last Christmas, a number of boxes that came into Southampton were transhipped to other ports, because that was the only way that they could be
532WH
transported. Of course, another alternative is that those boxes will not come to Southampton at all, but will instead go to Rotterdam, Antwerp or Le Havre. They will then be transhipped across the channel to the UK at a cost of £100 a box. The UK will then become a nation of feeder ports, and a port strategy will have been determined by default. That would not be a good way forward for this country's ports.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned issues and cases relating to their key ports. We should make sure that our key ports can play their part in making sure that UK plc functions properly and can bring its goods in and out of the country by port. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich reminded us, 95 per cent. of our traffic comes in and out of ports. We undervalue them at our peril. The future of our ports is the future of our country in that respect. If we discard a strategy in favour of piecemeal approach, we will get an outcome, but not one that any of us would want.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I will not try to respond to my hon. Friend on the conundrum about the students and the lecture. However, I listened carefully to what he had to say about having a national ports plan. Is he suggesting that, under such a plan, there would be no need for a public inquiry such as that which has just taken place in Southampton?
Dr. Whitehead: My hon. Friend raises an important question. If one had an over-rigid plan, which said "You must put your quays here, and not there," one would come to his conclusion. However, I have suggested that we should have a national port strategy that says that we must face up to the question of the capacity that our ports need. We must make sure that, one way or another, we determine how to deal with that issue in the round. That would suggest to the inspector who was carrying out an inquiry that there was an underlying issue to deal with before the inquiry had started, and that any of the other considerations that arose in that inquiry should be set against that underlying issue.
It is certainly the case, as far as Dibden bay is concerned, that a large number of issues were quite properly discussed by the inquiry. There were issues of environmental mitigation and they should properly have been inquired into and decided on. However, in the absence of an underlying rationale for the expansion schemes at Dibden bay, Bathside or Shell Haven other than the desire to expand, there was not the balance of consideration in those inquiries that allowed the decisions to be made in the context of a loose strategy that addressed the situation.
The thrust of my remarks is that without that approach, we run the risk of having either a negative strategy that determines the UK's future as a nation of feeder ports or a strategy that effectively ends up with our having to decide where to place ports because we have eliminated all other alternatives by a process of accretion.
4.26 pm
Mr. Russell Brown: I noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in calling me you did not mention any port in my constituency, which was correct, as there is none.
Mrs. Dunwoody: There are not many in Crewe.
Mr. Brown: May I say to my hon. Friend, however, that it is a wonderful port of call.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the other members of the Select Committee on Transport on producing such an excellent report. I shall speak briefly about port development, because that has been mentioned already by most contributors, and also about ports passports.
The case has been made clearly this afternoon that ports are an important economic driver for the UK economy; the figure of 95 per cent. of imports and exports by tonnage going through our ports has been mentioned on several occasions. Without an efficient ports network it will not be possible for the UK, or UK plc, to achieve its full economic potential.
In 2003, the Health and Safety Executive started to develop its civil contingencies capacity to address the heightened national security situation, including port security. The Government's publication, "Modern Ports: A UK Policy" recognises that ports are a dangerous place to work.
In the docks industry, the majority of accidents to workers are caused by falls from heights, slips and trips and workplace transport, while musculoskeletal disorders are a significant occupational health problem. Those four causes of accidents and ill-health form between half and two thirds of the incidents in docks reported to the Health and Safety Executive in any one of the past four years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich mentioned the Dock Regulations 1988. From the trade union point of view, there is concern about the delay in the review of those regulations. which has centred on how the associated approved code of practice should be updated to address the modern circumstances in which UK ports operate. However, I accept that the delay is partly due to the Health and Safety Executive developing its civil contingencies capacity for security reasons.
A mandatory ports passport scheme should be introduced for health, safety, welfare and security reasons. Such a scheme would be similar to the successful construction skills certification scheme that operates in our construction industry. Construction is one of the most dangerous industries in which people work, but steps have been taken through the construction skills certification scheme to bring issues of health, safety and welfare to the fore. The introduction of a successful and well-thought-out scheme would require anybody working in the area of a port to receive a minimum level of safety training before entering that area. They could be provided with an identification badge on which their picture is displayed, and we could list the individual's core competencies. Without such a scheme, it will not be possible to make ports a safer working environment in terms of health, safety, welfare and security.
534WH
The UK is not the only country that suffers in terms of port security. All too often, commercial pressures cause problems that need not exist. According to a website report, there was an incident in America at a port in Los Angeles at 2.30 pm on 28 April, which is last week. As a result of that incident, the dock workers closed the port down to protect themselves, their colleagues and the security of the Wilmington community. That incident involved an explosion—the top, sides and back of a container that was being hauled across the dock were torn off. It was only as a result of the dock workers' actions that further loading was stopped; the company wanted loading to continue even after such an incident had occurred. Commercial pressures can put security and safety at risk.
Briefly, on port development—other hon. Members have put these things more eloquently than I could—it is important to have a strategic overview of the next 30 years that is similar to that in the aviation industry. I regret that I reject this statement by the Government in their response to the Committee's report:
"The Government believes that the present market-led approach to the provision of port capacity is meeting the key challenges in port development, as effectively as could be expected from a national plan."
The development of ports is too important to be left to the vagaries of the free market.
The Government response also states:
"The construction of berths to meet increased demand for direct services will, however, only take place if port developers anticipate that revenues will cover the operating and capital costs."
If that is the case, why did the recent inspector's report on the Dibden bay development identify serious capacity shortages starting in 2006? That point has also been highlighted by many colleagues this afternoon. Even if planning permission had been given, there is no way that the Dibden bay port would have been on stream in 2006. That demonstrates and underpins the need for strategic and planned growth for UK ports. I am also concerned that other ports proposed in the south-east may not obtain planning permission for environmental reasons similar to those used for Dibden bay. If those fears are realised, the UK will have serious port capacity problems in both the short and medium term.
Again, I say that hon. Members have put the case better than I ever could. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I do not have a port in my constituency. The boundary commission has changed the constituencies in Scotland for the next general election, and I hope that after that election, I can take part in such a debate and say that I represent the ferry port of Cairnryan. Only time will tell on that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now go to East Anglia, the east coast and the important port of Harwich.
4.36 pm
Mr. Ivan Henderson: I apologise for not being present at the start of the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), because I am sure that her opening remarks were, as usual, an excellent input to the debate. I also welcome the report.

535WH
I stand as a Member who worked as a docker on a port for 20 years. That port, Bathside bay, has now applied for planning permission for a major development. The unusual thing about the Bathside bay port development is that, unlike other developments, an Act of Parliament—the Harwich Parkeston Quay Act 1988—was passed to allow land reclamation to go ahead. However, we have had to wait until now for that to happen. That legislation was introduced because, like many other ports, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), our port was an old British Rail Sealink port that was sold off cheaply under the previous Government. Someone got a very good deal, and that someone was Sea Containers Ltd.
My constituents and I have waited many years to see the development take place. Even before the 1988 Act was passed, we were hoping that the port development would go ahead, because we needed it. We were losing a vast number of seafaring jobs, because of the previous Government's policy not to protect those jobs. This Government have introduced the tonnage tax. We were also losing dock jobs because of new technology and cargoes moving around different parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover mentioned the train ferries, which we lost when they moved to Dover.
As I said, we have hoped and wished for the development to go ahead for a long time. Like other hon. Members, I believe that the planning processes for the docks are long-winded. I accept that we have to take into account environmental issues, but the processes could be shortened. The inquiry for Bathside bay has started and will continue until the end of September.
Mention was made earlier of the Strategic Rail Authority investing in different parts of the country. Even without major investment in ports, the authority would have to do that in my area because of the higher gauge containers—the 9 ft 6 in boxes. We need investment now, rather than waiting on the outcome of a decision on Bathside bay. Work has already started on heightening the Ipswich tunnel so that we can start using freight across the country. Felixstowe will need it, as will my port. We had containers at my port, but the ones that we have had more recently are for roll-on, roll-off cargoes. Container trains have not gone through it for several years, so it is underused. The Bathside hay project would increase rail usage.
As I said, I worked on the docks for many years, and some Members have mentioned health and safety on docks. The point about dock working is that when there is an accident, one can guarantee that it will be a serious accident, although tripping hazards will always exist. I was also the union health and safety representative in that dock for a number of years, and we must ensure that dock workers are continually trained about safe working practices. However, there is complacency. It is not an excuse, but a lot of dock work involves doing the same job every day, so we need procedures to monitor safety and ensure that safe practices are continued.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) mentioned the security of docks, and we often consider shore-side security. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that, because of the current situation with terrorism in the country, we should
536WH
consider security on the sea side as well as the shore side. There could be terrorist incidents on the river, and I do not know what response there would be. because we have no response vessels in the docks to cope with an incident. The Government should consider that matter seriously.
As my port is one of the old railway docks, a single-lane road, the Al20, runs into it, which hampers the encouragement of extra work because there is no proper access. There is the argument that the road is not getting the necessary usage to make it a dual carriageway. That is a chicken-and-egg argument: if the road were dualled, it would encourage work, but it currently keeps people away.
Other hon. Members have mentioned that they have the deepest ports in the UK, but the Secretary of State for Transport opened the deepest channel leading into the Bathside bay project. and we are already handling some of the largest container ships and cruise ships. Access is very important.
Mr. Wilson: None of us wants to get into an argument about which is the deepest port, and my hon. Friend obviously knows the industry very well, but just for the record and to clarify that nobody is misrepresenting their port, can he give an indication of what size of ships the port can take?
Mr. Henderson: The port can take the largest container ships that currently exist. The channel at Bathside bay already handles the largest container ships. We are looking forward, because even larger ones will be built, so the channels will have to be deepened even further. Other hon. Members mentioned the location of ports, but shipping companies often decide for themselves where they want to put their ships. I do not think that we alone can plan where we would want a major port development; the issue also depends on where a shipper wants to go.
Something that will have a bearing on the haulage companies and whose effects we have noticed in my port already is the working time directive. Traffic has moved back to our area, because of the locations nearer to the port areas that the haulage companies have to use because of the working time directive.
I was not even going to speak today, but as there was time for me to do so, I thought that I would. I did not want to get into a competition on the deepest channel, and I hope that the Minister listens before he makes his decision. It is long overdue for the Bathside bay issue, and the channel is already deep enough. Some 30 per cent. of that land has already been reclaimed. The area has lost many jobs in the shipping and docks industry in the past. A poll of 500 people was conducted either earlier this year or last year, and 84 per cent. of them wanted the port to go ahead. All the statutory authorities support its going ahead, and I believe that English Nature also supports such a development. I therefore hope that when the proposal arrives on the Minister's desk and he makes a decision, he will give both the proposal and the remarks that I have made today due consideration.
4.46 pm
John Thurso: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and her Committee on producing the report and securing the debate. It is an extremely good report on an important subject. Well written and very readable, it succinctly highlights the key problems facing the British ports industry.
After listening to all of today's contributions, no one could be in any doubt as to the importance of ports both in the transport mix and to the economy of the country. It is perhaps more interesting that many people, even those who live quite close to ports, underrate them. They are simply not aware of the volume of economic activity that goes on at ports. I have some first-hand knowledge of that. It is a very small port—probably the smallest mentioned today—but I was chairman of Scrabster harbour trust for some years before being elected to this place. When the building of a new quay was proposed for the ro-ro ferry, the lifeline link, that goes to the Orkney Islands, we commissioned an economic impact assessment. As trustees, we were surprised by how much local business depended on our activity. When one took into account the future activity of extra cruise ships and so on—which is beginning to take place now that the facility has been built—one realised that it was quite an important driver for our community. It is no surprise that even in the bigger port areas, people are unaware of just how important ports are.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned that more than 90 per cent. of UK imports and exports go through our ports, and that the volume is rising. Ports are therefore vital to the UK economy. They are also vital to the economy in another way. which several hon. Members mentioned. We are a transhipment hub. There are a number of ports where containers are loaded, offloaded and reloaded for onward shipment to other ports in the UK and, importantly, in Europe. The point has been well made about how much we are in competition with Europe. There is, therefore, a clear requirement to meet the growing and pressing need for some way of providing the capacity that will be required both in years to come and in the near future. Our ability to provide that capacity will be a key factor in British competitiveness. We have heard that it will put £100 on every container if the containers go to Europe and come back into this country, which simply adds to costs in Britain.
One section in the report that I found of particular interest related to ownership of ports and the fact that 70 per cent. of major ports are privately owned—14 out of 20 by tonnage. It is clear that the lack of capacity in the major ports is the problem. It has been mentioned that the Government's position is largely to leave things to the market, but having listened to today's debate, I think that there is a pretty clear consensus that that is not acceptable.
I want to concentrate my remarks on the larger ports, but I cannot move on without at least mentioning the smaller ports. I hesitate to say whether Falmouth is a smaller port. It is smaller than some of the ones that we have been discussing, but I suspect that it is much larger than what I have in mind as a small port. Small ports have a very valuable contribution to make to their local economies. I mentioned Scrabster, Invergordon, in my
538WH
constituency, has a major role to play in oil rigs. It is also now, with the slowdown in the oil rig refurbishment business, moving into cruise ships. That is becoming an important part of the business and something that we have in common with Falmouth. There is also Wick, although sadly Wick is now much in decay from its great days of the herring industry. Interestingly, all those ports suffer from or are threatened by similar problems to those of the major ports. One problem is light dues, which those who know about the cruise ship industry tell me are quite a barrier for cruise ships in particular.
The other point that I should like to make in passing about small ports is that there is a growing need to move freight in the UK. We have a clear problem of congestion on our roads. We do not want to see increased congestion. We have not yet perhaps provided sufficiently for the railways. Could we not see some return to coastal shipping as a sensible and environmentally friendly way of moving freight for at least part of its journey? Given that the Scottish Executive have their rail freight grant—I am not sure whether there is a variant of that in England—if Governments north and south of the border wish to encourage the movement of freight it would be sensible to have a similar arrangement on offer to ports.
As I said, our problem really lies with the large ports. The critical problem is their lack of capacity, which is allied to the growth in the container trade. There has been a 50 per cent. increase over a decade in twenty foot equivalent units. I have always wanted to know what a TEU was, and if for nothing else I am very grateful to the report for supplying me with the answer. Ships are also getting much larger, and the ultra-large ships will need deep water. I certainly will not enter into the debate about whose channel is deeper; we will just take it as read that we need a lot of deep water. Particularly if we want to create transhipment hubs, we ideally need deep water, land, skills, not too much environmental impact and a reasonably willing local population. Not many places fulfil those criteria.
I was interested to hear what the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) said about Hunterston. There is another port in Scotland that potentially fulfils all the criteria of extremely deep water, an existing facility that could be adapted, a very small amount of environment impact and a local population who are extremely keen to see the development. That is in the Orkney Islands, at Scarpa Flow.
During the Division I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who told me that the Scottish Executive have said that they could see a development of both Hunterston and Orkney and that they would not compete; there would be room for both. Therefore we should not rule out such developments. That information merely underlines and underscores the point that the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North made—that it is sheer folly to consider our port policy simply in the light of what happens to be south of the Scottish border. Clearly this is a UK matter. We need to look at our port strategy for the whole of the UK and consider how best to use our resources.

539WH
I do not want to get into an argument about what would be right for Dibden bay or any other port, but clearly when the whole of the United Kingdom is so often seen as draining to the south-east corner in economic terms, if there are opportunities for spreading wealth to the regions, be they west, north or east, it must make sense to frame our policy in terms of the UK as a whole. I hope that the Government will look seriously at that.
Mr. Wilson: On the point of comparative depth, it is important to clarify that it is not a domestic competition about which is deeper; the precise point is that arguably all the other ports that have been mentioned in the debate are incapable of taking the extra-large vessels that will be developed in the future. The competition to which I refer is not among British ports, but between the limited number of British ports and continental ports. The ships I am talking about cannot go to other British ports; if they do not go to Hunterston they will go to the continent.
John Thurso: The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, which I was trying to make. He has done so far more eloquently than I could have done so I shall let his words stand.
In light of the comments made by many right hon. and hon. Members, it is incredible that the Government have not proposed a strategy. However, I compliment them on what they have done with regard to air transport. In the White Paper "The Future of Air Transport", the Government recognised that planning must have a long time scale. Virtually all the airports are privately owned and privately operated and BAA, a company well loved by many hon. Members, is a private company, which seems to accord with the private status of ports, but the Government decided that the issues were of such importance for the future of our transport that they should have a strategy, put options out to consultation and take that into account. The result is an ongoing process. Whether one agrees with the conclusion on Stansted, Heathrow or any other airport, a process is being undertaken; the Government are giving leadership, which is their job on such an issue.
Having listened to the arguments advanced in the debate, I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. They accepted the need for a strategy on air transport, and I suspect that they are in the process of accepting it in respect of rail transport, because the rail review will recognise the need to plan over the long term.
Mr. Jamieson: We had an air strategy because we had to address the rapidly increasing shortfall in airport capacity. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a similar shortfall in port capacity?
John Thurso: I was accused in a debate recently of using the phrase "with respect" too often, which meant that I did not believe a word that the person I was addressing had said. That is clearly not so in this case but, with respect, if one point has shone through crystal clear it is that by 2006 there will be a serious shortfall in capacity. Furthermore, I understand that the
540WH
Government do not keep any figures of their own; they neither make forecasts nor endorse them, which is a great lack.
Table 5 on page 26 gives three estimates of capacity shortfall, all of which are clear-cut. Paragraph 86, on the same page, states:
"We note the predictions of forecast growth in demand are consistent and all the studies conclude that significant capacity increases are needed."
Paragraph 92 states that the Government broadly accept that. On that basis, my case is made. I hope that the Minister will accept it and think about proposing a strategy. It is the most critical issue in the report.
I want to raise two further points. The first is health and safety, to which several hon. Members have drawn attention. It is a short part of the report, but it is absolutely crucial. It will come as a severe shock to many people who are not part of the ports industry, or knowledgeable about it, that it is far more dangerous to work in than mining or the construction industry—and construction is widely regarded as one of the most dangerous industries. It is important that the Government do everything and anything they can to ameliorate things.
I want to give the Government credit where they are due it. I remember from my time in Scrabster that there was a paper—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is not about to come to the end of his remarks, I will suspend the sitting because there is a Division in the House.
John Thurso: May I speak for one minute after the Division?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Indeed; the hon. Gentleman has the floor and is speaking legitimately and to the report. I suspend the sitting for 15 minutes.
5 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
5.15 pm
On resuming—
John Thurso: I was about to give credit where it is due to the Government on safety. I recall that at Scrabster a document came out as part of the trust ports review, which we implemented, that tremendously improved safety in the port. That process needs to continue, as is highlighted in the report. Above all, we need the extra inspectors for the Health and Safety Executive that are mentioned in the report.
Finally, the current system of light dues is inequitable. It is based on the assumption that the user should pay, whereas the ships that pay—the major cargo ships and cruise ships, and so on—do not need the navigational aids because they have their own on-board aids. The people who make most use of the navigational aids are those in leisure craft, but they pay nothing. In addition, we give around £4 trillion to £6 million a year to the Irish to fund their navigational aids, and that is increasing next year to —7 million. It seems to be a rather curious system. There is a good argument for getting rid

541WH
of it. I hope that the Government will consider that seriously, will conduct an economic impact study and will get rid of it.
The key point that has come out of today's debate is that there is a clear need for a strategy. The Government must give leadership. I hope that the Minister will listen to the entreaties and consensus from all parties.
5.17 pm
Mr. Christopher Chope: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Chairman of the Select Committee, on an excellent report. I also congratulate the Committee members. The report is typically incisive, with few punches pulled and a lot of common sense. It is clear from the report that the Select Committee's view is that the Government give port policy too low a priority.
In the past few days the Department for Transport published its annual report 2004, which extends to 100 pages without appendices but contains only eight lines on ports. That illustrates the low priority of port policy in the Minister's Department. I hope that if nothing else happens, this debate and what follows from it will make him change his mind about the priorities to be accorded to ports, port development and the future of UK competitiveness, which is at the heart of this debate.
The fact that the Department says little about ports in its annual report is all the more surprising when one considers that it has direct responsibility for the trust ports, which have been defined as public corporations. On several occasions I have asked the Minister to explain the anomalies and inconsistencies of policy that arise from that definition, including a requirement that there should be a rate of return for those public corporations imposed by his Department, in the same way that it imposes rates of return on other public corporations.
On 18 March, the Minister assured me that he would write to me with details of how the trust ports compare with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency trading fund. He said:
"If it will be helpful, I will give a full explanation."—[Official Report. Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 18 March 2004; c. 12.]
That will be helpful, particularly when we receive his full explanation, which I hope will be forthcoming and which he probably accepts is now somewhat overdue.
The issue of trust ports is particularly relevant to the comments of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). He said that Dover port is essentially a private enterprise, but the fact is that, under present rules, it is defined as a public corporation. That means that, if the port wishes to borrow substantial sums for its own investment, it could count as public expenditure; that is not just an academic point, but one of real significance, and it also affects the port of Poole, not far from my constituency. When the Minister spoke at the ports lunch recently, there was an air of expectancy in the room; people thought that he would clarify the issue of the status of trust ports.
I must respond to the points made by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr.
542WH
Whitehead), because, as the former said, I had the privilege of representing the city and the port of Southampton for some nine years. During that time, two major events—with which I was proud to be associated—contributed significantly to the improvement and competitiveness of the port. The first was the abolition of the dock labour scheme, and the second was the completion of the M3 motorway. Both those policies were to the benefit of the port of Southampton and those who work in it. I hope that the Minister will respond to the cogent points made by the right hon. Member for Southampton. Itchen and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, because the port of Southampton is far too important to the national interest to be allowed to stagnate.
The immediate response of Associated British Ports to the outcome of the Dibden bay inquiry seemed to be one of utter despair, and it more or less said, "We're going to take our toys away." I hope that it did not really mean that, and that it will continue to find ways in which it can expand the port in order to meet the needs of the area. One cannot have an enterprise that cannot grow; it must be able to grow in order to thrive—indeed, to survive.
An interesting news report in this week's Financial Times said that Southampton's loss could end up being Liverpool's gain. It was therefore interesting to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman). I asked her whether she had taken on board the big threat posed to the port of Liverpool by the Government's ludicrous wind farm policy, and she referred to the Select Committee's report published on 6 May on navigation aids and the Energy Bill. She suggested that we could debate that report in some months' time, perhaps in Westminster Hall; but this is a subject of immediate and critical importance, because next Monday is the Second Reading of the Energy Bill.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I think that the hon. Gentleman mildly misunderstood what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) was saying. We have specifically tagged that report to Monday's debate. The problem was probably that I was muttering in her ear; I may have slightly dismayed her, and so the hon. Gentleman got an answer that he misinterpreted.
Mr. Chope: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying that. My concern is that Monday's debate will not be answered by a Transport Minister. However, today we have the opportunity to get reassurance from such a Minister—I hope that he will give it—that the Government will accept new clauses 100 and 101, which were inserted into the Energy Bill on Report in the House of Lords. That seems to be a basic minimum in order to ensure that the viability of three estuarial ports is not severely and unnecessarily jeopardised by the Bill. I hope that the Minister can give us that unequivocal commitment in his response, and that there will be plenty of time for him to respond to that and other points made in this important debate.
The Select Committee report makes some important points about light dues and the cost of paying for navigation aids. I hope the Government will respond positively and say that they will conduct more research into the issue. However, I would suggest to hon. Members that a far more important threat is the

543WH
Government's plan deliberately to create additional navigational hazards, which is what their current offshore wind farm policy represents.
I spent many of my later student days in the constituency of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton), so I know the area well. She emphasised the importance of development to the economy in Falmouth and quoted the amazing figure that Cornwall's GDP is 59 per cent. of the European Union average. I presume that she is up to speed on the outcome of the regional assembly held in Trowbridge on Friday, which I was lucky enough to be able to attend. That assembly considered an issue of great importance for the economy of Cornwall, namely whether there should be a second trunk road connection to it. That is obviously important for the port of Falmouth, so I am sure that, like the Minister, she will have been pleased that the regional assembly's verdict was that the A303/A30 should be dualled through the Blackdown hills in preference to the alternative. Like many other people, I believed that work on both roads should be completed.
Ms Atherton: I am aware of the regional assembly that took place on Friday. However, there was some dismay in Cornwall that the vote went through by only one vote.
Mr. Chope: I agree with the hon. Lady that it was disappointing that more people did not recognise that we need two routes to the west country and the peninsula. However, as we know in politics, one vote is enough, and I hope that it will be sufficient to persuade the Minister to delay no longer in announcing that the Government will go ahead with the A303/A30 dualling. If he could announce that in his response to today's debate, it would be an additional bonus.
Many hon. Members mentioned infrastructure and the need to consider ports not in isolation but in the context of the rail and road links, which are an essential part of a proper port transport system. I hope that the Minister will try to develop a coherent, integrated and joined-up strategy. It is clear from many hon. Members' comments that that has not yet been developed.
I should like briefly to refer to the situation in my locality, where we have the expanding and increasingly significant trust port of Poole. The port of Poole needs good road links, and the road links between it and the A31 have been due for improvement for a long time. The Government cancelled the scheme, and it is now proposed that it should be reinstated at the behest of the local highways authority. If it is going to be viable, it will need some Government funding and support in the widest sense.
At the moment, the Government's policy is that the A350, running north from Poole towards the Bath and Bristol conurbation, should be downgraded from trunk road status and that the traffic from the port of Poole to Bristol should travel along the A31, up the M3 to the A34 and then back down on the M4, thereby adding 20 or 30 miles to each journey. The Government have argued that that is a perfectly reasonable proposition, but it is not reasonable unless the logjams and bottlenecks on that route are removed or ameliorated. For example, the junction of the A34 and M3 frequently
544WH
causes congestion fur miles. Similarly, there is the problem of the bottleneck at Ringwood, on the A31 as it approaches the A338. All those examples involve issues of infrastructure, and the infrastructure needs to be improved if we are to have a coherent port policy.
There were examples of lack of progress in Dover even when I was the Minister with responsibility for roads. I was keen to promote schemes to ensure that there was a proper route into the port of Dover, but to this day, as the hon. Member for Dover said, that has not been achieved. I hope that the Minister will be able to make some unequivocal pledges on that.
Is the whole of the Government's policy on spending on transport infrastructure as chaotic as most people seem to think? The evidence seems to point that way. I hope that the Minister will respond to the serious issues raised in the Select Committee report, and I hope that the Committee Chairman will keep at it on the issue of ports and port policy. The need for a ports strategy is paramount.
5.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): It is a pleasure to reply to such a full and comprehensive debate—one of the fullest and most comprehensive that we have had on any subject for a long time. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on bringing this issue before the Chamber, and I warmly congratulate her Committee on the work that it has done on this extremely important issue. For once, I agree with the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink). The report was not just good; it was excellent. I am delighted to have the opportunity this afternoon to make some comments on behalf of the Government in response to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich quoted many statistics on ports, and I will allude to some of those in a moment. We have had an interesting tour of the ports of the United Kingdom: we went to Southampton twice we were in Essex briefly and then we heard a lot about Hunterston. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and my right hon Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on making their point so robustly on behalf of Hunterston and Scotland.
We then went to Liverpool, Falmouth, Dover and Harwich; we even found ourselves in Scrabster at one stage. I am not sure where the port is in Dumfries; I am sure that there is no port at Crewe, and I do not think that there is one at Christchurch either, although that is fairly near the sea.
Mr. Chope: Poole.
Mr. Jamieson: Poole is fairly near.
I do not want to enter an argument about which port is the deepest. However, now we come to Plymouth, and my port is a very deep port. The amount of cargo that comes into Plymouth is somewhat limited, although we have an extremely large ferry coming in and out. However, my port, the Devon port, has some extremely large ships. They tend to be grey, have large guns on them and serve a different, but no less important purpose—national security.

545WH
I will cover a couple of the points raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). If there is a letter outstanding, I apologise to hire. I will ensure that he receives a response and will be happy to write to him. The hon. Gentleman started by chiding the Government for not having a policy on ports. yet he said almost nothing about ports. We heard about his past and about roads. If he thinks that he will get a decision today on the A358, the A30 and the A303, I am afraid that he will be sorely disappointed. If I started talking about those, you would rightly draw that to in attention and bring me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Gentleman was a representative of a constituency that had one of the largest ports in the country—the important port of Southampton—he said precious little about it today.
Mr. Chope: I am sure that the Minister appreciates the difference between being in government, when one has to make decisions on a day-to-day basis, and a party that is preparing for government. We will announce our manifesto in due course.
Mr. Jamieson: If the hon. Gentleman is serious about preparing for government, he will find, as time goes on, that he will have to have some notional policy on one or two things and be able to tell us what it is.
When the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, it showed precious little interest in shipping and ports. I am one of the longest serving Shipping Ministers since the war, and the second longest serving in Europe—which probably says more about how briefly others have occupied this job than it does about how long I have been doing it. People from all parties—from across the board in terms of their political perspective, and from throughout Europe—recognise that this Government have taken shipping issues seriously. We are the first Government in many years to have done so. I welcome today's debate focusing on ports, which sit at the very heart of our integrated transport system for freight. This is an opportunity to debate with hon. Members Government policy for an important sector.
The United Kingdom is one of the most open economies in the world. As an island nation with more coast than any other country in the European Union bar Greece, we take a great interest in the quality of our coast, environmental protection, and the use of shipping and ports. I do not want to repeat the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich about statistics, but it is not just the scale of the port sector that strikes me—in Europe it is by far the, largest in terms of tonnage—but the fact that our ports handle about 95 per cent. of the volume, and about 75 per cent. of the value, of all our trade. The maritime industry makes a significant contribution to our economy. It has a turnover approaching £40 billion per year, and accounts for about 250,000 jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said that there are about 300 ports in this country. There are, in fact, 1,040 commercially active ports, wharves and terminals around our 10,500 miles of coastline. I agree with him that some of them are not large, but there are nevertheless many ports around our coast.
I want to address the important issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. Throughput does not necessarily equate to efficiency,
546WH
but I am pleased that UK ports are some of the most efficient in Europe in the way in which they handle goods and the volume handled per metre of quay and per hectare of container storage. We can expect that efficiency to increase steadily.
My hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich and for Dover (Mr. Prosser) emphasised the importance of ports to the United Kingdom economy. I assure my hon. Friends that that is of great importance to the Government. We recognise the importance of the sector to the health of the UK economy and local economies—especially larger ports and sometimes smaller ports such as Falmouth.
Ms Atherton: Can we get this size and depth issue resolved? Falmouth port might be smaller than some, but it is larger than many.
Mr. Jamieson: I think that my hon. Friend is saying that hers is a medium-sized port. The port of Falmouth is extremely important, be it small or otherwise, and ports smaller than Falmouth are important to their local communities. We do all in our power to ensure that the sector remains healthy and competitive, and we must help to ensure that all our ports continue to respond to the growing needs of our very successful economy, which is importing and exporting more goods than ever before.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) asked about the importance of Southampton. I entirely understand his disappointment. I shall not go into the reasons why the decision was made—it is not the right place to rehearse those arguments. I have visited the port; I was invited by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. We examined some of the more general issues about transport in Southampton, Portsmouth and Hampshire. We focused on the port and the importance to Southampton of the configuration of transport. I can give an assurance that we want to make the best use of the capacity at Southampton docks and that we will address many of the important points that have been raised about them.
The continued development of ports cannot happen at any cost. We want a ports industry where new infrastructure is environmentally sound and sustainable. Success must go hand in hand with safety and sustainability. We want an industry that trains its staff and provides them with modern and safe working conditions.
Despite the obvious importance of the ports sector to the United Kingdom economy, I have to say to the hon. Member for Christchurch that it is notable that the Administration prior to 1997 put no coherent ports policy in place following the privatisations. "Modern Ports: A UK policy" was the first serious attempt in well over a decade to provide a policy framework for the ports sector. We now have a stable framework for development that supports the industry in maintaining and improving its performance, in addressing the challenges it faces and in seizing opportunities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich rightly referred to the issue of statistics in her remarks today and in the Transport Committee report. The Committee criticised the Government on the extent of

547WH
the available data about the ports sector. We are well aware of the importance of good statistics on a sector that matters a lot for the continuing success of the UK economy.
The Government were already addressing many of the points that have been raised in the Transport Committee report. Our efforts have concentrated on delivering good quality information on port traffic. We are now looking at how we might collect better statistics in areas such as port manpower and safety. Those areas were a major concern for the Transport Committee.
Mr. Wilson: I just wanted to try out a statistic on my hon. Friend. I am sure that he is aware that 30 per cent. of vessels currently under construction are over 8,000 TEU. Where in the United Kingdom does he think they are going to land?
Mr. Jamieson: That is a good point. It highlights why we need to collect the information that we are collecting in the way that we are.
Our efforts have concentrated on delivering good quality information on port traffic. We are now looking at how we can collect better statistics. However, our first priority has been to introduce a comprehensive maritime traffic data collection system to underpin this work. That is now in place, under the aegis of the maritime statistics directive. We have worked hard to ensure that it produces robust results and we can now devote more time to developing the other key data that the Select Committee rightly identified.
We have set up a Government-led working group to deliver comprehensive information on employment at UK ports and a cast-iron methodology for producing data on ports sector accident rates. We hope that all of that will be in place and delivering results by early 2005. The UK standard industrial classification is being devised and the Government are actively involved in the process of ensuring that ports can be separately identified in the new classification. However, securing the alignment of these changes internationally takes time. We expect the new classification to be implemented by 2007.
My hon. Friends the Members for Cunninghame, South and for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) rightly raised the issue of safety in ports. It has been said both in this debate and by the Committee that our ports must provide a safe working environment, and we fully agree. We are well aware that both the dry and wet sides of dock work can be extremely dangerous. As has been pointed out, nowadays more people are injured and killed in the docks than in the mines.
The accident rate is still unacceptably high. The Government, the Health and Safety Commission, the Health and Safety Executive and the industry share the common goal of making ports a safer place to work in. The key issue is how to best achieve that. The Health and Safety Commission's new strategy for occupational health and safety to 2010 and beyond recognises that health and safety works best when industry embraces its responsibility and commits itself to a leading role in partnership with the Health and Safety Executive. I am pleased to say that much progress has been made in
548WH
recent years in engaging senior management in the docks industry, and it is now well placed to take advantage of that approach. The launch of the port safety initiative, in response to the Government's revitalising health and safety strategy, demonstrates our commitment to tackling the problems of health and safety.
There are some encouraging signs of improvements in safety in our docks, and the latest accident statistics show that from 2001–02 to 2002–03 there was a 15 per cent. decrease in the overall accident rate in dock work. Those statistics are only provisional but seem nevertheless to indicate a reduction in casualties in ports. The incident investigation skills of the marine accident investigation branch are also contributing significantly to the identification of the cause of accidents in harbour waters, and with that information the industry can achieve an ongoing improvement in that important area.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Had my hon. Friend thought of making a glancing reference to the fact that there are not enough inspectors to carry out the job?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes; that too is an important issue and in response to the report, we are addressing it with the Health and Safety Executive, the marine accident investigation branch and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which his responsibilities for safety and security issues at sea.
The issue of future planning took some of our time here today, and there was a suggestion that there could be no expansion of port capacity because of environmental and other reasons. One example is the application in 2002 for expansion of Felixstowe, which received approval, notwithstanding the habitats directive. Having struck a balance, we made a decision in favour of that development.
Mr. Henderson: Did not that expansion go to an inquiry because of me objection?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes; that is sadly the case with many inquiries. If there is an outstanding objection, particularly if it is from certain legitimate bodies such as a local authority, the matter will go to a public inquiry. That is a feature of our democratic planning system, and sometimes it causes great frustration. I fully appreciate the thrust of what my hon. Friend is saying. However, it is only right that if the industry is to pursue its activities responsibly, it must ensure that it is not put at a disadvantage to our European competitors. The Government will he alert to any proposals for new legislation, and will actively seek to ensure that it is applied fairly across the European Union.
Looking ahead, hon. Members may not be surprised to hear me say that there are more challenges heading our way from the European ports, and the main gateway to the UK clearly cannot be left unguarded. We are working hard with the ports sector to implement a new, rigorous maritime security regime, to which some of my hon. Friends alluded—not least my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson)—to meet international and Community regulations. I accept his point that it is import ant to address security matters not

549WH
just in ports. but in areas around ports and out to sea. He will know that there is a regime in place for security for ports, but also one for ships at sea. Perhaps we could explore that in more detail at another time.
The UK ports and maritime policy is market-led. We do not determine the commercial strategy, nor do we fund operations. The continuing success of that approach is clearly demonstrated by the growth of the United Kingdom flag and fleet since 1997 and by the number of proposals coming forward, not just for the expansion of major container facilities, as has been mentioned, but for port developments, large and small, around the country.
I was interested that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), asserted in an intervention that the Liberal Democrats accept that there may be a shortfall of port capacity in the future. I mention that because in a previous debate—long before his time—his party may not have fully accepted that, so I am pleased to hear his assurances today.
We must continue to build on the existing solid base, so that, in conjunction with the devolved Administrations, we can continue to ensure that the Government's policy effectively promotes a successful, sustainable and competitive ports industry throughout the United Kingdom, with high safety standards and good environmental practice.
Dr. Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend accept that the increase in ships coming on to out flag in the UK arose from Government intervention? Setting a tonnage tax and providing other forms of non market-based assistance to shipowners has ensured that flags have come back to the UK. Government intervention caused the change, not the market.
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, indeed. We did not oblige ships to come on to our flag. My hon. Friend is quite right: we intervened to introduce the tonnage tax, which is one of the most successful tonnage taxes and is now being emulated by other countries. The difference, however, is that we introduced a training regime with our tonnage tax as well. We also took ships only of the very highest quality. I am delighted that the ships that have come on to the UK flag are the very best in the world. Our flag is rated as the top in the world and I am proud to stand here. on behalf of the Government and the United Kingdom, and say that. That outcome was due to some intervention and tweaking. Also, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has been much more consumer-oriented than it was previously and has had a role in effecting the change.
My hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Dover, for Cunninghame, South and for Dumfries all talked about port development planning and the need for a national strategy. However, in developing such a strategy we must of course give due regard to meeting environmental standards. We fully understand that there are pressures on existing port capacity and that further facilities will be needed to handle the growth in both container traffic and the size of ships. The UK port sector has risen to that challenge
550WH
in the past. As a result, several proposals have been made in the last few years for major new facilities across the United Kingdom. In conjunction with the devolved Administrations, we will continue to make decisions on each proposal in a consistent manner, after weighing all the relevant factors in the balance.
Mr. Donohoe: But will my hon. Friend give us an assurance on what I identified as a possible problem relating to the Strategic Rail Authority?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes indeed—I hope that I will be able to get to that. Rail and road links to the ports are extremely important.
I reinforce something that we said in our response to the Committee's report.
Mr. Denham: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Jamieson: I will in a moment—let me finish this point. We said in our response that the market-led approach was meeting capacity and was likely to continue to do so. However, we also said:
"The Government will continue to monitor the situation, but would only be prepared to intervene in this way if it were clear that the market-led approach were failing."
Should we see that the market-led approach was failing, that would be the opportune moment at which to intervene further.
Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend says that he wants to take individual decisions in a consistent way. When Southampton was considered, the inspector had to bear in mind that there were three other proposals in the south-east and the rest of Europe. There are now, for the Bathside inquiry, only two other proposals in the UK. If Bathside gets the go-ahead, the other two places will know that somewhere else has gone ahead and will thereby be disadvantaged. How can he possibly say that the four schemes are being considered on an equitable basis? It depends on a scheme's position in the queue and on the decisions taken ahead in that queue.
Mr. Jamieson rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A Division has been called. I believe that you will be more than two minutes, Mr. Jamieson.
Mr. Jamieson: I am prepared to be guided by hon. Members.
Mrs. Dunwoody: We might get an answer if the Minister goes on for another 10 minutes!
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Minister still has a certain amount to say. It is an important report, which merits the Chamber reconvening after another 15 minutes.
5.55 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
6.10 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Jamieson: Unfortunately, the debate has been broken up by three Divisions. I appreciate that some hon. Members have had to leave the House for their constituencies so, if I have not been able to cover certain issues, I undertake to correspond with them.
I wish to complete my point about the market-led approach. I was saying that, for all the work and time that it requires, a national plan would add little to what has been achieved by the planning and approval system that we have now, with its thorough and effective scrutiny at public inquiries, which is most important especially when strong environmental issues are involved.
A national plan would also cut across the core responsibility of port operators and those who invest in the sector. There are real dangers in the Government's attempting to pick winners through a national plan. We must be careful about interfering with the commercial imperatives that have given the United Kingdom our port system and logistics industry. As I said before the break, as long as it continues to deliver, we will support such an approach, but if it does not deliver, there will clearly be a role for the Government's intervention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) asked about the application in her constituency. As she would expect, the harbour order will be considered when it is received by the Department. She and other hon. Members also referred to the important matter of the appraisal framework for port projects and the time that it takes. We have now published an appraisal framework for ports that is derived from the guidance for the multi-modal studies and have taken account of the specific effect of port developments. We believe that it will make project development and the consenting process much better. We have in place a template for such applications and it will help developers to anticipate the questions likely to arise in the consenting process. It will also help those
552WH
who wish to object to a development. We want better quality decisions and we want them to be made more speedily. My hon. Friend also referred to rail links, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South. The work to improve the gauge for freight traffic is already under way in the midlands as part of the west coast main line upgrade, and that includes the gauge clearances of the routes from Stafford to Manchester Trafford Park via Crewe and Macclesfield.
I assure my rig ht hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen that the Strategic Rail Authority is working closely with Network Rail, the freight operators, the regional authorities and the development agencies in planning: and funding the development of the rail network between the United Kingdom ports and the inland locations. Specific work is currently under way to clear a route between the haven ports and the west coast main line to carry the larger 9 ft 6 in containers on standard wagons. It is expected that that work will be completed by the end of this year.
It is the Government's policy to adopt an integrated, sustainable approach to freight distribution throughout the United Kingdom. It must bring benefits to the economy and to the environment. The long-term goal is to enable more freight to move by rail instead of road. We are making a particular effort to move some heavy freight not by road or rail, but by water. We clearly recognise the vital importance of the continued economic well-being of the ports industry to the United Kingdom. Ports are our essential link to our logistics and supply chain and whatever their size or traffic, their effective operation clearly helps to underpin the successful economic performance of the United Kingdom. We therefore welcome the opportunity for the House to debate the Government's policy on such an important area. I am aware that so many good quality points were raised today and that they need dealing with. I hope that we have an opportunity in the future to return to such issues and debate them further.
It being fifteen minutes past Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Animal and Plant Disease
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many outbreaks of each notifiable(a) animal and (b) plant disease there have been in each of the last 10 years. [165201]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The two tables placed in the Library of the House summarise details of outbreaks of each(a) notifiable animal and (b) plant disease/notifiable pests of plants in each of the last 10 years.

  The first table details animal diseases in Great Britain as notifiable under the Animal Health Act 1981.

  The second table details outbreaks in England and Wales, as Defra's Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate are responsible for dealing with outbreaks both in England, and in Wales under a specific plant health concordat.

  Animal Fodder
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 129W, on animal fodder, if she will list the developing countries which exported animal feeding stuffs and cereals into the (a) UK and (b) EU in 2002. [168796]

  Alun Michael
  Tables placed in the Library of the House provide details of exports of cereals and feeding stuff for animals to the UK and the EU from developing countries in 2002 as recorded in the UK Overseas Trade Statistics and the equivalent systems of other member states.

  Overseas Trade Statistics (and the equivalent systems of other member states are subject to a degree of error. Although the overall level of errors is low, small values are affected disproportionately. Care should therefore be taken when interpreting such data.

  Batteries
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of small, domestic-type batteries were recycled in(a) 2001, (b) 2002 and (c) 2003. [164533]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 26 April 2004]As far as we know, all collected batteries are recycled, but the collection rate is very low. We understand that the UK sold 25,100 tonnes of consumer batteries in 2002 and 125 tonnes were collected separately. This equates to a low collection rate of only 1 per cent.
  1650W
  In 2003, Britannia Zinc recycled 5 tonnes as part of the Bristol Battery Recycling Campaign. All other collected consumer batteries are sent abroad for recycling.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to encourage those using disposable batteries to switch to rechargeable ones. [167748]

  Mr. Morley
  The environmental case for switching to rechargeable batteries is not straightforward as not all applications are appropriate for rechargeable batteries. The Government are therefore not taking any steps on this matter.

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research is being undertaken by or on behalf of her Department on bovine TB. [169744]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The following table shows the TB research projects currently being funded by Defra (April 2004):

  Code

  Research Project

  Contractor

  SE3004

  Multivariate analysis of risk factors affecting tuberculosis incidence in cattle herds—phase 1

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3008

  Detection and enumeration of Mycobacterium bovis from clinical and enviromental samples

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3013

  Pathogenesis and diagnosis of tuberculosis in cattle—complementary field studies

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3017

  Development and evaluation of strain typing methods for Mycobacterium bovis

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3024

  Low dose TB infection in cattle: disease dynamics and diagnostic strategies

  Queens University Belfast/Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3026

  Bovine TB transmission in restocked herds: risk factors and dynamics

  Warwick University

  SE3027

  Pathogenesis and immunology of Mycobacterium bovis infection in cattle

  Institute of Animal Health

  SE3028

  The development of improved tests for the diagnosis of Mycobacterium bovis infection in cattle

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3029

  An investigation of potential badger/cattle interactions and how cattle husbandry methods may limit these

  Central Science Laboratory

  SE3030

  Application of postgenomics to reveal the basis of virulence, pathogenesis and transmissability of Mycobacterium bovis

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3032

  The long term intensive ecological and epidemiological investigation of a badger population

  Central Science Laboratory

  SE3033

  Housing of naturally infected cattle (field reactors) at VLA for immunological and bacteriological analysis

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3107

  Develop innovative methods to estimate badger population density

  Central Science Laboratory

  1651W

  Code

  Research Project

  Contractor

  SE3110

  A molecular genetic analysis of badger social structure and bovine TB

  Central Science Laboratory

  SE3116

  The economic value in changes in badger populations

  Reading University

  SE3206

  Genome sequence analysis of Mycobacterium bovis

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3208

  Generation of vaccine candidates against Mycobacterium bovis

  Vererinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3209

  Testing of vaccine candidates for Bovine Tuberculosis using a low does aerosol challenge guinea pig modal

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3212

  Testing TB vaccines in cattle

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3215

  Development of immunological assays for the detection of Mycobacterium bovis infection in badgers

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3216

  Development and testing of vaccines against badger tuberculosis

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  SE3217

  Kinetics of skin test response in bovine TB

  Institute of Animal Health

  ZF0531

  The ecological consequences of removing badgers from an ecosystem

  Central Science Laboratory

  A full list of Defra's research projects can be found online at: http://www2.defra.gov.uk/research/ project_data/Default.asp

  Defra is also funding the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and associated research (the Road Traffic Accident Survey in seven English counties and the TB99 Epidemiological Questionnaire), as well as a Gamma Interferon Policy Pilot.

  A limited survey of wildlife (badgers, and deer with suspicious lesions) killed on the roads in the Furness Peninsula, Cumbria is also underway.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will respond to the Godfrey Report on the Government's tuberculosis strategy. [170134]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On 6 April, Defra announced the publication of a report from an independent scientific panel reviewing the progress of the Randomised Badger Culling Trial and associated Defra research, as part of a wider review of Defra's science. The audit panel was chaired by Professor Charles Godfray FRS, director of the Natural Environment Research Council's Centre for Population Biology at Imperial College London, and comprised experts from the fields of veterinary and wildlife population epidemiology, applied statistics and population biology.

  The Government will give careful consideration to the complex recommendations of the report. The review's conclusions will inform Defra's wider review of TB strategy. Defra has extended the deadline for the public consultation on the TB Strategy review until 4 June, to allow sufficient time for the assimilation of, and comment on, this report.

  BSE
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when it is proposed that the over-30-month scheme for beef will end; and if she will make a statement. [170625]

  Alun Michael
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA) review of the Over-30-Month rule was completed in July 2003 and recommended that it would be acceptable on public health grounds to replace the rule with BSE testing of cattle in two stages. Cattle born after August 1996 could be allowed into the food chain, after being tested for BSE, with the possibility of complete replacement of the rule from July 2005. Health Ministers are still considering the FSA advice, but it has already been decided that, for practical reasons, cattle born before August 1996 will be permanently excluded from the food chain. We are now unlikely to see any changes to the OTMS before January 2005, due to the legislative process that must take place once a decision has been reached by Ministers.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she(a) has in place and (b) is proposing further to reduce UK emissions of carbon dioxide between 2002 and 2010. [169590]

  Mr. Morley
  The Climate Change Programme, published in 2000, sets out an integrated package of policies and measures to reduce the UK's emissions of carbon dioxide from all sectors of the economy. Policies in the programme include the Climate Change Levy which is helping to fund measures to promote better energy efficiency in business and the public sector; the UK emissions trading scheme; targets to provide 10 per cent. of the UK's electricity from renewable sources of energy by 2010; the Energy Efficiency Commitment requiring electricity and gas suppliers to help domestic customers to save energy and cut fuel bills and; reforms to vehicle excise duty and company car taxation to support the aims of the European Union (EU) voluntary agreements with car manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency by at least 25 per cent. on 1995 levels by 2008–09.

  The Climate Change Programme will be reviewed later this year, which will provide an opportunity to introduce new policies, or strengthen existing ones, if the conclusion is that more needs to be done to keep us on track towards our domestic goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. below 1990 levels y 2010.

  The 2003 Energy White Paper set out an ambitious long-term strategy for UK energy policy and real progress has been made towards implementation of the White Paper's commitments. "Creating a Low Carbon Economy—First annual Report on Implementation of the Energy White Paper", published on 26 April, sets out the progress made to date and summarises the practical steps already taken in pursuit of the longterm goals.
  1653W
  On 26 April, the Government also published its Energy Efficiency Action Plan which details action to meet the energy efficiency commitments set out in the Energy White Paper. The Action Plan sets out a package of policies and measures that are expected to save around 12 million tonnes of carbon by 2010; a 20 per cent. increase on the Energy White Paper's commitment of 10 million tonnes.

  Key new measures in the Action Plan include, increasing the activity levels for the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) over the period 2005–08 to be roughly double those under the current EEC, and the EEC to continue to 2011 with a review in 2007; a new commitment by central Government to procure only high standard (top quartile) buildings and; a commitment to consider ways to better communicate about climate change, raising awareness of the links between climate change, energy policy and the choices we make as individuals, businesses and public sector organisations.

  Our combined heat and power (CHP) Strategy, published on 26 April, confirmed our belief that CHP has an important role to play in achieving our Energy White Paper aims and our continued aim towards our target of 10 gigawatts of Good Quality CHP capacity in the UK by 2010.

  Policies and measures are also being developed at an EU level under the European Climate Change Programme (ECCP). These measures, which include the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, will complement measures being taken at a national level, and reduce emissions across all member states.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes she has made to the carbon dioxide reduction target relative to 1990 levels within the National Allocation Plan to implement the EU Emissions Trading Directive following discussions with the DTI. [167753]

  Mr. Morley
  Government are committed to the key principles for setting the total level of allowances to UK installations as set out in the draft National Allocation Plan (NAP) in January. The key principle of the UK allocation methodology is that the total level of allowances for the first phase will be less than the projected emissions of the UK installations covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. This reduction will be set on the basis that these installations would deliver a further 5.5 million tonnes CO2 savings by 2010.

  We have always said that there may be changes to the total level of allowances, published in the draft NAP in January, as a result of various factors including continued updating and refinements to the energy projections, reclassification of sectors, identification of additional installations and corrections to historical emissions data. The detail of these changes will be set out in the NAP to be published shortly.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what 1654W
  assumptions have been made in respect of potential extra cuts in carbon emissions beyond those already anticipated in a business-as-usual scenario in setting the carbon dioxide reduction target relative to 1990 levels within the National Allocation Plan to implement the EU Emissions Trading Directive. [167754]

  Mr. Morley
  The energy projections used for calculating carbon dioxide emissions are driven by a number of key assumptions, which relate to economic growth, fossil fuel prices and population and industrial output. These assumptions incorporate the projected savings from the UK Climate Change Programme.

  The total level of allowances set out in the National Allocation Plan also take into account an additional saving of 5.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide which emissions trading was envisage to deliver in the UK's Climate Change Programme by 2010.

  In May, the Department for Trade and Industry intends to publish a working paper on the updated emissions projections, the energy and other assumptions underpinning them as they stood for use in the National Allocation Plan to be published shortly.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what weight was given to(a) the desired environmental outcome and (b) expected energy trends in determining the carbon dioxide reduction target relative to 1990 levels under the EU Emissions Trading Directive. [167756]

  Mr. Morley
  The EU Emissions Trading Scheme is central to our work to move towards a low carbon economy. In the draft National Allocation Plan, published on 19 January, we demonstrated the UK's commitment to tackling climate change and signalled our plans for an ambitious approach to begin from phase one of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. The draft plan committed us to reducing UK carbon dioxide emissions by 5.5 million tonnes beyond those measures already set out in the Climate Change Programme and we have no intention of going back on that commitment.

  The expected energy trends were incorporated into the baseline for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and are currently being updated. The total level of allowances to be published in the National Allocation Plan shortly will reflect the most recent energy projections and the UK's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the 20 per cent. cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010 she expects to be achieved through reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector. [160880]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Climate Change Programme, published in November 2000, seeks to reduce emissions from all sectors of the economy. The Programme was intended to be flexible and cost effective and did not set targets for individual sectors.
  1655W
  UK carbon dioxide emissions were around 165 million tonnes of carbon (MtC) in 1990. Reducing emissions by 20 per cent. will correspond to a reduction of around 33 MtC by 2010.

  Policies in the Climate Change Programme to reduce emissions from transport include the EU voluntary agreements on carbon dioxide emissions from cars, backed up by changes to company car taxation and vehicle excise duty; the 10 year plan for transport and; sustainable distribution in Scotland and Wales. At the time the Programme was published, it was estimated that these policies could reduce transport emissions by a total of 5.7 MtC below the projected business as usual emissions for 2010 which would have reduced the projected increase in emissions from transport to around 2.5 per cent. above 1990 levels by 2010.

  The Government are committed to reviewing the Climate Change Programme later this year, including the measures introduced to reduce transport emissions. The implications of the rolled forward strategy for transport, which the Government expects to publish in the summer after the conclusion of the spending review, will also feed into this review. The Department for Transport is currently consulting stakeholders on the UK's targets for the use of transport biofuels under the Biofuels Directive. Achieving 5 per cent. use of biofuels today would save around £1 million tonnes of carbon per annum—around three per cent. of overall road transport carbon dioxide emissions. To date indications are that the transport sector is not currently on course to deliver the level of carbon savings estimated in the UK Climate Change Programme. Details of this were outlined in the 10 Year Plan Progress Report.

  Crop Spraying
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the progress is of her Department's consultation on proposed crop spray buffer zones. [170010]

  Alun Michael
  The consultation on whether no-spray buffer zones should be introduced between agricultural spray operations and residential areas had a substantial response. I have seen initial papers from officials but all the evidence needs to be considered and the implications of any decision need to be thoroughly thought through. Our priority is to ensure that the right decision is made. It would be counter-productive to rush into making a decision and announce a conclusion as soon as there is something to say.

  Disposable Nappies
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research her Department has commissioned on the potential impact on household waste volumes of introducing charges based upon the volume or weight of domestic waste produced by each household, with particular reference to disposable nappy volumes; and if she will make a statement. [168778]
  1656W
  Mr. Morley
  The Government have no plans for the introduction of a national tax, or charge, on household waste. The Strategy Unit Report, "Waste not, Want not", recommended that local authorities who wish to take forward household incentive schemes to help reduce waste amounts and increase recycling, should be allowed to do so. In response to this recommendation work has been carried out to examine the impact of household incentive schemes. This work has looked in particular at the practicalities of operating any such schemes and how potential disadvantages might be overcome.

  "Waste Not Want Not" also recommended that the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) should take forward work supporting re-usable nappy schemes. The aim of this work, now under way, is to achieve an average diversion of 225 kg/year per participating household by 2006. The scheme seeks to reach 550,000 households, equivalent to 24 per cent. of households with children aged 0–3 years. This would reduce arisings by a total of 200,000 tonnes over three years.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what waste reduction targets have been set for the UK by European directives and regulations; what penalties could be incurred for failure to meet those targets; and what assessment has been made of the contribution of a reduction in the numbers of disposable nappies being sent to landfill to achieving those targets. [168790]

  Mr. Morley
  There are no European directives or regulations which set UK waste reduction targets.

  The UK targets under the Landfill Directive are to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill to 75 per cent. of 1995 levels by 2010, 50 per cent. by 2013 and 35 per cent. by 2020 (using the four-year derogation period). Failure to reach these targets could result in the UK being fined up to £500,000 per day.

  In its report "Waste not, Want not", the Strategy Unit estimated that in 2000–01 nappies comprised around 2 per cent. of household waste, equivalent to 350,000 tonnes.

  The report recommended that the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) should take forward work supporting re-usable nappy schemes to aim to reach 550,000 households with the aim of reducing arisings by a total of 200,000 tonnes over three years. This work is currently under way and will help in reducing the amount of waste the UK produces.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department has received a copy of the recent report from the Women's Environmental Network on the environmental and economic cost to the national health service of the use in and promotion through NHS facilities of disposable nappies; and if she will make a statement. [168920]
  1657W
  Mr. Morley
  The Department has received a copy of the Women's Environmental Network report.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to develop co-ordinated strategies with officials from the Department of Health and the national health service for the reduction in the number of disposable nappies going to landfill; and if she will make a statement. [168935]

  Mr. Morley
  In its report, "Waste not, Want not", the Strategy Unit estimated that in 2000–01, nappies comprised around 2 per cent. of household waste, equivalent to 350,000 tonnes.

  The report recommended that the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) take forward work supporting re-usable nappy schemes to aim to reach 550,000 households with the aim of reducing arisings by a total of 200,000 tonnes over three years. This work is currently under way.

  As well as supporting new re-usable nappy businesses, the WRAP programme will also undertake work with health trusts, hospitals and professionals on re-usable nappies. It is a matter for the individual maternity units and trusts, in consultation with women and their families using the services, to decide on the practicalities of adopting real nappy schemes.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when officials of her Department last met representatives of the Nappy Alliance to discuss disposable nappies; what action suggestions arose from that meeting; and what progress has been made in implementing them. [168944]

  Mr. Morley
  Officials from the Department has not met representatives of the Nappy Alliance to discuss disposable nappies.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much money was spent on grants to aid energy efficiency in(a) Lancashire, (b) Chorley and (c) the North West in each of the last three years. [161243]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra currently provides grant funding for energy efficiency through four main routes. These organisations or programmes undertake work at a national or UK level often demand led and with no specific levels of funding attributed to particular regions.The Carbon Trust—to support and promote energy efficiency and low carbon innovation for business and public sector.
  The Energy Saving Trust—to support and promote energy efficiency in the domestic sector.
  The Community Energy programme—capital and development funding to refurbish existing and install new community heating schemes.
  The Warm Front programme—to provide energy efficiency measures to the vulnerable.

  The funding made available by my Department to support and promote efficiency measures in each of the last three years is of the scale set out as follows:
  1658W

  £million

  2001–02

  256

  2002–03

  225

  2003–04

  1243

  1 Budget

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason she has not met the commitment given in paragraph 3.49 of the Energy White Paper of February 2003 to publish an implementation plan on energy efficiency within one year. [165277]

  Mr. Morley
  The principal reason for the delay in publication of the Energy Efficiency Implementation Plan was to allow it to be published alongside the First Annual Report of the Energy White Paper.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what studied she has undertaken on the numbers of new jobs which implementing in full the energy efficiency targets contained within the Energy White Paper would provide by 2020. [165278]

  Mr. Morley
  No specific studies have been undertaken by the Department on the numbers of new jobs that might be created through the implementation of the energy efficiency goals set out in the Energy White Paper. However, in order for the White Paper goals to be met, a significant expansion of energy efficiency industry capacity would be required.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Wirral, South have benefited from the Warm Front and Home Energy Efficiency schemes. [170272]

  Mr. Morley
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as Warm Front. Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 1,600 households in Wirral, South received assistance from the scheme.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department is undertaking to reduce the level of domestic energy consumption in the United Kingdom. [169771]

  Mr. Morley
  'Energy Efficiency: The Government's Plan for Action' published on 26 April 2004, sets out how the Government aims to cut carbon emissions by an 12 million tonnes through energy efficiency measures across all sectors by 2010.

  In UK households, we have announced a new aim to deliver annual savings of 4.2 million tonnes of carbon by 2010. Measures to achieve this include:
  The Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC)—we intend the activity levels for EEC over the period 2005–08 to be roughly double those under the current EEC, and the EEC to continue to 2011, possibly with changes in the way in which it is delivered. We anticipate that the EEC will continue at the same higher level to 2011, subject to its continuing cost effectiveness in relation to other carbon abatement options and value for money for end consumers;

  1659W
  Updating the Building Regulations in 2005, thus raising standards of all new and refurbished buildings, not just households. Provisions for higher boiler standards will come into force in April 2005. Energy surveys and certification of all buildings, will be among the measures introduced to implement the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive;
  A major new training scheme for heating installers, is to precede the revision of the boiler provisions in the Building Regulations in 2005;
  In the social sector, social landlords will continue to carry out improvements to the heating and insulation of their housing through the Decent Homes programme. The Warm Front grant programme will continue to tackle fuel poverty by installing heating and other energy efficiency measures;
  Fiscal incentives already reduce the cost of professionally installed insulation. Budget 2004 announced additional economic incentives for energy efficiency, including tax relief for landlords installing insulation, and a reduced rate of VAT on ground-source heat pumps;
  Negotiating rising standards for energy using appliances via EU-wide agreements and policy instruments. Also, improving product standards, with negotiations underway on the Eco-design of Energy Using Products Directive;
  Grants to support community heating (the Community Energy Programme) and small-scale renewable generation (Clear Skies and the major photovoltaic demonstration programme);
  The Energy Saving Trust's information and advice programmes for households and local authorities;

  There will also be enhanced emphasis on communicating the links between climate change and energy efficiency and a stronger emphasis on communicating the reality of climate change, raising public awareness of the links between climate change and energy.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Wigan have benefited from the home energy efficiency scheme, Warm Front. [169366]

  Mr. Morley
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as Warm Front. Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 2,400 households in Wigan received assistance from the Scheme.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Preston have benefited from the home energy efficiency scheme, Warm Front. [169684]

  Mr. Morley
  Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 4,000 households in Preston received assistance from the scheme.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Heywood and Middleton have benefited from the home energy efficiency scheme, Warm Front. [168436]

  Mr. Morley
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as Warm Front. Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 2,400 households in Heywood and Middleton received assistance from the scheme.

  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Warrington South have benefited from the Home Energy Efficiency and Warm Front Schemes. [168705]
  1660W
  Mr. Morley
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as Warm Front. Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 1,600 households in Warrington South received assistance from the Scheme.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Stalybridge and Hyde have benefited from the Home Energy Efficiency and Warm Front Schemes. [168768]

  Mr. Morley
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as Warm Front. Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 2,000 households in Stalybridge and Hyde received assistance from the Scheme.

  Environmental Protection
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the contribution the Are you doing your bit campaign has made to the Government's efforts to achieve its target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2008 to 2012. [168807]

  Mr. Morley
  The Are you doing your bit campaign was a successful stage in the Government's effort to raise the general level of public awareness of environmental issues. Research in 1998 showed initial campaign activity had proved effective. Further research in 1999 showed that 9 out of 10 people recognised the campaign and 7 out of 10 understood that everyone should do their bit. A further 9 out of 10 people said they already carried out the simple actions promulgated by the campaign.

  It did not, nor was it designed to, radically change behaviour or business practice across society and in any case it would not be possible to positively link the impact of any one information source with levels of carbon dioxide emissions for the UK as a whole.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much Government funding was available in each of the past three years to the(a) Energy Saving Trust and (b) Going for Green charity. [168811]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is in the tables.

  (a) Energy Saving Trust funding made available by the department over the last three years is as follows.

  £million

  2001–02

  24.3

  2002–03

  23.4

  2003–04

  24.6 (Budget)

  Figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 include funding for the Housing Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme.

  (b) Government funding is provided to the environmental charity ENCAMS' annually. The funding supports ENCAMS' work on a range of local environmental quality issues, including the Tidy Britain Group and Going for Green.
  1661W
  Funding over the last three years is as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  3,762,000

  2002–03

  14,597,000

  2003–04

  3,574,000

  1Defra allocated an additional £1 million to local authorities through ENCAMS for the Local Environmental Quality Pathfinder Programme that forged partnerships between local authorities and the local community. Some of the projects developed reduced fast food litter, railway land litter and schools litter.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the decision not to renew the Government's Are you doing your bit campaign: and what funding was provided for the www.doingyourbit.org.uk website, since the campaign began. [168812]

  Mr. Morley
  The Secretary of State will not be making a statement on the Are you doing your bit campaign.

  Detailed consideration is being given to the options for future communications activity in this area. Thinking will be informed by the current sustainable development consultation, 'Taking it on', launched 21 April 2004.

  The campaign website was funded from within the overall campaign budget. No specific records were kept for the website element of the campaign.

  Farming
  Mr. Hendrick
  to ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the farm income levels for farmers in Preston in the past five years. [169685]

  Alun Michael
  Due to the small number of farms in Preston, there is no robust data available on farm incomes for farmers in that area over the last five years. Net farm income for farms in the EU north region and for England over the last five years are show in the following table.

  Net Farm Income

  EU north region

  England

  1998–99

  8,272

  10,359

  1999–2000

  8,659

  7,981

  2000–01

  12,456

  9,886

  2001–02

  16,457

  13,558

  2002–03

  18,512

  16,435

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  Net farm income is the return to the principal farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and to the tenant-type capital of the business

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on farm income for farmers in South Ribble in the past five years. [171286]
  1662W
  Alun Michael
  Due to the small number of farms in South Ribble, there is no robust data available on farm incomes for farmers in that area. Net farm income for farms in the EA North Region and for England over the last five years are show in the following table.

  Net Farm Income

  EU north region

  England

  1998–99

  8,272

  10,359

  1999–2000

  8,659

  7,981

  2000–01

  12,456

  9,886

  2001–02

  16,457

  13,558

  2002–03

  18,512

  16,435

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  Net farm income is the return to the principal farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and to the tenant-type capital of the business

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the average(a) severely disadvantaged area (SDA) and (b) non-SDA payment will be in Cumbria in each year from 2005 to 2013. [169096]

  Alun Michael
  No estimates are available for the allocation of historic subsides to Single Farm Payment regions at county level. So it is not possible to determine the historic element of the payment during the transition period.

  Fertilisers
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 28 April 2004 reference 166842, what assessment she has made of the alternative fertilisers used in countries that have banned ammonium nitrate fertilisers. [170585]

  Mr. Morley
  The soil and climatic conditions in the countries that have banned ammonium nitrate (AN) fertilisers—China, Colombia, Algeria and the Philippines—are very different from those experienced in the UK. One of the principal alternative fertilisers used in these countries is urea. Urea-based fertilisers give rise to greater ammonia emissions than AN. A switch to urea could, therefore, put at risk the UK's ability to meet internationally-agreed ammonia reduction targets. Crops cannot use urea directly. It must first be converted to ammonium and to nitrate nitrogen in the soil before being taken up by plants. As a result, urea can, in cold conditions, be slower acting than AN. The loss of ammonia from urea can also reduce crop yields, thus adding to the cost of crop production. As mentioned in my previous answer, we have an ongoing dialogue with industry to compare how well other nitrogen fertilisers perform in our soil and climatic conditions and their potential environmental impacts.

  Flooding
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her written statement of 20 April 2004,Official Report,

  1663W
  columns 7–8WS, on flood defences, what options she is assessing for further reforms to improve accountability and effectiveness. [169850]

  Mr. Morley
  Implementation of the conclusions of the Flood and Coastal Defence Funding Review represents a significant reorganisation and streamlining of the service. Following the introduction of Flood Defence grant-in-aid to the Environment Agency on 1 April 2004, we are developing output and performance measures to monitor the efficiency and effectiveness of the Agency in reducing flood risk and to ensure optimal allocation of funding. In addition, the Agency are developing targets for reducing overheads associated with processing flood defence projects, which will be included in the Agency's Corporate Plan. We are also developing new procedures for monitoring the effectiveness of Internal Drainage Boards.

  As announced in March 2003, we will be undertaking a formal review of the effectiveness of the funding review conclusions after three years effective operation. We intend to commence this review in 2007, at which time we will consider whether any further reforms to the service should be considered. We will keep stakeholders fully involved in this work.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to meet hon. Members representing areas where properties or agricultural land are or might become at risk from flooding from the sea or from tidal inland waterways to discuss the Government's policy on global warming. [169583]

  Mr. Morley
  The recently published Foresight Report on flood and coastal defence will provide guidance for policy development in relation to managing increasing flood risk in the longer term, including the impact of climate change. I held briefing for hon. Members on the 22 April for this purpose. I will also be meeting the All Party Parliamentary Flood Prevention Group on 26 May. The Foresight Report is on the agenda.

  Since the 1980s the Department has provided guidance to operating authorities to make allowance for climate change in the planning and appraisal of new and replacement flood and coastal defence works. This guidance has been regularly reviewed in the light of the latest research findings and supplementary guidance was most recently issued in 2003. The aim is to take a suitably precautionary approach whilst not diverting funds unnecessarily from the solution of problems that affect people today. The approach and guidance will be further reviewed for the new Strategy for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management which is expected to be completed by early next year.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of the Government's commitment to end fuel poverty by 2010. [167769]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy Second Annual Progress Report was published recently, providing an update of progress during the last year. The most recent estimates show a fall in the number of households in fuel poverty in the UK to 2.25 million in 1664W
  2002, from around 3 million in 2001. The number of fuel poor households in England in 2002 is estimated to have fallen to around 1.4 million.

  The Fuel Poverty Implementation Plan, due to be published in the summer, will set out proposals for achieving our target to eradicate fuel poverty, as far as reasonably practicable, by 2010 for all vulnerable households in England and 2016 for all households in England.

  Global Warming
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what evaluation she has made of experiments to use oceans to absorb more carbon dioxide by spraying them with iron filings and the impact this will have on global warming. [169239]

  Mr. Morley
  Experimental studies of iron fertilisation have so far been carried out on a relatively small scale, and computer models are needed to estimate the consequences of large scale fertilisation. Modelling studies of iron fertilisation are currently performed as part of Defra's Climate Prediction Programme at the Hadley Centre.

  Iron fertilisation encourages extra growth of phytoplankton, which increases the uptake of carbon dioxide from the water and subsequently the atmosphere. Preliminary studies have indicated that even wide spread and continuous iron fertilisation would reduce levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide by only a small fraction, making it unlikely that there would be a significant impact on global warming. In addition, the consequences of such fertilisation on marine ecosystems could be severe.

  Local Authority Smallholdings
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Department has to propose amendments to the law with regard to the reference by a county council of its decision to dispose of all or part of its smallholdings. [170137]

  Alun Michael
  The operation and management of county council smallholdings estates by local authorities is regulated by the Agriculture Act 1970. I can confirm that we have no plans to amend this Act.

  National Allocation Plan
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to what extent the requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive with regard to energy efficiency have been taken into account in the design of the UK's National Allocation Plan. [167761]

  Mr. Morley
  The energy projections, used as the basis for calculating the allocation of allowances under the National Allocation Plan, take into account carbon dioxide emission reductions resulting from the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive. Therefore the allocation methodology used reflects the reductions in carbon dioxide emissions resulting from
  1665W
  the requirements of the directive. A working paper on the updated energy projections will be published by the Department for Trade and Industry in May.

  Under the directive, member states may choose not to impose Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control energy efficiency provisions on installations covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. We are currently deciding how we intend to use this provision in the UK.

  Orchards
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the number of(a) animal and (b) plant species that will be affected by the loss of traditional orchards. [168158]

  Alun Michael
  Defra regards traditional orchards as an important habitat for a wide range of species including wild flowers, lichens, insects and birds, and funds their conservation through the Countryside Stewardship Scheme.

  Quality Parish Councils
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which(a) parish and (b) town councils have achieved the status of Quality Parish Councils, in the last year broken down by area. [170579]

  Alun Michael
  (a) There are 17 parish councils that have achieved Quality Status in the last year. By area they are:

  Name of council

  Area

  Holywell-cum-Needingworth Parish Council

  Cambridgeshire

  Poynton Parish Council

  Cheshire

  Upton by Chester Parish Council

  Cheshire

  Winsford Parish Council

  Cheshire

  Stokenham Parish Council

  Devon

  St. Osyth Parish Council

  Essex

  Hamble-le-Rice Parish Council

  Hampshire

  Headley Parish Council

  Hampshire

  Wootton Bridge Parish Council

  Isle of Wight

  Asfordby Parish Council

  Leicestershire and Rutland

  Braunstone Parish Council

  Leicestershire and Rutland

  Lawley and Overdale Parish Council

  Shropshire

  Selattyn and Gobowen Parish Council

  Shropshire

  Hurstpierpoint Sayers Common Parish Council

  Sussex

  Cuckfield Parish Council

  Sussex

  Curdworth Parish Council

  Warwichshire and West Midlands

  Melksham without Parish Council

  Wiltshire

  (b) There are 28 town councils that have achieved Quality Status in the last year. By area are:

  Name of council

  Area

  Weston-super-Mare Town Council

  Avon

  Keynsham Town Council

  Avon

  Leighton Linslade Town Council

  Bedfordshire

  Newbury Town Council

  Berkshire

  Buckingham Town Council

  Buckinghamshire

  Huntingdon Town Council

  Cambridgeshire

  Lvybridge Town Council

  Devon

  Cullompton Town Council

  Devon

  Tavistock Town Council

  Devon

  Exmouth Town Council

  Devon

  1666W

  Name of council

  Area

  Kingsbridge Town Council

  Devon

  Sedgefield Town Council

  Durham

  Great Baddow Town Council

  Essex

  Witham Town Council

  Essex

  Loughton Town Council

  Essex

  Maldon Town Council

  Essex

  Wivenhoe Town Council

  Essex

  Brading Town Council

  Isle of Wight

  Edenbridge Town Council

  Kent

  Halewood Town Council

  Merseyside

  Cartenton Town Council

  Oxfordshire

  Oswestry Town Council

  Shropshire

  Sudbury Town Council

  Suffolk

  Seaford Town Council

  Sussex

  Burgess Hill Town Council

  Sussex

  East Grinstead Town Council

  Sussex

  Crowborough Town Council

  Sussex

  Whitnash Town Council

  Warwickshire and West Midlands

  Caine Town Council

  Wiltshire

  Pesticides
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to make a statement on the effectiveness of the Pesticides Voluntary Initiative. [169487]

  Alun Michael
  The Government regularly reviews progress with the Voluntary Initiative on pesticides and reports its broad conclusions in the Budget and Pre-Budget Report. In Budget 2004 the Government confirmed the view that the Initiative will achieve the most effective way of reducing the environmental impacts of pesticide use provided it is fully implemented. However, to cover the potential case that the Initiative might fail to deliver the required environmental benefits within a reasonable time scale, the Government continues to keep the options for a tax or economic instrument under review. This remains the Government's position.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulation of sprayers her Department undertakes under the Pesticides Voluntary Initiative. [170135]

  Alun Michael
  The Voluntary Initiative on Pesticides includes a National Sprayer Testing Scheme. This tests spray equipment to ensure that it can be used safely and effectively. The Scheme had a target to test 5,000 sprayers by 31 March 2004 and, while final figures are not yet in, appears to have achieved that level of uptake.

  The Initiative also includes projects to develop and promote best practice in the use of spray equipment. In particular, the National Register of Sprayer Operators helps pesticide users to keep up to date with good practice.

  As its name suggests, the Voluntary Initiative is not part of pesticide regulation as such but the Government wishes to see the Initiative succeed and has urged pesticide users to take part.

  Pharmaceutical Crops
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) how many licences for the planting of pharmaceutical crops have been applied for in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years; [167832]
  1667W
  (2) what measures have been taken to prevent contamination of other crops from pharmaceutical crops being tested in the UK. [167834]

  Mr. Morley
  Consent under the deliberate release legislation would be required for the planting of genetically modified crops producing pharmaceuticals, but no applications have been received, and therefore no consents have been issued. As a result, there has been no requirement to take measures to prevent contamination of other crops.

  Public Sewers
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 10 March 2004,Official Report, column 1538W, what assessment her Department has made of the adequacy of provision of the data maintained by the Environment Agency on the volume of hazardous liquid waste disposed directly to public sewers. [168369]

  Mr. Morley
  The data collected and made available by the Environment Agency are designed to allow it to regulate effectively such discharges of liquid waste to public sewers in order to protect the aquatic environment from adverse impacts, and to comply with relevant EU Directives and other relevant legislation.

  The Department continues to work closely with the Environment Agency and the sewerage industry on the adequacy of data relating to sewers. A new Direction to Sewerage Undertakers has recently been issued requiring the sewerage industry to report to the EA information on emissions from sewage treatment works, for the purposes of the Pollution Inventory, against a revised list of substances.

  Raptors
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what consultation she has with(a) farmers and (b) landowners prior to the release of raptors on their land. [169456]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 6 May 2004]I have had no direct consultations with farmers or landowners about the release of raptors on their land. Reintroduction projects for conservation reasons have been carried out in England for red kite, osprey and barn owl. These projects have involved English Nature (the Government's statutory conservation advisor), voluntary conservation bodies and private individuals. In all cases, those involved have obtained the permission of farmers and landowners before any birds were released. English Nature supports only those reintroduction projects that conform to internationally agreed guidelines produced by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). This includes the requirement that 'the programme should be fully understood, accepted and supported by local communities'.

  Refrigerator Decommissioning
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of decommissioning work on refrigerators is being carried out in the UK; and which counties are carrying out this work in the UK. [165868]
  1668W
  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]Approximately 72 per cent. of refrigerators were treated in England and Wales in 2003; the remainder were exported for treatment in Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark.

  Decommissioning of refrigerators through recovery and collection of ODS took place in the following counties and metropolitan areas in England and Wales: Shropshire, Greater Manchester, Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Wiltshire, Gwent, Norfolk, Powys, Essex, East Sussex, West Midlands, Dyfed, County Durham.

  Sea Defences
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on her policy for maintaining sea defences in the Blackwater and Crouch estuaries; [168037]

  (3) what her policy is on the payment of compensation to landowners affected by managed realignment; [168039]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the cost of maintaining sea walls in (a) the Blackwater and Crouch estuaries and (b) Essex; [168038]

  (4) if she will list the consents necessary to allow landowners to maintain sea walls; [168040]

  (5) what assessment she has made of the state of repair of sea walls in the Maldon and East Chelmsford constituency; [168041]

  (6) if she will list the length of sea defence in (a) the Maldon and East Chelmsford constituency and (b) Essex which falls into each of the four categories assigned by the Environment Agency for assessing the economic case for continued maintenance; [168042]

  (7) if she will make a statement on the exit strategy for withdrawing from maintenance of uneconomic sea walls; [168043]

  (8) if she will make a statement on the division of responsibility for maintenance of sea defences between land-owners, local authorities and the Environment Agency; [168044]

  (9) if she will make a statement on the division of responsibility for maintenance of main drainage ditches between land-owners, local authorities and the Environment Agency. [168045]

  Mr. Morley
  Flood defence works funded by the taxpayer are supported on the basis of a full analysis of economic, environmental and social considerations and a full appraisal of benefits and costs. Doing nothing, maintaining the current line of defence and managed realignment are among the strategic options that Defra's guidance indicates should be considered before establishing a preferred flood management policy for any particular length of defence.

  The Environment Agency (EA), with Defra's backing, is now promoting a comprehensive series of Essex estuary strategies that will provide a better understanding of how future flood risk can be reduced in the face of pressures such as sea level rise. The

  1669W
  strategies are being developed over a number of years. The Roach and Crouch Estuary Flood Management Strategy should be launched later this summer, while Blackwater and Colne Estuary Flood Management Strategy is due to go to public consultation later this year. A strategic study on the Stour and Orwell tidal estuaries has just been started.

  Where there is insufficient justification for the continued maintenance of an uneconomic sea wall, the EA will pursue a process to withdraw from publicly funded maintenance, as soon as possible. To ensure that the EA act in a reasonable way, they must pay due regard to my Department's policy guidance, and the Human Rights Act.

  The EA estimates that the overall cost of maintaining sea walls in the area covered by the Essex Local Flood Defence Committee in 2004–05 is £1.266 million. Approximately 24 per cent. of this is for maintenance works in the Maldon and East Chelmsford constituency.

  The EA's assessment of the state of repair of the sea walls in Maldon and East Chelmsford is limited to the Dengie Peninsula from Bradwell to Burnham. Data for the estuary sea walls has not yet been collected. However, visual inspections of these walls are undertaken on a regular basis and areas requiring repair are included in the annual maintenance programme.

  The EA will, over the coming years, be categorising its defences into the four categories to which the hon. Member refers in line with the Shoreline Management Plan, and the Estuary Strategies when these are complete. Although the primary responsibility for the maintenance of both sea defences and land drainage watercourses rests with the riparian landowner, the EA has permissive powers to maintain sea defences and has taken responsibility for the majority of them. Local authorities have similar permissive powers and maintain sea defences as part of their coast protection activities.

  To maintain sea walls landowners need the formal consent of the EA, in accordance with the Environment Agency Land Drainage and Sea Defence Byelaws, made under Schedule 25 (5) of the Water Resources Act 1991. Local authority consent may also be required depending on the nature and extent of the maintenance work to be carried out. Other consents such as assent from English Nature under the Wildlife and Countryside Act may also be necessary. Individuals should contact the EA in the first instance to establish what consents might be needed. Consent or permission from the owner of the sea wall will be required, where the person wishing to carry out maintenance is not already the owner of the specific sea wall to be maintained.

  Where there is no legal requirement to provide flood defence there is similarly no provision for compensation to offset the disadvantage suffered by any landowners that may be flooded as a result of a change in flood management practices. However, if a landowner were refused consent to maintain their own defence on the grounds that allowing them to protect their land would be contrary to the public interest, for example for nature conservation reasons, a case for compensation might arise. There is no general provision for compensation to landowners in cases where an operating authority stops
  1670W
  maintaining a seawall and the EA's Exit Strategy should ensure that interested parties are fully aware of their options. Landowners and occupiers must be given enough notice to enable them to make business decisions for the future.

  Sustainable Development
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason she did not make her announcement of 21 April 2004 on sustainable development by means of a oral statement to the House. [169859]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]The Secretary of State announced the consultation 'Taking it on—developing UK sustainable development strategy together', on 21 April, to the House by means of a written statement.

  On the same day both the Secretary of State and I spoke at the launch event for the consultation. We were delighted to be joined by ministerial colleagues: Charles Clarke, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills; Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for International Development; Bill Rammell of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Angela Smith of the Northern Ireland Office, Yvette Cooper of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Carwyn Jones from the Welsh Assembly Government; as well as Jonathon Porritt, the Chair of the Sustainable Development Commission and Klaus Topfer, the Executive Director of the UN Environmental Programme.

  We are greatly looking forward to considering the responses we receive to the consultation. The consultation closes on 31 July 2004.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had recently with the industries concerned in the implications of the introduction of the(a) Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment and (b) End of Life Vehicles directives. [167890]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government has been in ongoing talks with affected stakeholders on both of these Directives.

  The second consultation on implementation of the WEEE Directive concluded in March. 219 responses were received, and a summary of these can be found at www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability. Further, the Government recently completed a series of large workshops, in eight UK regions, to raise awareness amongst stakeholders. The Government is continuing discussions with all stakeholders in frequent meetings with industry.

  The last of 4 public consultations on the ELV Directive closed on 30 March. The Consultation Document set out the Government's proposals for a system, drawn up after extensive discussions with the industry sectors involved, to meet the "free take-back" and recycling requirements of the Directive. 65 responses to the consultation were received. These are now being assessed with a view to finalising the Regulations before presentation to Parliament.

  Water Companies
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which water companies have been found to have been providing water not fit for human consumption in each year since 1997; and what action was taken against them. [168876]

  Mr. Morley
  It is an offence under section 70 of the Water Industry Act 1991 for a water company to supply water unfit for human consumption, subject to a due diligence defence. The meaning of water "unfit for human consumption" is not defined in the Act and is a matter for the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis. It is usually taken to mean that the water has caused ill health or is rejected for drinking by consumers on the grounds of taste, smell or appearance.

  All incidents affecting drinking water quality are investigated by the Drinking Water Inspectorate and proceedings are instituted as appropriate. Since 1997 10 companies have been prosecuted for supplying water unfit for human consumption in respect of 29 separate incidents, with six further incidents taken into consideration. Eight companies have also been cautioned in respect of 16 incidents.

  Date of incident

  Date of court case

  Company

  Offence

  20 February 1997

  20 March 1998

  Yorkshire Water

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  6 May 1997

  5 November1998

  North West

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  16 May 1997

  1 April 1998

  Dwr Cymru

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  12 June 1997

  10 June 1998

  Dwr Cymru

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  24 July 1997

  26 January 2000

  Thames Water

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  25 July 1997

  15 July 1998

  Dwr Cymru

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (low pH &discoloured)

  31 July 1997

  19 October 1998

  Severn Trent

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  1 October 1997

  5 October 1998

  Northumbrian Water

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  22 October 1997

  17 May 1999

  South West

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  31 October 1997

  6 April 1999

  South West

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  14 November 1977

  15 November 1999

  North West

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  15 December 1997

  23 April 1999

  Severn Trent

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  16 December

  5 January 1997

  Anglian

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  18 December 1997

  3 November

  North West

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  19 December 1997

  11 January 1999

  Anglian

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (untreated river discoloured)

  29 January 1998

  16 August 1999

  South East

  Section 70 Supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  1672W

  Date of incident

  Date of court case

  Company

  Offence

  6 March 1998

  5 November 1999

  South East

  Section 70 supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  21 April 1998

  6 October 2000

  North West

  Section 70 supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  8 May 1998 1 June 1998 2 July 1998 5 November 1998

  10 December 2000

  Yorkshire Water

  Section 70 supply of water unfit (discoloured) (Four separate incidents)

  June/July 1998

  12 March 2001

  Mid Kent Water

  Section 70 supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  13 December 1998

  25 January 2000

  North West

  Section 70 supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  13 January 1999

  13 October 2000

  North West

  Section 70 supply of water unfit (taste and odour)

  February 1999

  11 January 2001

  Yorkshire

  Section 70 supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  July 2000

  18 June 2001

  Dwr Cymru Cyf

  Section 70 supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  28 August 2000

  5 September 2001

  Anglian

  Section 70 supply of water unfit (discoloured)

  3 April 2002

  26 March 2004

  Anglian

  Section 70 supply of water unfit (taste)

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what checks are made to ensure that the water companies provide water that is fit for human consumption; and how often they are made. [168877]

  Mr. Morley
  Water companies in England and Wales have a duty to supply wholesome water. The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000, or in Wales the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2001 set out the numbers and types of samples that water companies must take to fulfil this duty. One of the roles of the Drinking Water Inspectorate is to ensure that water companies carry out the requisite checks. During 2002 more than 2,973,500 regulatory tests were carried out, of which 99.87 per cent. demonstrated compliance with the relevant water quality standards. The Drinking Water Inspectorate investigates all incidents affecting water quality which includes an assessment of additional samples taken to determine water quality.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Big Ben
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission on which dates Big Ben has(a) shown an incorrect time and (b) failed to sound since 1 May 1994. [170086]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Big Ben is the name of the hour bell of the Great Clock rather than of the clock itself. Accuracy adjustments. usually within one or two seconds, are undertaken three times a week. Variations of this nature are caused by changes in temperature. The clock has been stopped for repair purposes for four periods since 1994 and work on the quarter chimes has taken place on seven occasions. In the latter cases the clock was not stopped.
  1673W
  The most recent failure of the quarter chimes took place on 29 April and was caused by an internal stress fracture affecting the brake release shaft. It is intended to install the new shaft during the evening of 8 May, when the hour strike brake release shaft, fly fan and other components will be examined for any similar problem by a specialist company.

  Official Report
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission if he will make arrangements to permit hon. Members to proof read the Hansard report of their speeches made in Westminster Hall in the Hansard office above the Chamber; and if he will make a statement. [170194]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The Editor of the Official Report appreciates that some hon. Members may have been inconvenienced by the need to move staff who report Westminster Hall proceedings to offices at 7 Millbank. He will make arrangements as soon as possible for Members to read Westminster Hall speeches in the Hansard offices in the Palace of Westminster before publication.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General whether she discussed with other ministerial colleagues a draft of the Attorney General's legal opinion on the legality of military action against Iraq prior to his presentation of the opinion to the Cabinet. [168729]

  The Solicitor-General
  It is the established practice not to disclose details of internal discussions between Ministers. This information is withheld in accordance with exemption 2 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Unexplained Infant Deaths
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Solicitor General what steps the Government has taken since the statement on 20 January, Official Report, column 1215, on unexplained infant deaths, to (a) identify civil cases and (b) learn from these cases; and if she will make a statement. [167812]

  The Solicitor-General
  The process of identifying prosecutions which may be affected by the Appeal Court's judgment in the appeal against conviction of Angela Cannings has been completed. Since the Appeal Court's judgment on 19 January the 300 relevant cases have been identified, of which 86 involve defendants in custody. There are three stages to the review process. To date, 167 cases have been reviewed and I will be in a position to tell the House the outcome of those reviews very shortly.

  Of the 16 ongoing prosecutions which may have been affected by the Cannings judgment, all have been reviewed and two have been discontinued. A Hampshire case was discontinued before trial and a Coventry case was discontinued before a retrial.
  1674W
  Any lessons to be learnt from the review will be considered at the conclusion of the review process.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Sub Judice Rule
  Mr. Andrew Dismore
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will bring forward proposals for amendment of the House's resolution on matters sub judice to permit parliamentary questions and early day motions to be tabled concerning cases before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission concerning withdrawal of UK nationality in circumstances where the case has become substantially delayed and is unlikely to be heard in the immediate future; and if he will make a statement. [169802]

  Mr. Hain
  I have no plans to do so, though I am willing to consider suggestions for change on this, as on other matters. I understand that the particular issue to which the hon. Member refers has been resolved.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Free Television Licence
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of how many eligible senior citizens over the age of 75 in Northern Ireland did not avail themselves of the free television licence in 2003. [170485]

  Estelle Morris
  These figures are unavailable. However, I understand that for the year to 31 March 2004, 86,493 free licences for people over 75 were issued in Northern Ireland. Also, the BBC runs regular publicity campaigns in Northern Ireland, which receive widespread press coverage, to encourage people to take up the concession.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the production of her Department's latest annual report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [171138]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is as follows.

  1. The design, typesetting, production and printing of this year's annual report was £57,000

  2. 1,500 copies were printed.

  3. 700 copies are to be sold at cover price of £26

  4. Remaining copies for media, NDPBs, visitors to DCMS and DCMS staff (two copies for each of 28 Divisions)

  Libraries (Oldham, West and Royton)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been spent on the digitisation of content in libraries in Oldham, West and Royton since 1997. [170944]

  Estelle Morris
  This information is not held centrally.
  1675W
  The New Opportunities Fund £50 million Digitisation of Learning Materials Programme has delivered 150 projects across the UK to enable resources which support learning of all kinds held in libraries as well as museums, archives and other public-sector institutions, to be made available online through the People's Network and the National Grid for Learning. This initiative has created a body of material containing over 2 million images, tens of thousands of sound and video clips and documents and over 1,000 learning packages. All projects can be accessed via the Enrich UK portal at http://www.enrichuk.net

  Information on grants awarded to individual local authorities and their expenditure can be obtained from the relevant authority.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) Ordinary Written and (b) Named Day Questions her Department received in (i) 2002-03 and (ii) this parliamentary session up to the most recent date for which figures are available, broken down by month. [170778]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is as follows:

  2002–03 Session

  Named day

  Ordinary written

  November 2002

  39

  112

  December 2002

  28

  52

  January 2003

  24

  114

  February 2003

  11

  105

  March 2003

  14

  116

  April 2003

  10

  110

  May 2003

  16

  153

  June 2003

  18

  150

  July 2003

  6

  104

  August 2003

  0

  0

  September 2003

  8

  68

  October 2003

  6

  69

  November 2003

  22

  63

  Total

  202

  1,216

  2002–03 Session

  Named day

  Ordinary written

  November 2003

  1

  37

  December 2003

  12

  105

  January 2004

  23

  84

  February 2004

  9

  106

  March 2004

  20

  160

  April 2004

  13

  65

  Total

  78

  557

  These figures exclude those questions either withdrawn by the Member or transferred to another Department.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of(a) Ordinary Written Questions to her 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. [170779]
  1676W
  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is as follows:

  2002–03 Session

  Named Day

  Ordinary Written

  Number answered on time

  Percentage

  Number answered within 5 sitting days

  Percentage

  November 2002

  25

  64.10

  50

  43.86

  December 2002

  9

  32.14

  20

  40.82

  January 2003

  11

  45.83

  89

  74.79

  February 2003

  9

  69.23

  58

  56.31

  March 2003

  9

  69.23

  79

  65.29

  April 2003

  3

  30.00

  37

  32.17

  May 2003

  9

  60.00

  39

  27.86

  June 2003

  8

  44.44

  96

  61.15

  July 2003

  3

  50.00

  50

  51.02

  August 2003

  0

  0

  0

  0

  September 2003

  3

  37.50

  25

  37.31

  October 2003

  5

  83.33

  47

  56.63

  November 2003

  18

  81.82

  52

  89.66

  2003–04 Session

  Named Day

  Ordinary Written

  Number answered on time

  Percentage

  Number answered within 5 sitting days

  Percentage

  November 2003

  1

  25.00

  28

  75.68

  December 2003

  6

  66.67

  73

  69.52

  January 2004

  16

  69.57

  61

  70.74

  February 2004

  6

  66.67

  71

  61.74

  March 2004

  14

  63.64

  131

  80.37

  April 2004

  11

  84.62

  32

  52.46

  Sporting Contacts (Ban)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 24 March 2004,Official Report, column 876W, on sporting contacts (ban), whether, on 28 October 1997, Ministers had the power to invoke a ban on sporting contact with other countries taking place outside the UK. [168598]

  Mr. Caborn
  In October 1997, as now, Ministers did not have specific powers to prevent sports teams travelling abroad.

  Tourism
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the work of regional development agencies in developing tourism in Oldham, West and Royton. [170945]

  Mr. Caborn
  The North West Development Agency (NWDA) is working closely with 'Marketing Manchester', the nominated Destination Management Organisation (DMO) for Manchester. The new DMOs are, in effect, smaller versions of tourist boards. They aim to ensure a strong visitor and market focus to all that is done within the region and strengthen the connection between businesses and other organisations in the tourism sector.

TRANSPORT

  A13
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to(a) improve and (b) fund improvements to the A13 Sadlers Farm Junction in Benfleet, Essex. [171086]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The junction at Sadlers Farm between the A13 and the A130 (neither of which is a trunk road at that point) is in the form of a ring roundabout.

  Following a review of the transport problems in the South Essex area, Essex county council consider that the junction now requires upgrading to allow for the greater volume of traffic that is using the junction since it was built in 1988.

  It is up to Essex county council to submit, through the Local Transport Plan process, details of a new design which has been appraised in accordance with Government guidelines and which will deal with forecast levels of traffic. This assessment will then be used by the Department for Transport to consider whether there is a case for funding the scheme.

  Explosives (Detection)
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent by his Department and its predecessors on research into new methods of detecting explosives on board ships before they dock in the UK. [170060]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department funds a £1.4 million research and development programme into technologies and methods used in Transport Security. It would not be appropriate to provide details, but much of this budget goes towards explosives detection technologies.

  Foreign Registered Vehicles
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the number of foreign registered(a) cars and (b) other vehicles in the UK on (i) permanent and (ii) temporary import; and how many he estimates have exceeded the maximum stay period. [170865]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since January 2003, 116,000 new vehicles and 167,000 used vehicles have been permanently imported into the UK and registered at DVLA. A breakdown by type of vehicle is not available.

  Vehicles brought into the UK on a temporary basis are exempt from UK licensing and registration requirements if they are here for less than six months in any 12. No record is maintained of these vehicles and consequently no figures are available on the numbers of temporary imports.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are taken to ensure that vehicles on temporary import are unable to exceed their maximum stay period; and what measures are taken against those vehicles that have exceeded this period. [170866]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Vehicles on temporary import are exempt from UK licensing and registration requirements, providing they are in this country for less 1678W
  than six months in any 12 and are registered and licensed in their country of origin. If at any time a vehicle used here on foreign plates is stopped by the police, the driver is responsible for demonstrating that he/she is entitled to use it in the UK.

  Keepers of foreign registered vehicles who fail to observe these requirements are subject to the same enforcement and prosecution procedures as UK motorists.

  DVLA is currently working with the police and local authorities to gather information on temporary imports to clarify the extent of the evasion problem and to introduce effective counter measures.

  Potters Bar Accident
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on recent developments in the inquiries into the Potters Bar railway accident. [168091]

  Mr. Darling
  Both the British Transport Police (BTP) and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) continue to be involved in the investigation. On 18 March 2004 the lead role in the joint investigation transferred from the BTP to the HSE because of HSE's expertise in the areas in which the investigation is now concentrating. However because the investigation has not yet concluded, the prosecuting authorities have not yet come to a decision on prosecutions.

  Rail Projects
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rail projects have been cancelled as being without a sound business case; and how many have been re-scoped since publication of the Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan 2003. [170265]

  Mr. Darling
  No major rail projects have been cancelled or re-scoped since the publication of the Strategic Rail Authority's Strategic Plan 2003 because they are without a sound business case. Some changes have been made to the West Coast Route Modernisation Scheme and to the scheme to upgrade the power supplies in the south-east. These are intended to provide substantially the same level of outputs at less cost.

  Road Noise
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department has spent on research into quieter road surfaces in each of the last 10 years. [170166]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency has undertaken research into various aspects of quieter surfaces in the past 10 years, including the measurement of noise characteristics and durability of proprietary surfacing materials within their overall programme of research into improved road construction techniques. Annual expenditure on the development of quieter road surfaces is not available because most of the projects last for more than one year. However, total expenditure on research projects related to road surface noise characteristics completed since 1993 is around £3 million.

  Road Safety
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) pedestrians, (b) cyclists, (c) drivers and (d) car occupants have been (i) injured and (ii) killed in each of the last six years for which figures are available in each Greater London borough. [168880]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]A table showing the information requested for the years 1997 to 2002, which is the latest year for which data are available, has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what(a) percentage and (b) number of reported motorway traffic incidents involved a heavy goods vehicle with left hand drive in each of the last three years; and what percentage of those incidents were attributed to poor visibility or blind spots on such vehicles. [170207]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is not available. From January 2005 data relating to heavy goods vehicles with left-hand drive will be collected separately using the STATS 19 accident report format. This means the information will be available from June 2006 onwards.

  Sea Stores
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's responsibility is for the Sea Stores building at Yate, South Gloucestershire; for what purpose the building is used; and if he will make a statement on its future use and ownership. [169240]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency owns the land and the on site storage facilities on Kennedy Way at Yate (the "Sea Stores" site). The site is the central facility for the co-ordination of the bulk purchase and storage of the agency's motorway communications equipment, which serves the national motorway and trunk road network.

  As part of the agency's sound business practice, the future use and ownership of the site and its operation remains under continual review.

  Transport Energy Best Practice Programme
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on advertising the activities of the Transport Energy Best Practice programme, broken down by(a) year and (b) activity. [170019]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department, through the Energy Saving Trust, spent £2.0 million in 2003–04 marketing the range of Transport Energy programmes, rising to £2.6 million in 2004–05. These activities include media events, magazine advertising, newsletters and guides, event and award sponsorship and presentations at exhibitions and seminars. It also maintains a dedicated website, www.transportenergy.org.uk and a central call centre.
  1680W
  The Best Practice programme is promoted as part of these activities but it is not possible to apportion specific marketing costs.

  Transport Statistics (Oldham, West and Royton)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new cycle lanes have been provided using public funds in Oldham, West and Royton since 1997. [170960]

  Dr. Howells
  A total of 3.8 miles of new cycle lanes has been provided using public funds in Oldham, West and Royton since 1997.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rural bus services in Oldham, West and Royton are supported by rural bus grants. [170961]

  Dr. Howells
  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) is paid to local transport authorities; in the case of Oldham West and Royton this is the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive (PTE). It is for the authority to decide which services should be supported with the grant. We understand from the PTE that no bus services in Oldham, West and Royton are provided by RBSG as this area is predominantly urban.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of priority bus lanes have been created in Oldham, West and Royton since 1997. [170962]

  Dr. Howells
  There have been 1.65 miles of priority bus lanes introduced in Oldham, West and Royton since 1997.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect of investment in railway improvements over the next 10 years upon residents of Oldham, West and Royton. [170963]

  Dr. Howells
  Residents of Oldham, West and Royton will benefit from the new TransPennine Express franchise, which commenced in February. The franchise secures investment of around £260 million, which will include the introduction of a new fleet of 100 mph diesel trains leading to increased capacity, improved service quality and performance across the region. A new Northern franchise, which will include local and regional services through Oldham, is out for tender. Work continues on the West Coast Main Line upgrade, which will see reduction in journey times along the route and increases in service frequency.

  Tyres
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the availability of energy efficient tyres and the number(a) produced at present and (b) likely to be produced in the future. [170020]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The major tyre manufacturers all produce tyres that offer energy savings compared to other tyres in their ranges. But, the Government does not have detailed data relating to the production and availability of these more energy efficient tyres.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Housing (South Ribble)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on how the change in the level of council funding for housing has affected the residents of South Ribble since 1997. [171283]

  Mr. Raynsford
  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. South Ribble transferred its housing stock to New Progress Housing Association in 1994 for £32.3 million. South Ribble's allocation for 2003–04 totalled £1.8 million.

  Council Tax (Greater London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the percentage council tax change, including all precepts, has been in Greater London, broken down by borough, in each of the last five years. [170503]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is tabled as follows.

  Percentage change in average (Band D 2 adults) council tax area

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  London area

  6.4

  8.1

  6.4

  18.2

  5.8

  City of London

  3.9

  4.1

  7.0

  19.6

  4.3

  Inner London

  Camden

  1.1

  4.8

  5.9

  15.0

  3.7

  Greenwich

  0.0

  3.2

  4.7

  14.1

  4.8

  Hackney

  6.6

  9.7

  10.9

  13.2

  5.4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6.2

  5.1

  2.5

  13.4

  5.5

  Islington

  -2.7

  -1.1

  -1.1

  21.0

  5.5

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7.3

  11.9

  10.6

  17.3

  5.4

  Lambeth

  2.2

  13.0

  9.3

  22.8

  5.6

  Estimated mid-year resident population 1996 to 2002 for Greater London and each London borough

  £000

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Greater London (including City of London)

  6,901.3

  6,927.7

  6,968.8

  7,041.3

  7,104.4

  7,307.9

  7,355.4

  Greater London (excluding City of London)

  6,895.7

  6,922.1

  6,962.7

  7,034.8

  7,097.5

  7,300.5

  7,347.5

  City of London

  5.5

  5.6

  6.1

  6.5

  6.9

  7.4

  7.8

  Barking and Dagenham

  157.0

  157.8

  158.9

  161.7

  162.8

  165.9

  167.3

  Barnet

  299.4

  300.9

  304.6

  309.2

  310.9

  320.1

  320.4

  Bexley

  217.4

  215.4

  216.6

  217.1

  218.4

  218.8

  218.8

  Brent

  249.5

  252.3

  255.2

  255.8

  259.2

  270.4

  272.4

  Bromley

  290.0

  291.5

  290.5

  293.9

  294.6

  296.2

  296.8

  Camden

  182.6

  182.0

  182.3

  185.6

  191.4

  203.0

  207.0

  Croydon

  326.6

  327.9

  329.9

  328.6

  330.3

  335.7

  336.6

  Ealing

  289.6

  290.3

  292.1

  297.3

  208.4

  308.1

  308.4

  Enfield

  262.8

  266.0

  267.9

  270.0

  272.0

  277.7

  281.8

  Greenwich

  208.1

  209.1

  209.4

  209.7

  211.9

  217.8

  221.4

  Hackney

  190.6

  188.3

  190.7

  195.2

  199.1

  207.8

  210.2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  153.2

  152.9

  153.3

  157.6

  160.6

  169.9

  173.3

  Haringey

  209.3

  212.5

  212.1

  215.1

  215.5

  221.9

  225.1

  Harrow

  205.8

  205.4

  206.4

  206.1

  206.9

  210.5

  211.6

  Havering

  227.0

  225.9

  225.1

  225.6

  225.0

  224.7

  224.2

  Hillingdon

  239.4

  240.1

  240.7

  242.1

  242.9

  245.9

  246.5

  Hounslow

  204.1

  208.0

  209.8

  211.5

  211.4

  216.4

  216.6

  Islington

  173.6

  174.1

  173.5

  173.2

  174.7

  179.8

  181.0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  136.0

  136.8

  139.0

  143.4

  150.4

  162.6

  165.1

  1682W

  Percentage change in average (Band D 2 adults) council tax area

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Lewisham

  9.7

  9.8

  9.2

  13.0

  5.5

  Southwark

  4.6

  6.4

  5.6

  8.9

  3.5

  Tower Hamlets

  7.8

  7.4

  4.6

  17.2

  5.4

  Wandsworth

  7.4

  13.6

  –11.7

  45.1

  2.9

  Westminster

  7.1

  9.3

  8.5

  28.1

  6.1

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  6.3

  8.2

  7.4

  15.0

  5.9

  Barnet

  7.1

  7.3

  4.7

  23.9

  7.0

  Bexley

  6.9

  9.9

  6.3

  17.5

  7.5

  Brent

  9.0

  8.1

  9.8

  22.5

  6.1

  Bromley

  9.8

  12.3

  6.5

  10.6

  6.9

  Croydon

  6.5

  2.0

  3.6

  27.3

  7.3

  Ealing

  7.5

  8.9

  7.5

  25.9

  7.0

  Enfield

  8.8

  11.0

  7.9

  17.6

  6.3

  Haringey

  3.8

  3.0

  2.4

  19.4

  7.3

  Harrow

  8.3

  10.1

  7.5

  21.4

  4.1

  Havering

  8.0

  12.4

  8.1

  17.3

  5.6

  Hillingdon

  7.9

  10.6

  8.9

  16.2

  5.4

  Hounslow

  8.1

  11.0

  7.0

  15.5

  7.0

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  8.8

  9.7

  11 9

  15.3

  7.1

  Merton

  10.2

  9.8

  6.9

  12.3

  5.8

  Newham

  9.0

  7.7

  6.9

  13.6

  5.4

  Redbridge

  8.1

  7.3

  6.9

  16.0

  5.9

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  8.9

  9.9

  9.9

  15.6

  5.6

  Sutton

  6.3

  9.7

  9.4

  15.0

  7.4

  Waltham Forest

  4.4

  5.8

  5.5

  19.6

  6.3

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the level of council tax receipts collected by local authorities was in Greater London, irrespective of the financial year to which they relate, broken down by borough, in each year from 1996–97 to 2002–03; and what the population of each authority was in each year. [170504]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 26 March 2004,Official Report, column. 1112–3W for information on the amounts of council tax received by each London borough in each financial year, irrespective of the financial year to which they relate, from 1996–97 to 2002–03.

  The latest population estimates for years 1996 to 2002 are in the following table. Population estimates for 1992 to 2000 are subject to revision, and revised estimates are due to be published later in the spring.
  1683W

  Estimated mid-year resident population 1996 to 2002 for Greater London and each London borough

  £000

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Kingston upon Thames

  137.5

  139.4

  141.6

  144.1

  145.5

  149.3

  150.2

  Lambeth

  258.6

  257.9

  259.2

  262.5

  264.2

  274.2

  271.9

  Lewisham

  241.7

  242.1

  245.3

  247.1

  247.8

  254.9

  253.8

  Merton

  179.4

  180.1

  180.9

  183.0

  185.5

  191.5

  192.3

  Newham

  228.2

  228.5

  231.6

  236.7

  240.7

  250.1

  254.0

  Redbridge

  231.4

  233.4

  236.1

  235.9

  237.5

  242.3

  244.0

  Richmond upon Thames

  166.2

  167.4

  167.9

  170.5

  170.8

  174.5

  174.4

  Southwark

  232.1

  233.2

  236.4

  239.3

  242.4

  251.1

  251.3

  Sutton

  175.0

  176.1

  177.2

  178.4

  179.3

  181.6

  180.9

  Tower Hamlets

  180.3

  184.4

  187.1

  191.4

  193.9

  201.6

  206.8

  Waltham Forest

  219.5

  218.9

  219.2

  219.2

  218.7

  222.5

  223.2

  Wandsworth

  257.7

  256.1

  254.5

  256.7

  258.3

  267.5

  269.3

  Westminster

  166.3

  167.1

  167.5

  171.2

  176.3

  186.4

  190.6

  Note:

  Figures may not add due to rounding.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of council tax was collected within Greater London, broken down by borough, in each year since 1997 and what the total cost of administering council tax collection was in each year. [170505]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Tabled as follows are the reported in-year council tax collection rates for each London borough and the City of London for each year from

  In-year council tax collection rates1

  Percentage

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Inner London

  City of London

  97.5

  97.4

  98.2

  98.3

  98.4

  97.6

  Camden

  88.5

  91.1

  92.3

  92:7

  93.5

  92.7

  Greenwich

  92.2

  92.2

  91.3

  92.2

  92.0

  92.8

  Hackney

  78.1

  74.5

  67.9

  67.8

  74.0

  79.5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  89.1

  92.3

  93.2

  93.8

  94.5

  95.1

  Islington

  88.3

  88.9

  90.2

  90.0

  91.5

  88.4

  Kensington and Chelsea

  94.9

  95.2

  95.6

  96.0

  95.6

  95.6

  Lambeth

  80.3

  80.3

  84.4

  82.0

  86.5

  90.1

  Lewisham

  90.6

  90.6

  92.0

  93.3

  93.7

  93.7

  Southwark

  81.9

  81.3

  80.2

  87.1

  90.2

  92.0

  Tower Hamlets

  86.7

  88.1

  88.3

  89.3

  90.7

  91.8

  Wandsworth

  90.9

  91.4

  92.8

  94.0

  94.5

  94.8

  Westminster

  92.6

  93.7

  92.9

  91.8

  93.0

  93.5

  Average Inner London

  88.0

  88.5

  88.7

  89.6

  91.1

  91.9

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  95.0

  95.3

  94.7

  94.0

  94.5

  91.8

  Barnet

  95.1

  95.6

  95.8

  96.2

  96.2

  96.2

  Bexley

  94.5

  94.2

  94.9

  95.4

  95.7

  96.0

  Brent

  89.5

  91.4

  90.4

  92.0

  91.1

  89.5

  Bromley

  97.4

  97.0

  96.3

  96.6

  96.5

  96.4

  Croydon

  92.4

  92.8

  91.7

  91.9

  93.9

  94.7

  Ealing

  94.8

  94.9

  94.4

  93.4

  94.1

  94.6

  Enfield

  91.8

  93.5

  93.7

  94.4

  94.6

  94.6

  Haringey

  82.3

  85.0

  85.1

  88.8

  90.1

  92.5

  Harrow

  96.9

  96.8

  96.2

  98.2

  986.

  97.2

  Havering

  97.7

  96.8

  95.6

  96.4

  96.1

  95.9

  Hillingdon

  95.0

  95.7

  95.0

  05.6

  96.5

  95.2

  Hounslow

  91.9

  91.4

  93.4

  94.0

  93.9

  93.8

  Kingston upon Thames

  93.9

  91.9

  93.7

  04.0

  95.9

  96.5

  Merton

  95.5

  95.1

  95.2

  95.7

  95.6

  96.5

  1684W
  1997–98 to 2002–03. Figures for 2003–04 are not yet available. The collection of council tax continues after the end of the financial year to which it relates. This means that the percentage of council tax ultimately collected for any financial year is greater than that shown in the table.
  1685W

  In-year council tax collection rates1

  Percentage

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Newham

  82.0

  83.1

  83.3

  84.9

  86.8

  90.0

  Redbridge

  96.1

  96.1

  95.7

  95.5

  95.7

  95.7

  Richmond upon Thames

  97.3

  96.2

  96.7

  97.0

  97.6

  97.6

  Sutton

  97.4

  97.0

  97.3

  97.3

  97.3

  97.3

  Waltham Forest

  91.8

  87.8

  87.7

  88.0

  90.6

  93.0

  Average Outer London

  93.8

  93.9

  93.7

  94.3

  94.9

  95.0

  Average Greater London

  91.8

  92.1

  92.1

  92.8

  93.7

  94.1

  1Amount of council tax due received by the end of the financial year as a percentage of the net collectable debit for the year.

  Source:

  QRC4 returns

  Tabled as follows are the reported council tax collection costs for each London borough and the City of London for each year from 1997–98 to 2003–04.

  Council tax collection costs

  £000

  1997–98 Outturn

  1998–99 Outturn

  1999–2000 Outturn

  2000–01 Outturn

  2001–02 Outturn

  2002–03 Outturn

  2003–04 Budgets

  Inner London

  City of London

  301

  286

  281

  270

  257

  326

  481

  Camden

  2,143

  2,052

  1,737

  2,116

  2,170

  2,323

  2,904

  Greenwich

  2,460

  2,365

  2,284

  2,330

  2,330

  2,366

  2,541

  Hackney

  2,434

  1,999

  2,180

  2,292

  4,964

  3,984

  2,364

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,009

  1,610

  1,537

  997

  1,503

  1,348

  1,243

  Islington

  1,822

  1,786

  1,442

  156

  1,662

  2,117

  2,375

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,795

  1,762

  1,839

  1,996

  1,831

  1,719

  1,962

  Lambeth

  3,932

  3,299

  3,396

  3,245

  2,122

  2,859

  2,276

  Lewisham

  2,439

  2,543

  2,356

  2,518

  2,522

  2,685

  5,118

  Southwark

  3,276

  3,324

  3,647

  3,482

  3,792

  4,010

  4,280

  Tower Hamlets

  2,069

  2,435

  2,150

  2,037

  1,951

  1,904

  1,956

  Wandsworth

  1,662

  1,685

  1,658

  1,461

  1,771

  2,004

  2,007

  Westminster

  2,265

  2,205

  2,455

  2,190

  2,066

  2,543

  2,584

  Total Inner London

  28,306

  27,065

  26,681

  24,820

  28,684

  29,862

  31,610

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  887

  820

  869

  810

  809

  861

  1,018

  Barnet

  1,597

  1,711

  1,977

  1,822

  2,040

  2,177

  2,489

  Bexley

  625

  548

  536

  475

  515

  452

  718

  Brent

  2,315

  2,199

  2,291

  3,083

  390

  291

  3,170

  Bromley

  1,459

  1,465

  1,213

  1,180

  1,221

  937

  784

  Croydon

  2,509

  2,622

  2,688

  2,933

  3,032

  2,772

  3,683

  Ealing

  2,651

  2,520

  2,635

  2,888

  3,089

  3,370

  4,293

  Enfield

  2,132

  1,697

  1,709

  1,709

  1,789

  1,940

  1,037

  Haringey

  2,571

  2,843

  2,666

  2,534

  2,460

  2,464

  2,888

  Harrow

  1,126

  1,124

  876

  860

  811

  709

  673

  Havering

  1,731

  2,052

  2,627

  2,554

  1,555

  1,965

  2,514

  Hillingdon

  1,830

  1,891

  1,865

  2,053

  2,221

  1.737

  2,242

  Hounslow

  1,717

  1,833

  1,790

  1,678

  2,183

  2,245

  2,338

  Kingston upon Thames

  681

  741

  801

  963

  985

  1,198

  1,131

  Merton

  1,662

  1,707

  1,677

  1,856

  1,429

  1,913

  2,213

  Newham

  1,622

  1,911

  1,620

  1,398

  1,749

  1,817

  1,705

  Redbridge

  2,041

  1,994

  1,868

  1,725

  1,800

  1,832

  1,827

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,251

  1,170

  1,082

  1,146

  1,001

  1,426

  1,525

  Sutton

  792

  681

  658

  728

  860

  883

  902

  Waltham Forest

  2,367

  2,522

  2,169

  1,879

  2,478

  3,178

  2,968

  Total Outer London

  33,566

  34,051

  33,617

  34,274

  32,417

  34,167

  40,118

  Total Greater London

  61,872

  61,116

  60,298

  59,094

  61,101

  64,029

  71,728

  Source:

  RO6 returns (1997–98 to 2002–03) and RA returns (2003–04)

  1686W 1687W

  Departmental Expenditure (Entertainment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his latest estimate is of the amount spent by his Department on official entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [169010]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created following the machinery of Government changes on 29 May 2002. The figures in the following table show how much the Office spent on official entertainment in 2002–3 and 2003–4. Details of the planned expenditure for 2004–5 are not yet available, but are expected to be on similar lines to earlier years.

  Entertainment

  £000

  2002–03

  3,350

  2003–04

  1,869

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

  The expenditure figures for the Government Offices and the Office's executive agencies for official entertainment are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost

  Elected Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will give the(a) total and (b) individual costs of the public hearings on elected regional assemblies held in (i) Sheffield, (ii) Newcastle, (iii) Hull, (iv) Liverpool, (v) Kendal, (vi) Halifax and (vii) Middlesbrough. [170097]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The total cost of the seven hearings mentioned is £66,800. The latest costs of the individual hearings are in the following table:

  Location

  £000

  Sheffield

  11,600

  Newcastle

  10,900

  Hull

  7,600

  Liverpool

  13,800

  Kendal

  6,500

  Halifax

  5,100

  Middlesbrough

  11,300

  Energy Efficiency Grants
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was spent on grants to aid energy efficiency in each year since 1997. [160875]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Defra currently provides grants to aid energy efficiency through four main routes:
  The Carbon Trust—to support and promote energy efficiency and low carbon innovation for business and public sector;
  1688W
  The Energy Saving Trust—to support and promote energy efficiency in the domestic sector;
  The Community Energy programme—capital and development funding to refurbish existing and install new community heating schemes;
  The Warm Front programme—to provide energy efficiency measures to the vulnerable.

  The funding made available by my Department and its predecessors to support and promote efficiency measures in each year since 1997 (including the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust) is of the scale set out in the following table.

  £million

  1997–98

  110.5

  1998–99

  109.0

  1999–2000

  112.0

  2000–01

  119.0

  2001–02

  256

  2002–03

  225

  2003–04

  1243

  1Budget.

  These figures include the Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme, support for the Energy Saving Trust (from 1996), Fuel Poverty and for the Carbon Trust (from 1 April 2001). Energy Saving Trust funding for Scotland was devolved from 1 July 1999. The new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (now marketed as the Warm Front Team) was launched in England in June 2000. Between 1991–1999, the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme covered the whole of Great Britain. Funding was devolved to Scotland in July 1999 and to Wales in April 2000.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the percentage of houses in multiple occupation in England and Wales which will fall within the scope of the mandatory licensing scheme in the Housing Bill. [171220]

  Keith Hill
  The 1996 English House Condition Survey estimates that there were approximately 543,000 Houses in Multiple Occupation in England and the National Assembly for Wales estimates that there are approximately 20,000 HMOs in Wales. It is estimated that about 120,000 HMOs in England and 5,000 in Wales will be subject to licensing under the mandatory scheme proposed in the Housing Bill. This will represent approximately 22.2 per cent. of the total HMO stock in England and Wales.

  Local Authority Funding
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much central funding was provided to local authorities in the(a) North West, (b) North East and (c) Yorkshire and the Humber regions in 2002–03. [171497]
  1689W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Central Government grant(a) provided to local authorities in the North West, North East and Yorkshire and the Humber regions in 2002–03 is tabled as follows:

  Amount(£ million)

  North West

  7,237

  North East

  2,765

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  5,031

  Source:

  2002–03 RS forms.

  (a) Includes Specific and special grants inside 'Aggregate External Finance', Police grant, Revenue support grant, Redistributed non-domestic rates.

  Planning
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether there is a time period after which a temporary structure is deemed to be permanent in respect of(a) planning legislation and (b) commencement of enforcement proceedings; and if he will make a statement. [171737]

  Keith Hill
  The rules governing temporary structures provided in connection with temporary uses of land are set out in Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. If such a structure were to remain on site after the temporary use had ended, it would be unlawful and could be the subject of enforcement action.

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much the planning inspectorate has spent on external consultants, not including consultant inspectors, since 2002. [170043]

  Keith Hill
  Information is provided for financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  £

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Consultants—non IT

  477,206.65

  541,424.91

  IT consultants

  512,586.01

  375,231.00

  E-business consultants

  2,785,132.94

  1,720,815.83

  Total

  3,774,925.60

  2,637,471.74

  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what mechanisms are in place to assess the effectiveness of the contribution made by external consultants, not including consultant inspectors, to the planning inspectorate. [170044]

  Keith Hill
  External consultants are engaged by The Planning Inspectorate when it is not possible to provide the required expertise from in-house resources. All consultants are contracted to undertake tasks relevant to the particular requirement and to deliver specific products.

  The effectiveness of the contribution made by external consultants is assessed through an ongoing process of performance measurement and sound contract management. This seeks to ensure that contractual obligations are met as efficiently and effectively as possible, quality products delivered to time, business objectives met and benefits realised.
  1690W
  All projects are subject to Office of Government Commerce gateway Reviews.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many copies of(a) Your Say: A New Opportunity for the North East, (b) "Your Say: a New Opportunity for the North West", (c) "Your Say: A New Opportunity for Yorkshire and the Humber", (d) "Your Say: Business and Jobs", (e) "Your Say: Assembly Powers and Responsibilities" and (f) "Your Say: Housing, Planning and Transport" have been requested by members of the public in (i) the North East, (ii) the North West and (iii) Yorkshire and the Humber. [169258]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's free leaflet distributor has issued 6201 "A New Opportunity for the North East" leaflet, 6603 "A New Opportunity for the North West" and 2132 "A New Opportunity for Yorkshire and the Humber" to members of the public and organisations who have requested them.

  620 copies of "A New Opportunity for the North East" leaflet and of each individual fact sheet were given to attendees of the regional hearings in the North East.

  628 copies of "A New Opportunity for the North West" leaflet and of each individual fact sheet were given to attendees of the regional hearings in the North West.

  605 copies of "A New Opportunity for Yorkshire and the Humber" leaflet and of each individual fact sheet were given to attendees of the regional hearings in Yorkshire and the Humber.

  Copies of all this literature are also available upon request from the three northern Government Offices. However, requests for leaflets are not logged by Government Offices on an individual basis.

  Scottish Power
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he last met representatives of Scottish Power Plc; who was present; and what was on the agenda for discussion. [167338]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member on 5 May 2004.

  Starter Homes Initiative (South Ribble)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on how the Starter Homes Initiative has affected the residents of South Ribble. [171284]

  Keith Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) on 29 April 2004,Official Report, column 1228W.

  Sustainable Communities Plan (Milton Keynes/South Midlands)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what studies he has commissioned in connection with the Milton Keynes/South Midlands sustainable communities plan
  1691W
  concerning (a) impacts on (i) stocks of aggregates, (ii) flooding and (iii) water supply and (b) other environmental impacts. [170098]

  Keith Hill
  In July 2001 the Government, along with the three Regional Assemblies covering the Milton Keynes-South Midlands sub-region: East of England, East Midlands and South East, commissioned the Milton Keynes-South Midlands Study. This study considered in detail a range of issues, including the impact of growth on natural resources and the environment. Supporting the sub-regional study are more detailed local area assessments and further environmental assessments will be carried out as part of the Local Development Framework process. In addition work on these issues is being taken forward through the Inter-Regional board for Milton Keynes-South Midlands, where a Utilities sub-group and an Environment and Quality of Life sub-group have been established.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Community Events
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of(a) the impact of changes in the cost of public liability insurance on community events and (b) the ability of community organisations to pay for public liability insurance; [169898]

  (2) what representations his Department has received from community organisations about changes in the cost of public liability insurance. [169900]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I am aware of the problems being experienced by those in the voluntary and community sector, as a result of the volatility in the insurance market since 11 September 2001. It is deeply worrying that small groups of volunteers who are making a real contribution to their communities are being faced with such difficulty.

  The Active Community Unit in my Department set up the "Insurance Cover Working Group (ICWG)" to look into the situation and advise on practical solutions. A study was undertaken into the current position regarding the provision of insurance for the voluntary and community sector, including public indemnity liability, which made suggestions as to possible solutions.

  A response to these possible solutions will be made in May following close working with other Government Departments, as a number of initiatives are already being taken forward by the Government to understand better and tackle the difficulties being experienced. In that context, the Government welcomes the current study being undertaken by the Better Regulation Task Force on litigation and compensation. This work will contribute to the analysis of pressures in this area, as other studies have already, for example; The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) undertook a review of the operation of Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI), and published a first stage report on 3 June 2003, and the second stage and final report on 4 December 2003. Following that
  1692W
  initiative the DWP is at present holding a review of the requirement for Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance for Limited Companies that employ only their owner. Also, the Office of Fair Trading conducted a fact-finding study into the UK Liability Insurance reporting in June 2003, and the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA), is working to ensure that legal costs are proportionate and that meritorious claims are resolved quickly and at minimum cost.

  I am very much aware that the increasing costs for the provision of liability insurance have impacted on the ability of voluntary and community groups to deliver services and community events. Therefore the outcomes of the work across Government will have important implications for the Voluntary and Community Section (VCS) as practical solutions are being sought in partnership with the voluntary and community sector, the insurance industry, local authorities and government departments.

  Animal Experiments
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government take to tackle intimidation of workers and firms providing services to companies and universities carrying out research on animals. [167400]

  Caroline Flint
  We have made a number of changes to strengthen the law to deal with extremists. The Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003 strengthened police powers to deal with smaller, intimidatory protests and office occupations by extremists. The police are using these new powers effectively. A new police unit has been set up with Government funding to provide tactical guidance on policing extremists. The new unit complements work already going on in local forces and nationally.

  A National Forum on policing and prosecution of animal rights cases has been established in order to pull together individual areas of expertise within the police, Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to create a national strategic approach to dealing with animal rights extremists.

  We have produced guidance for security managers of companies who might be targeted by extremists, to help ensure their employees' personal safety. A ministerial committee is meeting regularly to look at the problem of animal rights extremism.

  Animal Rights Activists
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to limit the activities of animal rights activists. [168981]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government are determined to ensure that business activities in this area are not prevented by the unlawful activities of a small number of people. A ministerial committee is meeting regularly to look at the problem of animal rights extremism.

  There are extensive powers available to the police in the general law. In addition we have made a number of changes to strengthen the law to deal with extremists. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 strengthened police powers to deal with smaller, intimidatory protests and

  1693W
  office occupations by extremists. A new police unit has been set up with Government funding to provide tactical guidance on policing extremists. The new unit complements work going on in local forces and nationally.

  A National Forum on policing and prosecution of animal rights cases has been established in order to pull together individual areas of expertise within the police, Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to create a national strategic approach to dealing with animal rights extremists.

  We have produced guidance for security managers of companies who might be targeted by extremists, to help ensure their employees' personal safety.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been subject to antisocial behaviour orders in Wandsworth since 1 January 2002; and how many breaches of anti-social behaviour orders have resulted in court action in the London borough of Wandsworth since 1 January 2002. [169769]

  Ms Blears
  Three Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) have been issued within the London borough of Wandsworth, as notified to the Home Office, from 1 January 2002 up to 31 December 2003 (latest available).

  Data on breaches of ASBOs are currently available up to December 2002. The Home Office Court Proceedings Database, from 1 January 2002 up to 31 December 2002, does not show any court proceedings for breaches of ASBOs in the London borough of Wandsworth.

  Asylum Seekers
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 on female asylum seekers; and what assessment he has made of the number that are forced into prostitution. [171041]

  Mr. Browne
  Assessment of the impact of section 55 on female asylum seekers is integral to the close monitoring of the operation of the policy since implementation on 8 January 2003. As part of these arrangements the National Asylum Support Service maintains an open dialogue with the voluntary sector agencies, local government and other stakeholders. The Government have reviewed section 55 in the light of experience of its operation, the changing pattern of asylum applications since implementation and concerns raised about the impact of the policy.

  The Government believes that these arrangements for monitoring and reviewing the operation of section 55 and working with stakeholders, together with the statutory safeguards and the adjustments that have been made to section 55 processes, provide a balanced but firm policy that discourages economic migration, while continuing to offer refuge to those seeking asylum, and providing support for those who qualify or who are vulnerable.
  1694W
  No evidence has been produced to indicate that female asylum seekers have been forced into prostitution as a result of section 55.

  Dangerous Driving
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted in each of the last 10 years for causing the death of a child whilst driving. [169073]

  Caroline Flint
  It is not possible to identify deaths involving children in the statistics collected centrally on prosecutions for causing death by dangerous driving etc as the details collected do not include the ages of the victims of such offences.

  Drugs (Stalybridge and Hyde)
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in Stalybridge and Hyde are receiving drug treatment; and what public funds were spent on tackling drugs misuse in Stalybridge and Hyde in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2003–04. [168734]

  Caroline Flint
  Stalybridge and Hyde is part of Tameside Drug Action Team. There were 733 people receiving drug treatment in Tameside in 2000–01. This is the latest available data. Data broken down by Drug Action Team for 2001–02 and 2002–03 have not yet been finalised and published.

  Breakdown of financial allocation to local constituencies is not available in the form requested as funding is allocated to Drug Action Team (DAT) area.

  The figure spent on tackling drug misuse in 1997–98 in West Pennine, which covered Oldham and Tameside, was £279,000. This was prior to the formation of the National Drugs Strategy, and this figure has been provided from locally held information.

  In 2003–04 the figures for Tameside as a whole were:

  £

  Pooled Treatment

  921,000

  Young People

  169,000

  Building Safer Communities1

  267,000

  DAT CAD

  31,000

  DAT Development

  40,000

  Throughcare and Aftercare

  35,000

  Total

  1,463,000

  1Please note that the Building Safer Communities Fund is only partly spent on tackling drugs.

  In order to ensure consistency figures supplied are based on funding streams associated with the National Drug Strategy and are readily verifiable. These funding streams are specifically targeted at tackling the harm caused to individuals, families and communities by the misuse of drugs. Other mainstream funding is made available at a local level, this varies and both in amount and origin as a result it is not possible to provide robust financial information.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in each of the last 12 months police vehicles on emergency calls have contravened speed cameras, broken down by police authority area. [170738]

  Ms Blears
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Extradition
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether district judges are monitored to ensure that they ascertain whether individuals who consent to extradition have had access to legal advice. [165890]

  Caroline Flint
  Section 45(5) and section 127(6) of the Extradition Act 2003 require that a person may not give his consent to extradition before the appropriate judge unless he is legally represented at the time he gives consent. If he is not legally represented then he must have been advised of the right to apply for legal aid and has either refused to do so, had his legal aid application refused or legal aid has been withdrawn.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the(a) 1989 and (b) 1965 Extradition Acts have been repealed. [165888]

  Caroline Flint
  Except for requests that were received on or before 31 December 2003, the Extradition Act 1989 was repealed by the Extradition Act 2003, which came into force on 1 January 2004.

  Prior to the coming into force of the new extradition legislation, the UK's extradition relations with the Republic of Ireland were governed by the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965 which has also been repealed by the Extradition Act 2003. The Republic of Ireland has been designated as a Category 1 territory and, as such, is a partner in the European Arrest Warrant. As with the 1989 Act, any cases received from the Republic of Ireland on or before 31 December 2003 will be considered under the Backing of Warrants Act 1965.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether countries which allow the death penalty as a form of punishment are prohibited from designation for the purposes of part 1 of the Extradition Bill. [165889]

  Caroline Flint
  Section 1(3) of the Extradition Act 2003 states that a territory may not be designated for the purposes of part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003 if a person found guilty in the territory of a criminal offence may be sentenced to death for the offence under the general criminal law of the territory.

  Identity Cards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalty he proposes will apply to an individual who discloses information from the National Identity Register. [170325]

  Mr. Browne
  The criminal offences and civil penalties that will be used to ensure that an identity card scheme operates effectively are set out in "Legislation: A Consultation" (Cm 6178) published on 26 April.
  1696W
  Clause 29 of the draft Bill includes an offence for any person to disclose information from the National Identity Register without lawful authority, which will be punishable by a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment or a fine, or both.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what penalties will be applicable to hackers attempting to access the National Identity Register. [170326]

  Mr. Browne
  Clause 31 of the draft Identity Cards Bill published by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 26 April (Cm 6178) deals with cases where someone modifies information held on the Register to falsify it. This includes hacking into the Register. Such an act would be an offence under the Computer Misuse Act 1990, however it would attract only a maximum penalty of five years.

  The draft Identity Cards Bill includes a provision to increase the maximum penalty in cases involving the National Identity Register to 10 years to ensure consistency with the false identity documents offences in the draft Bill.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who will have access to the information recorded on the National Identity Register; and under what circumstances. [170345]

  Mr. Browne
  Proposals to permit information held on the National Identity Register to be disclosed with and without an individual's consent are set out in "Legislation on Identity Cards: A Consultation" (Cm 6178) published on 26 April.

  It is incorrect to say that any body or person will have "access" to the Register, rather the legislation will permit the Secretary of Sate to disclose information where a person consents or, where a person does not consent, only for specified purposes to specified persons.

  Clause 14 provides for the provision of an identity verification service with the consent of the registered individual.

  Clause 16 provides a power to enable checks to be made of information recorded in the Register by a person providing a public service for the purposes of ascertaining or verifying information of an individual applying for the public service. Clause 17 (1) sets out who may make regulations under Clause 16.

  There will be a general power to disclose information to the security and intelligence agencies for their statutory purposes under clause 20.

  In addition, law enforcement agencies will be able to see disclosure of information from the National Identity Register for the prevention or investigation of crime under clause 20 (3). For these groups, disclosure of "audit trails" of card usage would be permitted only in cases of serious crime under clause 20 (8). The police in Scotland will have similar powers but will only be permitted to apply for disclosure in relation to matters that arereserved under clause 20 (7)(b).

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use will be made of data-sharing powers in background checks of applicants for identity cards. [170346]
  1697W
  Mr. Browne
  "Identity Cards: The Next Steps" (Cm 6020) published in November 2003 made it clear that applications for one of the family of identity cards will require checks to be made against other databases, held by the public or private sector, in order to help establish that an application for a card is genuine. This followed recommendations on identity verification included in the Cabinet Office study on Identity Fraud, published in July 2002.

  Clause 11 of the draft Bill includes a power to require organisations to provide information which will help to ensure that a person who applies to register is the person he or she claims to be. This power will only be used where there is no existing legal basis for this information to be obtained and will only apply for the purposes of processing applications for an identity card or for related purposes (for example, issuing a replacement). These powers do not confer any general right to share data for wider purposes.

  Under clause 11 (6) Parliament would have to approve each "gateway" via an affirmative order.

  Checks such as these could, for example, confirm that a person had been known by a certain identity and lived at known addresses for a number of years. This information is more difficult to know, to change, or to fabricate and will guard against registration of bogus identities and avoids relying solely on documents that can be stolen or forged, such as birth certificates.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information will be required to be provided by an applicant for an identity card. [170347]

  Mr. Browne
  When applying for an identity card, it will be necessary to make an application in person so that biometric information can be recorded. Applicants will also be asked to bring along existing identity documentation, which will be checked for authenticity and validity.

  The precise arrangements for what information will be necessary for making an application will be decided as the identity cards programme progresses following further preparatory work and testing of different options. It may also be necessary t o make changes to the application process over time. These arrangements are therefore not spelt out on the face of the draft Identity Cards Bill. Rather provision is included for the detailed arrangements to be set out in Regulations. Clause 5(3) of the draft Bill makes clear that an application for registration and thus the issue of an ID card must be accompanied by information to be prescribed and Clause 5(4) enables further information to be required in order to verify the information the applicant has already provided. These arrangements must be approved by Parliament and no information may be required unless it is required for the statutory purposes of the scheme as set out in the primary legislation.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds it will be permitted for members of the public to be stopped and asked to produce their identity card; and what safeguards will be put in place to ensure that people are not asked to produce their identity cards for other reasons. [170647]
  1698W
  Mr. Browne
  The introduction of identity cards will make it much easier and simpler for people to prove their identity when they wish to do so. However, the draft Identity Cards Bill has made clear that it will not be a requirement to carry an identity card and there are no new police powers to stop people and require them to produce a card.

  The draft Bill does allow for Regulations to be made for identity checks, including production of a card, to access public services. Regulations for each service would need to be approved by Parliament. Before regulations are laid, the Government must explain why its existing powers in relation to a particular service are not sufficient (Clause 17(4)) and steps must be taken to ensure that members of the public are informed and consulted about the proposal. Clause 17(5) requires there to be consultation with interested parties if there is an equivalent requirement in other legislation to consult these interested parties.

  Until it became compulsory to register, the ID card could not be the only way of proving identity to access social security benefits or free public services. In addition the intention of Clause 19 is to prohibit a private sector service provider making production of an ID card the only way of accessing its services before there is compulsion to register.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the exceptional circumstances will be under which disclosure of information from the National Identity Register is allowed without an individual's consent. [170648]

  Mr. Browne
  Proposals to permit information held on the National Identity Register to be disclosed with and without an individual's consent are set out in "Legislation on Identity Cards: A Consultation" (Cm 6178) published on 26 April.

  There will be an exception to the general bar on disclosing information without consent, but disclosure will only be allowed to specified persons for specified purposes approved by Parliament and will be subject to an internal authorisation and independent oversight procedure.

  There will be a general power to disclose information to the security and intelligence agencies for their statutory purposes under clause 20.

  In addition, law enforcement agencies will be able to seek disclosure of information from the National Identity Register for the prevention or investigation of crime under clause 20 (3). For these groups, disclosure of "audit trails" of card usage would be permitted only in cases of serious crime under clause 20 (8). The police in Scotland will have similar powers but will only be permitted to apply for disclosure in relation to matters that are reserved under clause 20 (7)(b).

  Madrid Bombing
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received requests from(a) Spain and (b) Morocco for the extradition of persons in connection with the Madrid train bombing; and if he will make a statement. [167172]
  1699W
  Caroline Flint
  Before an arrest has been made, it is long-standing Home Office policy and practice not to confirm or deny whether any extradition requests for certain individuals have been made to, or received by, the UK for obvious reasons.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Lord Chief Justice. [169887]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have regular bilateral meetings with the Lord Chief Justice.

  National Identity Register
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information that pertains to public services for which the devolved administrations have responsibility he plans will be held by the National Identity Register. [171294]

  Mr. Browne
  The information which may be held in the National Identity Register is specified in Clause 1 and Schedule 1 of the draft Identity Cards Bill which was published on 26 April. The Register's function is to verify identity and residential status and it therefore has no need to hold information which is specific to a particular public service.

  NCIS
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget of the National Criminal Intelligence Service was in each of the last five years. [166460]

  Paul Goggins
  The information is as follows:

  £million

  2000–01

  47.5

  2001–02

  49.5

  2002–03

  68.5

  2003–04

  72.2

  2004–05

  83.3

  The year-on-year position may not be directly comparable because the figures shown exclude cost of capital and depreciation charges that were introduced in 2002–03 under Resource Accounting and Budgeting. In addition, the figures shown also exclude funding for specific projects. It should also be noted that during 2002–03, the funding of the National Criminal Intelligence Service changed from police levy funding to core Home Office grant under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.

  Policing/Crime Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in full-time police officers in Oldham, West and Royton has been since 1997. [170953]
  1700W
  Ms Blears
  Information on strength at Basic Command Unit (BCU) level is collected annually and reflects the position at the end of March. Information on BCU strength is only available from 2002.

  Oldham, West and Royton are part of the Oldham BCU. Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the Oldham BCU increased by 3.5 per cent. (from 423 to 438). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable (Michael Todd) and within the Oldham BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in(a) overall recorded crime, (b) recorded violent crime, (c) burglaries and (d) vehicle thefts in Preston has been since 1997. [169694]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Preston is a Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area. Data at CDRP level has only been published from 1999–2000 onwards. Detailed statistics at CDRP level are available for 2002–03 on the new Home Office website: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the percentage change in full-time police officers in Preston has been since 1997. [169698]

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

  Preston is part of Lancashire Constabulary's Central BCU. Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the Central BCU increased by 1.1 per cent. (from 381.4 to 385.7). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the Chief Constable (Paul Stephenson) and within the Central BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the Divisional Commander.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department hove many police officers were employed in Wigan in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [169334]

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

  In March 2002 there were 442.5 officers and in March 2003 there were 473.0 full time equivalent officers employed in the Wigan Basic Command Unit. The deployment of officers to 13CUs 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 what percentage change in(a) overall recorded crime, (b) recorded violent crime, (c) burglaries and (d) thefts in Wigan there has been since 1997. [169335]
  1701W
  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally. Wigan is a Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) area. Data at CDRP level have only been published from 1999–2000 onwards. Detailed statistics at CDRP level are available for 2002–03 on the new Home Office website: http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community safety officers are allocated by Greater Manchester Police to Wigan 'L' Division. [169340]

  Ms Blears
  As of 1 April 2004 there were 32 community safety officers working in the Wigan 'L' Division of Greater Manchester Police.

  Prisons
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how value for money will be shown to have been achieved if in-house bids for the running of

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Altcourse

  1—

  29,962,583

  33,113,688

  35,036,594

  35,261,148

  32,154,593

  Ashfield

  —

  —

  1—

  15,834,762

  14,426,845

  9,820,999

  Dovegate

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  24,511,442

  Forest Bank

  —

  —

  1—

  22,480,153

  22,040,504

  20,821,813

  Lowdham

  Grange

  1—

  15,942,120

  15,450,822

  15,975,509

  14,893,288

  13,159,649

  Parc

  1—

  27,888,480

  29,766,258

  31,676,362

  32,386,551

  31,322,995

  Rye Hill

  —

  —

  —

  1—

  15,344,851

  14,103,266

  1Represent the year in which the prison opened. Part years are excluded from the accounts.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the construction costs were for each prison built under the Private Finance Initiative. [167361]

  Paul Goggins
  The construction costs for each prison built under the Private Finance Initiative, derived from the original financial model on which payment to the contractor is based, are:

  £million

  Altcourse

  68

  Ashfield

  26

  Dovegate

  64

  Forest Bank

  45

  Lowdham Grange

  25

  Parc

  47

  Rye Hill

  37

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the saving that has been made by the Prison Service through building prisons through the Private Finance Initiative compared to alternative methods of financing such construction; and if he will make a statement. [167362]

  Paul Goggins
  Savings achieved through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in respect of prisons are calculated on the basis of comparing the total cost of the contract, including construction, finance and operating 1702W
  existing establishments are not permitted under the current performance testing programme in the Prison Service. [168398]

  Paul Goggins
  The public sector are given the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to provide a value for money service in their proposals for improvement. Only if they failed to do so, or if they subsequently failed to deliver the necessary improvements, would the management of the prison be put to tender to the private sector only. As is the case in all competitions for the management of prisons, the bid which offered the best combination of cost and quality of service would be selected.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost was to the Prison Service for each prison constructed under the Private Finance Initiative in each year of operation. [167360]

  Paul Goggins
  The requested information, extrapolated from Prison Service Annual Reports and Accounts, is shown in the table for the years up to 2002–03. The final outturn for 2004–05 will be available shortly.

  costs, against the public sector comparator. On that basis, the PFI process has delivered savings in the range of 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. compared with conventional procurement.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the most recent assessment was made of the cost of a privately built, publicly run prison; what the outcome was; and if he will make a statement. [167364]

  Paul Goggins
  The latest assessments of a privately built, publicly run prison were the public sector comparators (PSCs) used in evaluating the bids for the contracts for Bonzefield and Peterborough prisons. The PSC for Bronzefield was 11 per cent. higher and the PSC for Peterborough 8.2 per cent. higher than the Net Present Values of the winning bids.

  Public Sector Workers (Assaults)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information his Department collects on assaults on public sector workers during the course of their work. [169450]

  Ms Blears
  In January 2004, the Home Office published an on-line report entitled "Violence at Work: Findings from the 2002–2003 British Crime Survey". This report includes information regarding the occupation of victims of violence at work. It is
  1703W
  available on the Home Office Research and Statistics website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/rdsolr0404.pdf

  Assaults on public sector workers which are recorded by the police are included in Home Office recorded crime statistics. However, the only assaults on public sector workers which are identified separately are 'Assaults on a constable' Statistics on these offences for England and Wales are given in Table 3.04 of HO Statistical Bulletin 7/03 'Crime in England and Wales 2002–03'. This is also available on the website at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/703chap3.xls

  Road Safety
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought against people speaking on a mobile phone whilst driving. [171104]

  Ms Blears
  The specific offence of driving while using a hand held mobile phone came into effect on 1 December 2003.

  Data on police action (written warnings, fixed penalty notices and court proceedings) for the new offence of driving while using a hand held mobile telephone will not be available until the Autumn of 2004. Use of a hands free mobile phone is not an offence.

  Serious Organised Crime Agency
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Serious Organised Crime Agency will include in its remit the activities of animal rights activists; and if he will make a statement. [168933]

  Caroline Flint
  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. We have invited comments on the proposals by 30 July and will consider those carefully before making decisions as to the full remit of the new agency.

  Terrorism
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to make the results of the recent consultation questionnaire regarding the level of preparedness of each council known to individual councils and their emergency planning officers. [170070]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government Offices in the Regions are currently providing written reports on this exercise for the Regional Resilience Forums (on which local authorities are represented). If individual local authorities want to discuss the exercise, they should approach the relevant Government Office, who will be happy to brief them.

  Traffic Police (Sussex)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many traffic police there are in Sussex Police. [169443]
  1704W
  Ms Blears
  Published information on police strength by police force area is available for rank, gender and ethnicity but not function. Figures on police atrength for March 2003, were published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 11/03, copies of which are available in the Library or on the internet site: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/hosbpubsl.html.

  UK/US Extradition
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with implementation of the UK-US Extradition Treaty set up in March 2003. [164220]

  Caroline Flint
  The new Treaty was signed by my right 11 on. Friend the Home Secretary and the US Attorney General on 31 March 2003. It was approved by both Houses of Parliament on 16 and 17 December 2003 and it has already been given effect in the UK by the Extradition Act 2003,which came into force on 1 January 2004. The Treaty will be brought into force in the United States when it has been approved and ratified by the US Senate.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bilateral Aid
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the top 20 countries in receipt of bi-lateral aid from his Department, and the amount of aid given to each, in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 2002–03. [170982]

  Hilary Benn
  The top 20 recipients of bilateral aid from the Department of International Development in each of the years in question were as follows:

  DFID bilateral programme—Top 20 recipients

  £million

  1998–99

  India

  82

  Bangladesh

  67

  Ghana

  53

  Uganda

  53

  Tanzania

  50

  Malawi

  47

  China

  39

  Kenya

  33

  Montserrat

  31

  Russian Federation

  31

  South Africa

  29

  Mozambique

  26

  Indonesia

  25

  Pakistan

  24

  Sudan

  24

  Nepal

  17

  Zimbabwe

  15

  Zambia

  15

  Rwanda

  14

  Nigeria

  11

  Total

  686

  1705W

  DFID bilateral programme—Top 20 recipients

  £million

  2002–03

  India

  161

  Tanzania

  96

  Bangladesh

  77

  Afghanistan

  75

  Ghana

  56

  Uganda

  55

  Malawi

  52

  Kenya

  45

  Ethiopia

  43

  China

  42

  Zambia

  41

  Pakistan

  39

  Mozambique

  38

  South Africa

  36

  Sierra Leone

  32

  Rwanda

  :32

  Nigeria

  31

  Zimbabwe

  30

  Nepal

  28

  Russian Federation

  27

  Total

  1036

  HIV/AIDS
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what projects his Department funds to combat the spread of AIDS in Africa; how much expenditure is committed to each project; and what the time scale is of each project. [170596]

  Hilary Benn
  I have arranged for a copy of a table entitled 'Africa—Operational Projects/Programmes to combat HIV/AIDS' to be placed in the Library of the House. This identifies all those programmes or projects currently funded by the Department for International Development, which have a policy objective of "combating HIV/AIDS ". The total commitment is more than £1 billion. This figure includes expenditure already incurred against these ongoing activities as well as some future planned spending.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to increase expenditure levels for projects in Africa to combat the spread of AIDS over the next three years. [170597]

  Hilary Benn
  In December 2003, the UK Government's Call for Action on HIV/AIDS announced that DFID will make HIV/AIDS a priority for the additional funds that the UK will be devoting to Africa by 2006. Many of those African countries worst affected by HIV/AIDS are among the DFID's bilateral country partners, (over 80 per cent. of AIDS' deaths occur in DFID's 16 African partner countries). The new UK Strategy on HIV/AIDS, to be published this summer, will cover the level of the UK's future resource commitments for HIV/AIDS.

  Several DFID African bilateral country programmes have recently stepped up expenditure in support of programmes to help combat HIV/AIDS; for example: a £25 million project for strengthening Nigeria's capacity to respond effectively to HIV/AIDS, and in Tanzania, DFID is working with the Tanzanian Government to set
  1706W
  up an HIV/AIDS Fund of around £15 million per year over the next three years. In Malawi a programme is being designed that focuses on actions to help address the impact of HIV/AIDS on human resources in health and other sectors.

  However, scaling-up the HIV/AIDS response will not only require additional expenditure for HIV/AIDS-specific programmes. The socio-economic impact of HIV/AIDS and the vulnerability of the poor people in developing countries to HIV/AIDS mean that DFID's overall development effort around support for country owned Poverty Reduction Strategies remain of central importance. DFID's continuing work in the area of capacity building, education, public and financial sector reform and strengthening of civil society will all contribute to combating HIV/AIDS.

  DFID will make HIV/AIDS and Africa a centrepiece of the UK's Presidencies of the G8 and the EU in 2005. This creates an opportunity to work with the international community to increase the global HIV/ AIDS response in Africa. If DFID is to succeed with our efforts we shall need to focus on four challenges that are seen as key to unlocking faster progress: Stronger political direction, better funding, better donor co-ordination and better HIV/AIDS programmes.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) when the Department will report progress on its targets(a) to reduce maternal mortality and (b) to tackle HIV/AIDS in Asia; [171682]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress on (a) the reduction of the under five mortality rate and (b) the TB treatment rates in Asia. [171684]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's Departmental Report for 2004 (Reference code CM 6214), published on 5 May, reports on progress against the targets to reduce maternal mortality and to tackle HIV/AIDS and also to increase TB treatment rates in Asia. Copies of this report have been placed in the Library of the House.

  International Plan of Action on Ageing
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action his Department(a) has taken and (b) intends to take in relation to the findings of the International Plan of Action on Ageing 2002. [170984]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID was closely involved in the preparations for the Second World Assembly on Ageing, held in Madrid in 2002. For example DFID supported the UN secretariat for the Assembly and also provided funding for the African Union's leadership and for the non-governmental organisation HelpAge International (HAI) to participate in the policy development process. DFID's support helped to ensure that poverty reduction and other development issues were fully reflected in the International Plan of Action, so that it provides a good basis for further action by the international community.

  The eradication of poverty is a fundamental aim of the International Plan of Action. DFID's aim is also the elimination of poverty in poorer countries. Older people are often among the poorest. The problems faced by many older people are therefore included in the policy

  1707W
  analyses currently being carried out by DFID on chronic poverty and on social exclusion. DFID is also funding research at the Centre for Chronic Poverty and Development Policy at Manchester, in partnership with HelpAge International, into elderly people living in poverty. Other recently completed research projects looked at the migration of older people from South Asia and at non-contributory pensions and poverty prevention.

  The Action Plan advocates the active participation of older people in society and development. DFID's approach recognises the human rights of poor people, including older people and seeks to ensure that they are consulted on policies and decisions that affect them. DFID encourages their participation in research and in the development of policies that affect them. This increases understanding of how they perceive their rights and of the obstacles they face in obtaining their entitlements.

  DFID has had a strategic Programme Partnership Agreement with HelpAge International (HAI) since 2002. The purpose is to influence the development of policies and practices that promote rights and opportunities for older people and to maximise their contribution to society. DFID has provided funding of £2.46 million under this Agreement over the financial years 2002–03 to 2004–05. Funding for future years has still to be negotiated.

  HAI's work includes support for setting up effective groups of older citizens in developing countries. This includes strengthening them to monitor how their governments carry out their commitments to reduce the poverty of older people, including the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing. This project also encourages dialogue between governments, civil society and older people to ensure that effective policies and programmes are developed to reduce poverty among older people. A major objective of HAI is to raise awareness of the impact of HIV/AIDS on older people. They also support work to inform older people of their rights—for example a programme in South Africa to train older people to give affordable legal advice at village level on issues such as widowhood and inheritance.

  Examples of projects funded by DFID country programmes include support for the development of services for older people in the Kemerovo region of Russia and projects in the Overseas Territories of Montserrat and St. Helena to provide sheltered housing and other support for elderly people to live in the community.

  Primary Schools (Developing Countries)
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the projects being funded by his Department which will lead to more primary school places being made available in developing countries in the current financial year. [169373]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The UK Government are working in the poorest countries in the world and with the international community to help governments 1708W
  provide education for millions of children who are out of-school. Total investment in education from 1997–2002 was around £820 million. During the last financial year of 2003–04 DFID has spent over £170 million on education in developing countries, providing books and equipment, building new schools, paying teacher salaries and providing training for teachers. This figure is set to rise to over £250 million per year for the next four years.

  Progress has already been made in many countries; global enrolment in primary education increased from £596 million in 1990 to £648 million children in 2000.

  There are projects supporting primary education in several countries including Bangladesh, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria (with the World Bank), Pakistan, Rwanda, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Vietnam and Zambia. Projects in Nepal are also under development. In addition, DFID supports education in Mozambique and Uganda through budget support.

  In Vietnam, DFID supports the implementation of the Governments recently approved National Education for All action plan. This includes support for a range of actions to ensure sufficient primary school places of reasonable quality for all children in educationally disadvantaged districts.

  In India for example, the UK Government are providing funds to the Indian Government to help children from four of the poorest states attend and complete a full cycle of basic schooling. In Kenya, the Government recently stopped school fees at primary school. Making education free has brought a dramatic rise in the number of children going to school—over one million extra children. DFID is supporting the Kenyan Government to provide enough school places to keep up with demand and to ensure that quality is sustained. Finally, in Ethiopia the Government has prioritized primary education. Although enrolment is among the lowest in sub-Saharan Africa, progress is on track and the Gross Enrolment Rate has doubled over the last 10 years to 65 per cent.

  Uganda
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which consultants are retained by his Department to provide the Government of Uganda with advice on delivery of public services; what the value of the contracts with the consultants is; and what the nature of the consultants' brief is. [171207]

  Hilary Benn
  The requested information is shown as follows.

  Consultant name

  Contract purpose

  Contract value (£)

  Marine Resources Assessment Group (MRAG)

  Integrated lake management project

  4,527,051

  Agrisystems Ltd.

  Improving rural livelihoods in north and east Uganda through innovative systems for client led agriculture

  4,428,843

  Maxwell Stamp plc

  Uganda Revenue Authority phase 2— Uganda

  2,483,210

  1709W

  Consultant name

  Contract purpose

  Contract value (£)

  The Media Company

  Radio for Gulu and Kitgum

  771,135

  Local Government International Bureau

  City-Community Challenge Fund pilot project number 1

  500,000

  International Book Development Ltd.

  Instructional Materials Reform Programme

  864,190

  Maxwell Stamp plc

  Support to Privatisation and utility reform (SPUR) Project

  585,840

  LTS International Ltd.

  Uganda Forest Sector Policy and Strategy Framework Project

  1,730,153

  KPMG

  Results oriented management adviser, Uganda

  323,980

  International Book Development Ltd.

  Instructional Materials Reform Programme (phase 2)

  331,010

  EASP Ltd.

  Financial management systems and technical support

  93,170

  Water Engineering and Development Centre (WEDC)

  Development of performance measurement for the Uganda water and sanitation sector

  118,136

  HTS Development Ltd.

  DFID support for development of Uganda Bureau of Statistics

  88,909

  John Snow International

  HIV mainstreaming follow up and PEAP revision visit

  45,857

  The Law and Development Partnership Ltd.

  A study on remuneration and pay policies for public service institutions and other Government agencies

  139,821

  University of Sussex

  Social Protection phase 2 and 3: Uganda

  54,548

  Water Supplies
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance he is giving to projects which improve access to clean water in the developing world. [171017]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is committed to supporting implementation of the Millennium Development Goals on access to safe water and provision of basic sanitation, and to the commitments made at the World Summit on Sustainable Development for better management of water resources. 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. DFID supports an integrated approach to sustainable water resource management, water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion.

  DFID currently has bilateral programmes in many countries and supports several major multilateral initiatives to improve access to clean water and sanitation. DFID is also working with other bilateral and multilateral agencies to develop more effective ways of attracting financing at a global level that are linked to the development of effective national water sector strategies and policies.
  1710W
  DFID's recent Water Action Plan sets out how DFID will contribute to meeting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), through ongoing commitments to water supply, sanitation and water resource management.

DEFENCE

  Army Air Corps (Medical Care)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the standard of medical care available to personnel serving at Army Air Corps stations. [169986]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Defence Medical Services provide the Armed Forces with a comprehensive medical service in peace, war and operations other than war to standards at least equal to the National Health Service (NHS). Military Personnel serving at Army Air Corps stations will receive primary health care, including specialist aviation medicine advice, from their units; psychiatric care from their local Defence Community Mental Health Centre; and secondary care from the NHS, including those NHS Trusts which host Ministry of Defence Hospital Units.

  The Defence Medical Services ensure and monitor the quality of care provided through robust Clinical Governance process. This includes the practice of evidence based medicine, clinical audit, supervision of clinicians performance, patient feedback, risk management, complaints management and the development of clinical leadership skills.

  Crash Investigation (Norway)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the assistance being provided by the Royal Air Force and his Department to the inquiry into allegations that a Royal Air Force Harrier aircraft was involved in the crash of a civilian Twin Otter near Mehamn in Norway in 1982. [171052]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has undertaken to provide all possible assistance to the Norwegian Parliamentary Commissions inquiry into the Mehamn tragedy. However, owing to the passage of time since the accident, we are having difficulty in finding the records relevant to the questions posed to us by the Commission.

  Defence Bills Agency
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 15 March 2004,Official Report, column 46W, on Defence Bills Agency, how many of the bills processed by the Defence Bills Agency in 2002–03 related to procurement contracts; what the total value of those bills was; and what the figures were in (a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [170432]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Defence Housing (Rubbish Disposal)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the standard of the household rubbish collections services at defence housing associated with(a) RAF Leeming, (b) RAF Linton on Ouse, (c) AAC Dishforth and (d) Alanbrooke Barracks; and if he will make a statement. [169997]

  Mr. Caplin
  No assessment has been made by the Ministry of Defence of the standard of household rubbish collection services in the areas named, other than that Service families in those locations receive the same service as civilian residents and, like other contributors to council tax revenue, are entitled to present any concerns to the council, either as individuals or residents' groups.

  Defence Medical Personnel
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the civilian medical practitioners based at(a) RAF Leeming, (b) RAF Linton on Ouse, (c) AAC Dishforth and (d) Alanbrooke Barracks are stationed at these bases on a full-time basis. [170005]

  Mr. Caplin
  Civilian medical practitioners at RAF Leeming and RAF Linton on Ouse are employed on a full-time basis. At AAC Dishforth and Alanbrooke Barracks medical cover is provided through civilian GPs working part-time on a job share arrangement or through arrangements with local NHS practitioners.

  Defence Medical Services
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provision his Department makes for access to private medical treatment or diagnosis for personnel who are unduly affected by delays in receiving such treatment and diagnosis from the Defence Medical Services. [170007]

  Mr. Caplin
  Limited use is made of private healthcare providers to enable Service personnel to be diagnosed or treated and returned to medical fitness. The Army Training and Recruitment Agency (ATRA) provide access to private medical care for recruits, and their instructors, who are injured during Phase 1 training in order that they may return to training more quickly. The Royal Navy run a limited scheme whereby essential personnel who are urgently required for operational deployment can be treated by a private healthcare provider in order to allow them deploy medically fit. Defence Medical Service (DMS) Regional Rehabilitation Units are able to obtain diagnostic Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans through local private providers, although any treatment identified by the scans would normally be carried out within the DMS system. RAF station commanders are able to use station funds to provide private treatment for individuals if they are urgently required for military operations.

  Defence Scientific and Technology Laboratory
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the operations and financial transactions of the Defence Scientific and Technology Laboratory will be related to the Ministry of Defence's Top Level Budget for Corporate Science and Technology established on 1 April 2004. [169386]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) will remain one of the single largest suppliers of research to the new Top Level Budget (TLB). Dstl is a Trading Fund of the Ministry of Defence and it will continue to carry out all such work which, for reasons of sensitivity or security, must be done within Government. Research tasking will continue to be managed through formal tasking orders placed by the Department on the Dstl Trading Fund in accordance with the established Terms of Business Agreement. The new TLB will maintain financial accounts as the customer and the Trading Fund will maintain separate accounts as supplier. The day-to-day operation of the Trading Fund will be a matter for the Chief Executive, directed at a strategic level by the Ministerial owner's board in the Ministry of Defence. The key change represented by the new TLB is a move towards an output based approach for research planning and delivery and this will impact progressively on all research suppliers including Dstl by bringing a sharper focus on the priority needs of key stakeholders in the defence and security area.

  Equipment Costs
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the forecast cost was on 31 March 2000 for the Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System. [170363]

  Mr. Ingram
  The forecast cost of the Extended Range Ordnance/Modular Charge System programme at 31 March 2000 was £188 million.

  HMS Trafalgar
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of allegations by crew members that major defects in HMS Trafalgar remain to be rectified. [170664]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]HMS Trafalgar returned to sea to test equipment and systems following a major period of maintenance and repair. Before a submarine undertakes such a period at sea it goes through a complex and exhaustive testing procedure by a number of authorities which is fully documented. HMS Trafalgar passed that inspection. If she had any major defects or failing systems she would not have been allowed to return to sea. The allegations made by members of her crew have been assessed by appropriately qualified engineering personnel. The allegations that HMS Trafalgar had major defects which should have prevented her return to sea are unfounded.
  1713W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether HMS Trafalgar is seaworthy; and if he will make a statement. [170720]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]HMS Trafalgar would not have returned to sea if she had not been seaworthy. Our nuclear submarines have been operating for over 40 years and have a safety record that is second to none. Before any submarine goes to sea, particularly as with HMS Trafalgar, after a period of maintenance and defect repair, it undergoes a rigorous series of safety checks and a number of authorities are involved in that process.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safety concerns of the crew members who left HMS Trafalgar. [170739]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy have been operating nuclear powered submarines for over 40 years and have a safety record that is second to none. We would not send a submarine to sea unless it was safe to do so.

  Of the 124 crew members on board HMS Trafalgar, 12 expressed general reservations over the material state of the submarine following a period of maintenance and repair. These concerns centred on three areas. These being:
  the release, as a result of human error, of diesel exhaust fumes into the submarine;
  a leak into the submarine, resulting from faulty equipment not related to recent maintenance, during pressurisation of the Freon domestic refrigerant gas system; and concerns related to faults to the paint finish of the escape hatch docking seat which had been inspected and judged to be minor and insufficient to prevent successful docking of a rescue submersible if that extremely unlikely event should prose necessary.

  Following these individual expressions of concern, made through the appropriate channels, and the levels of stress shown by 11 of these individuals, the Commanding Officer quite properly decided to remove these sailors from the submarine for medical assessment. In doing so, he acted in the best interests of those individuals and the Service. The twelfth member of the crew who discussed his concerns with the Commanding Officer elected to remain on board and sailed with Trafalgar.

  Iraq
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments his Department has made to private military companies working in Iraq. [166132]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has not employed private military companies in Iraq. It has not, therefore, made any payments to such companies.

  Nuclear Installations (Aircraft Incidents)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each near miss incident involving RAF aircraft and United Kingdom nuclear installations reported to his Department in each year since 2000; and if he will place copies of the report on each incident in the Library. [165158]
  1714W
  Mr. Ingram
  [Pursuant to his reply, 27 April 2004 Official Report, columns 873–74W] Further work identified some inconsistencies in the recording of the alleged incidents. The table now reflects the year that the alleged incident occurred.

  Total number of alleged incidents

  Total confirmed breach

  Under investigation

  2000

  12

  —

  —

  2001

  20

  1

  —

  2002

  13

  2

  —

  2003

  13

  2

  —

  2004 (up to 31 March 04)

  1

  —

  1

  Nuclear Safety
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring programmes are in place to assess the health of present and former Royal Naval and MoD contracted personnel who have worked on nuclear submarine refits. [170230]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence and its contractors carry out medical surveillance of radiation workers as required by Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999, Regulation 24. These regulations lay down monitoring and medical surveillance requirements for personnel while occupationally exposed to ionising radiation. The main purpose of medical surveillance is to determine an individual's fitness or continuing fitness for the intended work with ionising radiation. There is no mandatory requirement for a health monitoring programme for former personnel who have worked on nuclear submarine refits and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health on 15 December 2003,Official Report, column 785W to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).

  MOD and its contractors at the Royal Dockyards however, provide an independent counselling service for radiation workers, former radiation workers and their families who have concerns about their health consequent of their work with radiation.

  Individuals may request counselling by telephoning the Counselling Telephone line (02392 768098) and leaving their names and addresses or by writing to the MOD Counselling Registry at DSTL Radiological Protection Services, Crescent Road, Alverstoke, Gosport, Hants, P012 2DL. Further details are available on the world wide web at: http://www.mod.uk/dsef/hp/rwc.htm.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimates have recently been made of the safety of levels of radiation regarded as acceptable when early generations of nuclear submarines were being refitted; and if he will authorise a new assessment; [170231]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the likelihood that individuals involved in past nuclear submarine refits have (a) been exposed to cancer-causing levels of radiation and (b) developed cancer as a result. [170229]
  1715W
  Mr. Ingram
  Radiation exposure is kept as low as reasonably practicable and within the dose limits recommended by the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) and specified in the United Kingdom legislation. Both the ICRP and UK regulations are regularly reviewed and updated. Therefore, there is no need for the Ministry of Defence to make its own assessment.

  Those workers most exposed to ionising radiation, known as classified persons, have their exposure assessed using radiation dosimeters issued by an Approved Dosimetry Service and entered into their radiation dose record. The Ministry of Defence contributes its data on classified persons to the National Registry of Radiation Workers (NRRW) managed by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The NRRW data are used in epidemiological studies. In an analysis of the data, published in July 1999, the NRPB concluded that overall death rates among radiation workers are below those in the general population. The analysis contained 124,743 workers, of which about one third were Ministry of Defence radiation workers or former radiation workers. The NRPB is intending to undertaker the next analysis in 2005–06.

  RAF Medical Centres
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the standard of medical care available to aircrew manning Quick Reaction Alert aircraft at(a) RAF Leeming, (b) RAF Leuchars and (c) RAF Coningsby. [169993]

  Mr. Caplin
  All RAF medical centres are regularly inspected as part of the RAF's Formal Governance Visit programme. This programme involves a formal command level inspection of medical standards and working practices every two years, with self-assessment questionnaires being completed in the intervening years. All of the Quick Reaction Alert medical centres were assessed as satisfactory at their last inspections.

  RAF Benson
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations he has received from members of the local community with regard to the future of RAF Benson; [169789]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the economic costs to the local community were RAF Benson to close. [169791]

  Mr. Caplin
  I made clear to the House in my Written Statement of 23 March Official Report, columns 47WS–48WS, that the Ministry of Defence is continually examining ways of improving military capability and value for money for the taxpayer. As part of this approach, we therefore keep the size and location of our bases under constant review. No decisions have been made regarding the future of RAF Benson. No assessment on the economic costs to the local community of any closure has been made.
  1716W
  In addition to the two letters from the hon. Gentleman, the Ministry of Defence has received one letter from the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson). RAF Benson has received a letter from the local Chamber of Commerce.

  Royal Navy (Job Titles)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the title of engineering artificer is to be replaced by that of engineering technician in the Royal Navy; what consultations were undertaken with non-commissioned Royal Naval personnel before the decision was taken; and if he will make a statement on the future of engineering apprenticeships in the Royal Navy. [170227]

  Mr. Caplin
  The title artificer no longer adequately describes the professional role that those personnel undertake in the modern Navy. Replacing it 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.

  There has been wide consultation with Royal Navy Engineering Branch personnel of all ranks and rates during this review, covering all aspects of the proposals, including the title change.

  It is expected that satisfactory completion of Technician training will be recognised by the award of a Foundation Degree, providing the opportunity, for those who wish, to study to Bachelor Degree level, thereby enabling them to aspire to accreditation as Incorporated Engineers The quality of the skilled, technically trained men and women provided to support the Fleet will be undiminished.

  Trident Nuclear Warhead
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) life of the current design of the Trident missile and ((b)) maximum life of the Trident missile system is; and if he will make a statement. [170350]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 February 2004,Official Report, column 1458W to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Julian Lewis).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money was allocated by(a) the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, (b) the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, (c) the Ultach Trust and (d) Foras na Gaeilge towards the arts in each year since 1999. [168559]
  1717W
  Angela Smith
  Expenditure on the arts since 1999 by the Arts Council of Northern Ireland is as set out in the following tables:

  £000 million

  1999–2000

  15,522,314

  2000–01

  11,699,055

  2001–02

  13,040,613

  2002–03

  14,997,581

  2003–04 (Subject to audit)

  16,074,500

  Expenditure on the arts since 1999 by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure is as follows (excluding grant in aid to the Arts Council):

  £000

  1999–2000

  367,910

  2000–01

  469,500

  2001–02

  730,000

  2002–03

  756,672

  2003–04

  492,405

  The Ultach Trust is a registered charitable trust. The Government are not responsible for the Trust's expenditure.

  Expenditure on the arts since 1999 by Foras na Gaeilge is as follows:

  £000

  1999

  —

  2000

  150,000

  2001

  170,000

  2002

  200,000

  2003

  200,000

  Bank Charges
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to bring about the reduction of charges to customers by banks operating in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [165784]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Banking is a reserved matter under Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Northern Ireland Departments have no powers in this area. The hon. Lady will, however, wish to note that the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland (GCCNI) produced a report, "Short Changed", in 2002, which highlighted the need to make banking easy, affordable and accessible for all Northern Ireland's consumers. In subsequent press releases, GCCNI has advised consumers to shop around and has called on local banks to scrap unnecessary charges and advertise the existence of their low-cost basic bank accounts. It is also promoting financial education initiatives. Powers in relation to the areas referred to by the hon. Lady are vested in the Office of Fair Trading. I have asked my officials to bring the hon. Lady's concerns to the attention of that organisation to which further questions should be directed.
  1718W
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether all bank charges in Northern Ireland meet the code and ethics laid down by the UK banking industry; what steps the Government can take to protect Northern Ireland bank customers; and if he will make a statement. [165785]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Banking is a reserved matter under Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Northern Ireland Departments have no powers in this area. Compliance with the Banking Code and the Business Banking Code is a matter for the Banking Code Standards Board. In relation to the steps the Government can take to protect Northern Ireland bank customers, I would refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave today to Question Number 165784.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his estimate is of the extent of benefit fraud in Northern Ireland; and what measures are in place to deal with it. [170482]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am totally committed to a robust approach to tackling fraud and error and abuse of the social security system wherever it occurs.

  The Social Security Agency is unable to measure the amount of fraud across all benefits on an annual basis. However, a programme of Benefit Reviews is carried out on a regular basis across all of the major Social Security benefits. During the 2003–04 year the following levels were estimated:
  Income support, 1.6 per cent. (£7.625 million) of benefit expenditure;
  Jobseekers allowance, 6.1 per cent. (£6.626 million) of benefit expenditure;
  Housing benefit, 2.2 per cent. (£6.967 million) of benefit expenditure.

  During 2002–03, a Benefit Review was carried out in Incapacity Benefit. A total of 591 cases were examined of which only 2 (0.3 per cent.) were found to be fraudulent. Based on this small number of fraudulent cases, it is anticipated that this equates to £0.94 million of benefit expenditure.

  The Social Security Agency has a comprehensive and rigorous strategy for combating fraud designed to ensure that:
  claims entering the system are legitimate;
  once in the system claims are maintained properly; and
  where fraud does enter the system it is detected and appropriate action is taken.

  In the period from April 2003 to March 2004, 7,761 cases of suspected fraud were investigated. Of these cases, 3,944 (51 per cent.) resulted in withdrawal of claims or changes in the rate of benefit paid and 345 were referred for prosecution. In the same period there were 101 cases where administrative penalties were imposed and 54 cases where cautions were issued.

  Childhood Tumours
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to ensure that(a) the new regional cancer unit at the Belfast City Hospital and (b) local research prioritise childhood tumours; and if he will make a statement. [171030]

  Angela Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  (a) The Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children is responsible for the management of childhood cancers and this will not change when the new Cancer Centre opens at the Belfast City Hospital in 2006. Children requiring radiotherapy will continue to be referred to Belfast City Hospital Trust, which currently provides radiotherapy for around 15 children each year.

  The effective management of childhood cancers is already a key priority for the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. The Hospital is a member of the United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group, comprising 22 specialist centres. Each of the centres adheres to agreed protocols for the treatment of childhood cancers, developed in collaboration with European and worldwide oncology centres.

  (b) In Northern Ireland, there is an active research base in both cancer and child health and welfare, through the Recognised Research Groups, supported by the R&D Office for the HPSS.

  Hotel Accommodation
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much capital grant has been paid by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board for the provision of upgrading hotel accommodation in each of the last five financial years. [170435]

  Mr. Pearson
  In April 2002 the Capital Investment Programme for accommodation development moved from the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) to Invest Northern Ireland (Invest NI). Invest NI has responsibility for allocation of resources to accommodation infrastructure projects through the Tourism Development Scheme whilst the NITB retains responsibility for investment in visitor attractions, visitor amenities and visitor servicing.

  From April 1999 to March 2004 inclusive, £3,961,879 has been paid by the NITB and Invest NI towards the upgrading of hotels in Northern Ireland. The payment figure can be broken down as set out in the following table:

  Payments made (£)

  1999–2000

  1,048,199

  2000–01

  946,826

  2001–02

  1,045,610

  2002–03

  567,430

  2003–04

  353,814

  Total

  3,961,879

  Housing Executive (Rent Levels)
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the annual changes in Northern Ireland housing executive rents were over the last six years. [171001]
  1720W
  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 26 April 2004,Official Report, column 820W, which provides information about the Housing Executive rents in Northern Ireland over the five year period 2000–01 to 2004–05. The increase for 1999–2000 was 4.5 per cent.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many motorists have been prosecuted since the introduction of the legislation on the use of mobile phones in Northern Ireland. [169759]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 came into operation on 1 February 2004 and I am advised that during that month the PSNI gave advice and warnings to motorists that committed an offence. I understand that the PSNI have issued 835 fixed penalty notices from 1 March 2004 in respect of contraventions. Statistics on the number of prosecutions in respect of hand-held mobile telephones a:re not yet available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Northern Ireland Police Board (Fair Employment)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many formal complaints alleging breaches of fair employment and equal opportunity legislation by the Northern Ireland Policing Board 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. [170728]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have been advised by the Northern Ireland Policing Board of the following statistics relating to the number of formal complaints made to the Office of Industrial Tribunals and the Office of Fair Employment Tribunals alleging breaches of fair employment and equal opportunity legislation by the Northern Ireland Policing Board:2002: None.
  2003: Two Cases.
  2004: None to date.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of(a) the adequacy of the Northern Ireland Policing Board's equal opportunities policy and (b) the supply of appropriately qualified and trained staff to implement it; and what assessment he has made of the ability of the Board to comply with (i) equal opportunities and (ii) fair employment legislation, with particular reference to the requirement to preserve all relevant records and papers. [170404]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Northern Ireland Policing Board is designated as a public authority and is therefore required by Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, in carrying out its functions to have due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity and regard to promote good relations.

  The Policing Board's Equality Scheme, which was approved on 12 February 2003 sets out how it proposes to fulfil its statutory duties. As like all other public

  1721W
  authorities the Policing Board produces an annual progress report on its Equality Scheme and submits this to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland.

  In addition as an employer I have been informed by the Policing Board that it has in place all the necessary procedures and processes to ensure that it complies with all relevant employment law. The Board has recently implemented their Equal Opportunities policy arid undertaken the associated training for all staff.

  I have also been advised that all relevant records and papers in respect of recruitment are retained in accordance with equal opportunities policies and legislative requirements.

  Planning Policy
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will reverse the practice of planning authorities in Northern Ireland of presuming in favour of development. [169920]

  Angela Smith
  This matter will be considered as part of the forthcoming review of Planning Policy Statement 1 which sets out among other matters the general principles that my Department observes in exercising control of development. This review, which will involve public consultation, is due to be completed by the end of 2005.

  Public Administration Review
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the Review of Public Administration; when interim proposals will be published; and if he will make a statement. [170437]

  Mr. Pearson
  Consultation on high level models of public administration concluded on 27 February 2004 with some 170 responses being received. These have now been published on the Review's website.

  On 27 and 29 April 2004 I met representatives of all the main political parties to outline the key messages emerging from the consultation responses, and to discuss the core elements of a new system of public administration that reflects the views expressed in these responses. The parties have agreed to work with me over the coming months, and I hope to be in a position to publish firm proposals for consultation in the autumn.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost incurred by the Review of Public Administration has been since the beginning of financial year 2001–02. [170438]

  Mr. Pearson
  In May 2002 the Northern Ireland Executive agreed an overall budget of £3 million for the Review of Public Administration. To date a total expenditure of £1 71 million has been incurred by the Review. Prior to that, some preparatory work was undertaken on the Review before a dedicated budget was established. This work was completed by officials in OFMDFM who were engaged on a variety of issues, and therefore it is not possible to identify these costs separately.

  Respiratory Illnesses
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to assist those people in Northern Ireland who suffer from respiratory illnesses and as a result of their condition have severe restriction in their mobility. [171003]

  Angela Smith
  A number of initiatives are currently under way to help people who are affected by chronic respiratory disease in Northern Ireland. For those people who are disabled with respiratory disease, many Trusts have developed multi-professional Pulmonary Rehabilitation Services. Further work is currently being undertaken by Trusts, in association with Boards, to ensure that the full range of these services is available to everyone in Northern Ireland.

  Recognising the impact of respiratory diseases on the health of people in Northern Ireland, my Department intends to initiate a major review of respiratory services in 2004–05. The scope of the review is not yet finalised, but key themes will include: primary prevention and the development of links with other health promotion strategies; the encouragement and facilitation of self-care; the promotion of multi- disciplinary team working; and, the development of integrated care pathways across the primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare sectors.

  Social Economy (Public Bodies)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland where the first meeting of the Social Economy Forum in June 2003 was held; and how many attended, and what the cost of the meeting was. [170071]

  Mr. Pearson
  The first meeting of the Social Economy Forum was held at the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action premises in Belfast. There were 26 attendees, evenly split between social economy sectoral representatives and Government officials. Room hire and catering costs were £310.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05 budget at the disposal of the (i) Social Economy Forum and (ii) Social Economy Agency is. [170072]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Social Economy Forum is a policy platform. The Forum of itself has no budget but as a policy platform it seeks to influence how others utilise their resources to develop the social economy sector.

  £600,000 has been made available to the Social Economy Agency over a four-year period (2002–06). This is to establish and service a new high-level sectoral representative body, the Social Economy Network and its committees.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff are employed in the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment's inter-departmental steering group on the social economy. [170073]

  Mr. Pearson
  None. The Inter-Departmental Steering Group (IDSG) consists of senior officials from all 11 Northern Ireland Departments. It meets three to four
  1723W
  times per year and considers how departmental policies and programmes can support the growth of the sector, encourage greater cross-departmental co-operation and identify key action points to increase the sector's potential to build 'social capital' and create wealth and jobs, particularly in disadvantaged areas.

PRIME MINISTER

  Middle East
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the recent open letter on Government policies on Iraq and the Israel/Palestine situation, signed by former British diplomats; and whether he plans to respond to the letter. [170994]

  The Prime Minister
  I set out my response to the letter at the press conference I gave with the Italian Prime Minister on 27 April. A full transcript of this is available on the Number 10 website.

  Immigration
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to bring the immigration procedures and rules up to date. [171080]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written ministerial statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 22 April 2004,Official Report, columns 23–25WS.

  Iraq
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement of 19 April 2004,Official Report, columns 21–3, on Iraq and the Middle East Peace Process, (1) whether he raised in Washington the role of the British representative in Baghdad; [171165]

  (2) whether he asked President Bush to designate the British representative as Ambassador Bremer's deputy. [171168]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) during my statement on 19 April 2004, Official Report, column 33.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement of 19 April 2004, Official Report, columns 21–3, on Iraq and the Middle East Peace Process, what proposals were agreed with President Bush to improve the training and effectiveness of Iraqi security forces. [171166]

  The Prime Minister
  As I have made clear, discussions are still continuing on this.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement of 19 April 2004, Official Report, columns 21–3, on Iraq and the Middle East Peace Process, (1) what arrangements are being made to replace the Spanish contingent; [171167]

  (2) whether British commanders in Iraq have asked for reinforcements; and whether any such request has been made by the US Administration. [171169]
  1724W
  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave him at Prime Minister's questions on 5 May 2004,Official Report, columns 1331–32.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Equal Pay
  23. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister for Women what steps are being taken to erode the differential between male and female earnings. [170672]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are taking a number of steps to increase women's opportunities in the labour market such as increasing support for child care, flexible working and work-balance and the help we, together with the EOC, have provided employees to tackle unequal pay where it exists. Indeed, we welcome yesterday's publication of the EOC's interim report on modern apprenticeships, which looks at the issue of occupational segregation, one of the causes of the gender pay gap.

  Employment
  24. Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Minister for Women what change there has been in the number of women in employment since 1997. [170673]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have implemented a substantial package of measures to give women greater choice when entering the labour market, including new rights for working parents, tax credits, New Deal for Lone Parents and New Deal for Partners. There are now more women in employment than ever before, 13 million, up from 12 million in spring 1997. This Government's initiatives have contributed to the significant increase.

  Rape (Rwanda)
  25. Tom Brake
  To ask the Minister for Women what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for International Development regarding rape survivors in Rwanda. [170674]

  Ms Hewitt
  I fully support the work of my colleague the Secretary of State for International Development to assist women in post-conflict situations. The UK Government are providing direct assistance to the survivors of the genocide which is currently running at £200,000 per annum. I welcome the planned additional support of up to £850,000 which will include advice and counselling on issues around HIV/AIDS. I also welcome the financial assistance his Department is providing to witnesses, including rape survivors, at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  26. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister for Women what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health regarding teenage pregnancy. [170675]
  1725W
  Jacqui Smith
  My hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and my hon. Friend the Minister for Women are pleased with the early signs that the Government's Teenage Strategy is working. The under 18 conception rate has fallen by 9.4 per cent between 1998 and 2002.

  Maternity Leave (Dismissals)
  27. Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister for Women to how many companies she has made representations over the dismissal of women on return from maternity leave. [170676]

  Jacqui Smith
  Our message to employers is that those who discriminate against women returning from maternity leave are breaking the law. I welcome the EOC's formal investigation into pregnancy discrimination, as I am too aware that this type of unlawful discrimination still takes place. Hard evidence of the scope, nature of and reasons for such discrimination will enable us to tackle it more effectively.

  Criminal Justice
  28. Vera Baird
  To ask the Minister for Women how she intends to respond to the Fawcett Society's Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System. [170677]

  Ms Hewitt
  I welcome the wide-ranging and valuable contribution that the Fawcett Society's Commission on Women and the Criminal Justice System.

  The recommendations will strengthen the work already in hand to support victims as outlined in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victim's Bill, the three-year Action Plan to implement the Women's Offending Reduction Programme and Gender Equality PSA targets to increase women's participation in the criminal justice system.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Consumer Credit
  11. Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on responses received from businesses consulted on recommendations contained within the White Paper on reforming consumer credit legislation. [170688]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  We have received a substantial number of responses to the Consumer Credit White Paper and its associated consultation. The responses represent views from a wide cross section of the credit industry; business, consumer groups and enforcement agencies.

  The Department is currently analysing these comments with a view to publishing a full Government response in early June.

  Aerospace Industry
  13. Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in pursuing the recommendations of the Aerospace Innovation and Growth Team report. [170690]
  1726W
  Jacqui Smith
  Good progress has been made across the wide range of recommendations contained in the report, covering the areas of technology, skills, process excellence, socio-economic environment and environment, safety and security.

  EU (New Members)
  14. Chris Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on trade with the 10 new member states of the EU. [170691]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Accession of the 10 new states to the EU creates a market of 450 million people (bigger than US and Japan combined).

  It will be the largest single market in the world, creating unprecedented opportunities for business and workers.

  The UK should be well-placed to compete in this market on the basis of our supportive business environment and highly skilled and flexible workforce.

  Miners Compensation
  15. Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will arrange for a compensation scheme for ex-National Coal Board workers employed as cokemen and surface workers who contracted chest diseases. [170692]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Two coal compensation schemes were established following court judgements on vibration white finger and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. To date 4,143 payments have been made to miners in North-East Derbyshire. There have been no similar court judgements in the case of the other diseases, but claimants are entitled to seek compensation through the common law.

  Science Research
  16. Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the cost effectiveness of the Department's programme of financing science research. [170693]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since 1997, the Department of Trade and Industry has doubled the investment in science and research through the Science Budget—reaching £3 billion in 2005—and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has confirmed that investment will continue to grow over the next Spending Review period.

  The UK science and research base is recognised not only for its excellence: UK researchers are the most productive in the G8 countries, and I am confident that our investment will continue to pay dividends for our economy and our society.

  Call Centres (Employment)
  18. Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of future employment prospects in the UK call centre industry. [170695]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Department is today publishing a report of the study we commissioned to look at the competitiveness of the UK call and contact
  1727W
  centre industry. The study which covers a wide range of call centre issues forecasts that the UK industry is to gain around 200,000 jobs in the next three years, directly employing over a million people by 2007.

  19. Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of future employment prospects in the UK call centre industry, with particular reference to Leeds. [170696]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Department is today publishing a report of the study we commissioned to look at the competitiveness of the UK call and contact centre industry. The study covers a wide range of call centre issues but does not specifically cover employment prospects for Leeds. The UK industry is forecast to gain around 200,000 jobs in the next three years, directly employing over a million people by 2007.

  Equal Pay
  20. Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further action she will take to close the pay gap between women and men in the south-east. [170697]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am taking forward a number of measures to address the pay gap nationally. These include the introduction of the Equal Pay Questionnaire, and last month we launched plans to streamline equal value tribunal procedures. We know that the large pay gaps in London and the south-east are driven by the very high salaries of men in the finance sector, that is why we are already working with the EOC to promote pay reviews in retail finance and city sectors.

  BNFL Strategy Review
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list in respect of the BNFL strategy review, to which reference is made at paragraph 15.27, page 126 of her Department's Annual Report, Cm 6216,(a) where the conclusions of the review were published, (b) who the members of the review were and (c) why neither the Thorpreprocessing plant nor the Sellafield Mox plant were included in the review. [170979]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The conclusions of the Joint Strategy Review of BNFL were announced in a written statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the House of Commons on 11 December 2003 and were placed in the Libraries of the House. Full copies of the statement and the explanatory note are available at: http://www.dti.gov.uk/nuclearcleanup/wn.htm

  The Review was a joint process between HMG, the company and their respective advisers. Mike Parker, the CEO at BNFL, led the BNFL team and was advised by N. M. Rothschild and Freshfields; the Government side was led by the DTI, and advised by HSBC, Deloitte and Touche and Herbert Smith. Other Government Departments, including HMT and the Shareholder Executive, were closely involved in the review process.

  The joint review of BNFL was necessary to determine the future structure and broad strategic direction of the company before the NDA came into being. The Government White Paper, "Managing the Nuclear Legacy—a Strategy for Action", published in July 2001 had already stated that responsibility for THORP and
  1728W
  the Sellafield MOX plutonium fuel plant would pass to the NDA. This policy has not changed, and accordingly, was not considered as part of the Strategy Review.

  Disconnections
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets on expanding the moratoria on disconnections for vulnerable groups beyond the winter months. [171307]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department has discussed, and will continue to discuss as appropriate, disconnections issues with Ofgem. With DTIs encouragement, Ofgem has been in discussion with gas and electricity suppliers about the arrangements governing disconnections, particularly for vulnerable customers. Last month, Ofgem issued an industry consultation paper that set out proposed revisions to, and clarification of, those arrangements. This should ensure that vulnerable customers are not, in the future, disconnected.

  Energy Supplies
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the delivery of secure energy supply over the winter. [170282]

  Nigel Griffiths
  We saw evidence this winter that the Government's market-based approach to delivering secure energy supplies is working well. Generators brought mothballed plant back into service in response to rising electricity prices, and signals from NGT that they would like greater capacity going into the winter. The plant margin for winter 2003–04 rose from a projected level of 16.5 per cent. in July to 21.6 per cent. (January 2004 updated to National Grid Seven Year Statement), and electricity supply was sufficient to meet demand throughout the winter. The gas market also worked effectively, and there was sufficient supply to meet market demand throughout the winter.

  In June, Ofgem are due to publish their next report into the performance of the electricity and gas industries in delivering security, covering the winter period. This follows from the commitment made in the Energy White Paper that Ofgem would publish six monthly retrospective reports on the delivery of energy security.

  Fluorspar
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the economic importance of a domestic marketable source of the vein mineral fluorspar; and what assessment she has made of its downstream value to the economy in associated industries, in particular those situated in(a) the northwest of England and (b) Derbyshire. [170379]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The DTI is aware of the economic importance of a domestic source of fluorspar and the value of the industry to the economies of the north-west, Derbyshire and the south-west. There have been no specific assessments made of the economic importance of a domestic marketable source of the fluorspar. However, currently deposits in the Peak Park district of Derbyshire are being worked economically providing jobs and contributing to the local economy. In what is a highly competitive global market the high quality of the
  1729W
  mineral being extracted is needed to underpin a viable fluorine producing industry in the north-west, that is itself providing a significant number of jobs and contributions to the local economy in that region. Officials are working with the companies concerned and local stakeholders to ensure that the UK continues to reap the economic benefits of working these deposits with minimal impact on the environment.

  Free Parcel Postage (British Forces)
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the future provision of free parcel postage to British Forces Post Offices in regions of combat and theatres of peacekeeping operations. [169141]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my written ministerial statement of 27 February 2004,Official Report, column 7OWS, 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) and 5 May 2004, Official Report, columns 1526–1527W, to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall).

  Internet Fraud
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated cost of internet fraud has been to United Kingdom(a) consumers and (b) businesses in each of the last five years. [169376]

  Ms Blears
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government do not collect figures on the cost of credit card fraud. The Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS) has estimated the total cost of losses due to fraudulent possession of card details (card-not-present fraud), which includes internet fraud, over the last five years is as follows:

  £million

  2003

  116.4

  2002

  110.1

  2001

  95.7

  2000

  72.9

  1999

  29.3

  Specific figures for costs to consumers or businesses are not available.

  Postal Votes
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Royal Mail has to ensure(a) prompt delivery to electors and (b) the prompt return to the returning officer after posting by electors of postal votes for the forthcoming London and European elections in Hendon constituency; and if she will make a statement. [170193]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Royal Mail's plan for ensuring the prompt delivery and return of postal votes is an operational issue for the company. I understand that Royal Mail has developed a best practice guide on 1730W
  postal voting, which is designed to be used by Royal Mail's local operational staff, contacts within local authorities and regional returning officer departments. This operational guide is based on the company's experience of previous postal voting pilots and was drawn up in close co-operation with the Electoral Commission and local authority associations.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Royal Mail's single delivery project. [170694]

  Ms Hewitt
  Royal Mail is currently undertaking a complete restructure of the business with the full backing of the Government. A key element of that change, and the most visible to Royal Mail's customers, is the move to a single delivery. The Royal Mail is the last postal company in the world to move to a single delivery and it is essential that it do so if the business is to become competitive. The second delivery is an anachronism. It accounted for 20 per cent. of Royal Mail's cost, but only 4 per cent. of post carried.

  Once the single delivery changes have been made, the target will be for everybody to receive his or her post by lunchtime. Many households will receive their post at the same time as before; others, however, will receive their post later in the morning. I fully appreciate that this will be disappointing to some but continuing the second delivery with its high costs makes no sense.

  This is a huge undertaking for the company. Single delivery has now been introduced in 1,100 out of 1,450 delivery offices. The process takes six to eight weeks to bed in, as postmen and women get used to new and longer delivery routes. I understand that for the most part the change has gone reasonably smoothly and is now working well. There have been some problems and Royal Mail has apologised for the fall in service. I have Allan Leighton's personal assurance that the problems customers are experiencing in certain areas while the single delivery is being introduced are being vigorously tackled and solutions being found.

  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of(a) the effect of size-based pricing on mail order companies and (b) the accuracy of Royal Mail's assertion that 30 per cent. of mail will be affected by these changes; [171010]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the introduction of size-based pricing by Royal Mail. [171011]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The introduction and the assessment of the effect of size-based pricing are matters for the Royal Mail and for the postal regulator, Postcomm.

  Wind Farms
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has made to other Government Departments regarding obstruction to shipping lanes from wind farms. [168355]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made on 4 May 2004,Official Report, column 1390W.
  1731W
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence she has examined on low frequency noise emitted by wind turbines. [170186]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Research on low frequency noise emitted from wind turbines has been carried out under the Department's New and Renewable Energy Programme and reported in "Low Frequency Noise and Vibrations Measurement at a Modern Wind Farm" ETSU W/13/00392/REP.

  The results of that study show that low frequency noise emitted from wind farms falls well within recognised acceptable limits.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Brazil
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the answer of 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 965W, on Brazil, whether inspectors were denied access by Brazilian officials on 4 April. [170586]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government's understanding of the situation remains as set out in my previous answer.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the production of his Department's latest annual report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [171144]

  Mr. Straw
  Production of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's departmental report 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 cost £24,453, of which £13,930 was for printing and £10,838 was for design and editorial work. These costs to the Department are 25 per cent. lower than for the 2003 report. Other costs are met by the publisher.

  1,900 copies of this year's report were printed, of which 1,350 are distributed internally at a price which covers printing costs. The Stationery Office publishes the report, and as a legal requirement, provides six copies free to the Copyright Library. As the current report was only published on 29 April 2004, information on sales is not yet available. Last year the Stationery Office issued 425 copies of the 2003 Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental report.

  Eritrea
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Eritrea about the persecution and imprisonment of Eritrean Christians; and under what circumstances he would support the imposition of sanctions by the(a) UK and (b) EU. [170490]

  Mr. Mullin
  I raised this issue with President Isaias in Asmara on 15 January. Our Ambassador in Asmara raised the issue most recently on 29 March. The Government has no plans to introduce sanctions against Eritrea.
  1732W

  EU General Affairs and External Relations Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the outcome was of the General Affairs and External Relations Council held on 26 and 27 April; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting records; and if he will make a statement. [169788]

  Mr. MacShane
  The information is as follows.

  Outcome of the 26 April 2004 General Affairs and External Relations Council

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I represented the UK at the General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) in Luxembourg on 26 April.

  Conclusions were agreed on the Middle East Peace Process, Western Balkans, Cyprus and Africa.

  General Affairs Session

  Progress of work in other Council configurations

  The Council took note of a progress report from the Presidency on work under way in the Council's other configurations (the Justice and Home Affairs Council and the Agriculture and Fisheries Council.)

  Follow-up to the spring European Council: Intergovernmental Conference

  The Council discussed the Presidency's plans for resuming negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference on the draft EU Constitutional Treaty, with a view to reaching agreement no later than the 17–18 June European Council.

  Enlargement

  Commissioner Verheugen gave a presentation on the preparedness of the 10 Accession States (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia) for membership of the European Union from 1 May.

  He acknowledged their efforts to address the remaining areas of concern. He confirmed that implementation of the EU's rules and policies have been satisfactory and that no safeguard measures would be necessary at this stage, pending a definitive assessment once they had joined.

  External Relations Session

  WTO/DOHA Development Agenda (DDA)

  Commissioner Lamy briefed on recent developments in the Doha Development Agenda (the negotiation agenda launched by the World Trade Organisation in November 2001 on Doha). The Council supported the Commission in its efforts and hoped to see progress by the end of July.

  Commissioner Lamy also briefed on negotiations with Russia on its accession to the WTO, and on negotiations with Mercosur, which were aimed at concluding an Association Agreement.

  Western Balkans

  Conclusions were agreed on Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia and the ESDP mission to Bosnia. There was a separate discussion on the planning and preparation for the Bosnia ESDP mission. The Council requested the Presidency and Secretary General/High Representative Solana to take forward the remaining strategic planning steps before the Istanbul NATO Summit in June.
  1733W
  EU-Africa

  The Council agreed Conclusions on Africa. The Presidency debriefed on the recent EU-Africa Troika meeting, highlighting the African peace and security agenda, development, governance and multilateralism. There was also Conclusions on Sudan, which expressed concern about humanitarian situation in Darfur region.

  China arms embargo

  The Council exchanged views on the arms embargo against China. The Council agreed that the issue required further discussion and asked the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper) and the Political and Security Committee to take this forward.

  Cyprus

  Ministers discussed the situation in Cyprus following the 24 April referendum on the United Nations settlement plan. The Council also adopted Conclusions.

  Middle East Peace Process

  The Council discussed the Gaza disengagement proposals ahead of the forthcoming Ministerial Quartet meeting. The Council adopted Conclusions based on the Presidency statement made at the 15–16 April informal Foreign Ministers' meeting.

  EU-Russia

  The Council briefly discussed preparations for the 21 May EU/Russia summit in Moscow. The summit is expected to address progress achieved in the creation of the four 'common spaces' (economic; freedom, security and justice; research, education and culture; and external security).

  AOB: EU-Canada—seal hunting

  The Netherlands raised its concern about an increase in Canada's seal hunting quota. They were most concerned about the effect of hunting on the seal population and an absence of humane killing methods.

  Iraq
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the Answer of 26 April 2004,Official Report, column 774W, on Iraq, what form the second intelligence source reported in September 2002 took. [170513]

  Mr. Straw
  I regret that it would not be appropriate to comment publicly on the detail of this intelligence reporting. The security and intelligence agencies are not within the scope of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Part 1, Paragraph 6). An inquiry chaired by Lord Butler of Brockwell is currently examining the accuracy of the intelligence on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction up to March 2003, and any discrepancies between the intelligence gathered, evaluated and used by the Government before the conflict, and what has been discovered by the Iraq Survey Group since the end of it.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 30 January 2004,Official Report, column 581W, on Iraq, whether his reference to the intelligence that the Government understand was discussed with the International Atomic Energy Authority is to the second source referred to in paragraph 93 of the Intelligence and Security Committee's report, Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction. [171178]
  1734W
  Mr. Straw
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave her today (UIN 170513).

  Maghreb
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the countries of the Maghreb about assistance with the development of financial and banking institutions under the framework of the Euromed and Barcelona processes. [170306]

  Mr. MacShane
  We have no bilateral assistance programmes to the countries of the Maghreb, and have therefore had no direct discussions with them about assistance for the development of banking and financial institutions. But Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development officials do discuss such matters, and other aspects of economic development, with members of the EuroMed Partnership (which includes the countries of the Maghreb) under the economic and financial chapter of the Barcelona Process.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to take forward the Euromed process in the context of(a) the G8 summit in June, (b) the US-EU summit in June and (c) the NATO summit in June, with specific reference to the countries of the Maghreb. [170307]

  Mr. MacShane
  As the Barcelona Process is an equal partnership between its 35 members (the EU, the Maghreb and Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and the Palestinian Authority), it would not be appropriate to take the process forward in other fora. The Government will work with others to ensure that any discussions relating to the region with NATO, the G8 or at the EU-US Summit are consistent with the objectives of EuroMed. At the Istanbul Summit in June, Allies are expected to agree a package of measures to enhance security co-operation between NATO and the seven members of the Mediterranean Dialogue. We believe that by operating in its area of expertise, and focussing on practical co-operation, NATO's strengthened partnership will complement the Barcelona Process.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans his Department has to increase engagement with non-EU Mediterranean countries in the context of the Barcelona Process, with specific reference to the countries of the Maghreb. [170309]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Maghreb is a region of increasing importance to the UK. As part of the UK's engagement with the non-EU members of the Barcelona Process, we will host, jointly with Morocco, a EuroMed Conference to look at the social consequences of economic reform in Marrakech on 20–21 May.

  Middle East
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the relationship between the EU EuroMed process and the US Greater Middle East Initiative. [170308]
  1735W
  Mr. MacShane
  The Barcelona Process (or EuroMed Partnership) and the US Greater Middle East Initiative share common objectives of promoting stability and prosperity in the region. They seek to assist the region's development through broad-based reform. The Barcelona Process is a structured process of engagement and assistance across a broad range of issues with those countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. The US initiative offers programme assistance in focussed areas to a broader range of countries in the Middle East region and beyond. The Government believes the Barcelona Process and the US Greater Middle East Initiative have complementary roles to play in the pursuit of common objectives.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (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; [170768]

  (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. [170769]

  Mr. Straw
  In the 2002–03 parliamentary Session my Department received 591 named day parliamentary questions (PQs) and 2,779 ordinary written PQs. My Department answered 74 per cent. of named day PQs on time and 76 per cent. of ordinary written PQs within five working days.

  As of 4 May in the 2003–04 parliamentary Session my Department has received 250 named day PQs and 1,161 ordinary written PQs. My Department has answered 76 per cent. of named day PQs on time and 86 per cent. of ordinary written PQs within five working days.
  1736W
  I have placed a copy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office PQ statistics, broken down by month, for both parliamentary Sessions in the Library of the House.

  Visa Application Centres
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to establish a visa application centre in Goa, India. [170400]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are currently no plans to establish a visa application centre in Goa. However, the situation is kept under review.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visa application centres outsourced operations assisting British High Commissions. [170398]

  Mr. Mullin
  Our most developed and largest outsourced visa application centre scheme is in India, where there are 11 visa application centres. There are another three visa application centres worldwide that are similar to the outsourced operation in India. Two are situated in Bangladesh and one in Singapore. However, there are other types of outsourced visa operations worldwide, the most common being designated couriers or designated travel agents where applications can be submitted.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost is of operating visa application centres. [170399]

  Mr. Mullin
  All visa application centres are self-financing and are therefore of no cost to UK visas or the UK taxpayer.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited a visa application centre. [170401]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not visited a visa application centre, and has no plans to do so presently. Visa application centres accept visa applications only and then forward them to our visa sections. All visa application decisions are still made at a visa section of one of our missions.

TREASURY

  Efficiency Gains
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in implementing 2.5 per cent. per year efficiency gains since the 2004 Budget Statement. [168601]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to my answer to him of 1 April 2004, fficial Report, column 1677W, which gave more specifics of reductions in the tax—and in particular that of the 14,000 job reductions by 2007–08, 8,000 will be made by Inland Revenue, 3,000 by HM Customs and Excise and 3,000 will result from the merger.

  Employment (Oldham, West and Royton)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the levels of long-term(a) adult and (b) youth employment in Oldham, West and Royton in the last seven years. [170947]

  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. Michael Meacher, dated 6 May 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment. (170947)

  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 Oldham, West and Royton Parliamentary Constituency.

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

  The attached table gives the annual average number of people claiming JSA for over 12 months, and the annual average number of these claimants aged 18 to 24 years, in the Oldham, West and Royton constituency, for each year since 1997. The table also shows the annual average total number of JSA claimants in the constituency for these years.

  Annual average number of people claiming jobseeker's allowance (JSA), and number claiming for at least 12 months

  Claimants for at least 12 months1

  Oldham, West and Royton parliamentary constituency, 1997–2003

  All claimants

  All ages

  Aged 18–24

  1997

  2,615

  664

  107

  1998

  2,319

  417

  53

  1999

  2,364

  388

  14

  2000

  2,092

  337

  15

  2001

  2,033

  267

  8

  2002

  2,013

  232

  11

  2003

  1,868

  175

  9

  1Computerised claims only.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics.

  1738W
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were employed in tourism-related jobs in Oldham, West and Royton on the latest date for which figures are available. [170905]

  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. Michael Meacher, dated 6 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about tourism-related jobs in Oldham, West and Royton. (170905)

  The latest available data, from the 2002 Annual Business Inquiry, shows that the total number of jobs in tourism related industries in Oldham, West and Royton Parliamentary Constituency was 2,600. 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.

  Government Revenue
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of which significant economic factors have had an effect on the level of Government revenue over the last seven years. [171258]

  Ruth Kelly
  An assessment on the main economic factors effecting Government revenues is made available each year in the public finances chapter of the pre-Budget report and Budget.

  National Insurance Contributions/Numbers
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on revenue from employee national insurance contributions (NICs) if the rate of NICs for employees who are not contracted out of the state second pension were to be reduced to the rate currently paid by employees who are contracted out. [171034]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]The Government Actuary's Department estimates that rebates worth £1.9 billion would be accrued if all contracted-in employees were to pay national insurance contributions that were reduced by 1.6 per cent. of earnings between the lower earnings limit and upper earnings limit in 2004–05. This estimate excludes the additional age-related or employer rebates that would be paid for a contracted-out person.
  1739W
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what checks are made on the national insurance numbers used by employment agencies and gangmasters; what action is taken if a non-valid national insurance number is being used for an individual employed by an agency or a gangmaster; and if he will make a statement. [171050]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Inland Revenue check the validity of national insurance numbers which are notified to them by an employer (including as appropriate gangmasters or employment agencies) when a new employee joins, and at the end of each tax year as part of the employer's annual return. Where a non-valid national insurance number has been used, the Inland Revenue will attempt to trace a valid number for the individual involved. Where this cannot be done, the Inland Revenue will write to the employer asking him to provide a valid national insurance number for that employee.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in West Lancashire have received child tax credit. [171494]

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Stockton, South have received child tax credit. [171466]

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

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in Stockton, South qualified for the 10p rate of income tax in each year since its introduction. [171465]

  Ruth Kelly
  All income taxpayers benefit from the 10p starting rate. The Survey of Personal Incomes estimates there are about 6,000 and 7,000 state retirement pension age taxpayers in the Stockton, South constituency in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively. However, year on year comparisons should be treated with caution because of sampling variation. Figures for 1999–2000 are currently not available.

  Tax Avoidance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent agreements he has reached with regard to the creation of an international tax avoidance prevention task force; and what contribution he proposes to make to such a task force. [171040]

  Ruth Kelly
  As a result of a Memorandum of Understanding signed in Williamsburg, Virginia on 23 April 2004, the Tax Commissioners of Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States will establish a joint task force, within the framework of bilateral tax treaties, to increase collaboration and coordinate information about abusive tax transactions, arrangements and schemes.
  1740W
  The task force will be comprised of officials from the respective tax administrations. It will supplement the on-going work of these administrations in addressing the challenges arising from abusive tax transactions.

  Tax Rates
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in Preston qualified for the 10p rate of income tax in each year since its introduction. [169680]

  Ruth Kelly
  All income taxpayers benefit from the 10p starting rate. The Survey of Personal Incomes estimates there are about 5,000 and 6,000 state retirement pension age taxpayers in the Preston constituency in 2000–01 and 2001–02 respectively. However, year-on-year comparisons should be treated with caution because of sampling variation. Figures for 1999–2000 are currently not available.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in the Huntingdon constituency qualified for the 10p rate of income tax in each year since its introduction. [170847]

  Ruth Kelly
  All income taxpayers benefit from the 10p starting rate. The Survey of Personal Incomes estimates there are about 10,000 state retirement pension age taxpayers in the Huntingdon constituency in 2000–01 and 2001–02. Estimates should be treated with caution because of sampling variation. Figures for 1999–2000 are currently not available.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in Oldham, West and Royton qualified for the 10p rate of income tax in each year since its introduction. [170899]

  Ruth Kelly
  All income taxpayers benefit from the 10p starting rate. The Survey of Personal Incomes estimates there are about 5,000 state retirement pension age taxpayers in the Oldham, West and Royton constituency in 2001–02. In the Survey of Personal Incomes the sample size of pensioners living in this constituency is relatively small compared to other constituencies so a reliable estimate cannot be given for 2000–01 and the estimate for 2001–02 should be treated with caution because of sampling variation. Figures for 1999–2000 are currently not available.

  Unemployment (Huntingdon)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of unemployment was in the Huntingdon constituency in each year since 1997. [170844]

  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 6 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployment. (170844)

  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 Huntingdon Constituency.
  1741W
  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 Huntingdon constituency for each year since 1997.

  Annual average number of JSA claimants—Huntingdon constituency, 1997–2003

  Number of claimants

  1997

  1,451

  1998

  1,214

  1999

  1,198

  2000

  964

  2001

  712

  2002

  786

  2003

  870

CABINET OFFICE

  Recycled Paper
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office by what date his Department expects to implement in full 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. [167736]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has already implemented in full the quick win targets for copying paper and paper for printed publications.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which of the regulatory impact assessments used in the Burdens Barometer 2004 published by the British chambers of commerce relate to legislation originating from(a) the UK Parliament and (b) the EU. [170310]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]The Regulatory Impact Assessments which the British Chambers of Commerce used in their "Burdens Barometer 2004" are a matter for them.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  CPS Guidance
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what guidance on which matters to prosecute his Department and its predecessor have given to the Crown Prosecution Service since May 1997; and if he will publish all such guidance issued. [169865]
  1742W
  Mr. Leslie
  None. Ministerial responsibility for Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) lies with the Law Officers. CPS Prosecution decisions are undertaken in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Specific guidance on prosecuting particular offences is contained in the CPS Prosecution Manual. This guidance and the Code are published under the CPS Freedom of Information publication scheme.

  Juries
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the consultation paper on jury research and investigations into juror impropriety has been published. [170518]

  Mr. Leslie
  The consultation paper has not yet been published.

  Operation Payback
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of Operation Payback on the Wirral; [170213]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 4 May 2004,Official Report, column 1453W.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what discussions he has had with the legal professions concerning the future of the QC system. [167092]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Secretary of State and his officials have discussed the future of the QC rank with representatives of the legal professional bodies for England and Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much money was received by central Government funds in 2003 in Northern Ireland in fines paid by motorists who were prosecuted for speeding as a result of the location of fixed cameras. [169760]

  Mr. Leslie
  Between 1 July 2003. when the fixed speed camera initiative commenced and 31 December 2003, the money received in fines paid by motorists prosecuted for speeding as a result of the location of fixed cameras was £412,223.

  Trials (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps he is taking to reduce the percentage of ineffective trials in Merseyside. [170533]

  Mr. Leslie
  From 1 April 2003 to 31t March 2004 the ineffective trial rate in Merseyside decreased from 36.7 per cent. to 34.8 per cent..
  1743W
  The following initiatives have recently been implemented in Merseyside to further reduce ineffective trials. The Effective Trial Management Programme (ETMP) was rolled out in February 2004. ETMP is part of the Government's Criminal Case Management Programme which incorporates the "Charging" and "No Witness, No Justice" initiatives, with a view to improving the criminal justice process. A fifth District Judge and an extra Deputy District Judge have been appointed to the Liverpool Magistrates' Court and a case progression system has been initiated to track the progress of all cases listed for trial. The impact of these will continue to improve performance in the Magistrates' Courts.

  In the Crown Courts the latest figure for March 2004 is 25.1 per cent.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Adoption
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children aged(a) under two and (b) over two years were adopted in each of the last five years. [169041]

  Margaret Hodge
  The following table shows the number of looked after children adopted in England during the years ending 31 March 1999 to 2003.

  Looked after children adopted during the years ending 31 March1

  Age at adoption

  19992

  200022

  20013

  20023

  20033

  Under 2

  600

  680

  800

  900

  1,000

  2 and over

  1,600

  2,100

  2,200

  2,500

  2,500

  Total

  2,200

  2,700

  3,100

  3,400

  3,500

  1 Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short-term placements.

  2 Figures are based on the Key Statistics Return (KS1) and the SSDA903 sample return.

  3 Figures are based on the AD1 return.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many adoption placements broke down in each of the last five years. [169042]

  Margaret Hodge
  The following table shows the estimated number of placements for adoption in England that ended without the making of an adoption order during the years ending 31 March 1999 to 2003.

  Number of placements that ended without the making of an adoption order1, 2

  1999

  320

  2000

  260

  2001

  270

  2002

  270

  2003

  250

  1 Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short-term placements.

  2 Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  The information provided is derived from the SSDA903 return, a one-third sample survey of all looked after children in England, and as such these are estimated figures.

  African Educational Institutions
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assistance his Department gives to English schools to work with schools in Africa. [165706]

  Alan Johnson
  My Department is committed to international school linking and partnership activity, which can provide a powerful and enjoyable framework for the delivery of curriculum objectives, increase motivation, and raise awareness of citizenship and global issues within schools.

  To encourage and support this aim the Global Gateway, our new one-stop-shop website for international education, was launched in February 2004. Managed on our behalf by the British Council, the Global Gateway, enables schools to find partner schools in other countries and provides information about development programmes.

  My Department funds various programmes through which schools are supported in their work with Africa. This includes:
  grant funding to the British Council to provide school linking services and advice, grants for schools to go on linking visits, and to deliver specific programmes such as the linking of 150 schools to South African schools;
  grant funding to the League for the Exchange of Commonwealth Teachers, to pay for teacher exchange and linking throughout the Commonwealth including a range of African countries;
  the Teachers International Professional Development (TIPD) Programme, introduced in May 2000, which promotes links between UK schools and schools in other countries by providing for teacher study visits. To date 1,053 teachers have visited Africa on this programme;
  support for the teacher development work and opportunities offered by Voluntary Services Overseas, including support for the Sabbatical Guide booklet (produced in 2003). We are also developing new work, such as with the Link Community Development on the 'Global Teachers Awards' under which 50 teachers a year will work on educational projects in Africa;

  In addition, our Sustainable Development Action Plan in Education and Skills aims to raise awareness of global development issues and developing countries in our schools, and we are working closely with the Department for International Development and other organisations to deliver this goal.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many residents of Oldham, West and Royton have undertaken apprenticeships in each of the last five years. [170933]

  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 Greater Manchester 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 six Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) that amalgamated into Greater Manchester LSC—Bolton and Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and High Peak and Wigan.
  1745W

  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 2000

  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

  1 Denotes TEC also became part of Derbyshire LSC

  Notes:

  TECs reported the figures in financial years. LSC reports figures in academic years.

  Source:

  TEC management information

  LSC Individualised Learner Record

  The first LSC 'year' was 16 months in order to bring the financial year figures into line with academic years.

  Boarding Schools
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many boarding schools the National Care Standards Commission has inspected; how many were identified as having a significant defect; and if he will estimate the cost of such inspections in each year since the inspections began. [164263]

  Margaret Hodge
  Boarding schools are inspected once every three years.

  Between 1 April 2002 and 29 February 2004, 116 boarding schools have been inspected by the National Care Standards Commission. The estimated cost of each of these inspections was £1,477 for 2002–03 and £1,566 for 2003℃04.

  Where the National Care Standards Commission had concerns about services failing to safeguard the welfare of children provided with accommodation by a school or college, they were required under section 105(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000, to make a statutory notification to (i) the relevant education authority or (ii) the Secretary of State. Two such notifications have been made between 1 April 2002 and 29 February 2004.

  Building Schools for the Future
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress he is making with his Building Schools for the Future programme. [169301]
  1746W
  Mr. Miliband
  We have made excellent progress on Building Schools for the Future, working closely with local government and other partners. This is starting to deliver our commitment to a 10 to 15-year programme of rebuilding and renewal to ensure that secondary education in every part of England has facilities of 21-Century standard.

  Four in five respondents to our consultation last year supported our new approach to capital investment. In February 2004, we announced the first wave of 16 projects, involving an estimated 180 schools across 19 local authorities. We also published 11 exemplar designs which show what the schools of the future may look like. This month, we have established Partnerships for Schools, a new body to ensure that the investment is good value for money. Lastly, following the Chancellor's announcement of this Department's spending review settlement, we are well placed to announce the next waves of projects later this year.

  Child Care Subsidies
  Mrs. Brooke
  To asks the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with providers of subsidies for child care places; and which three sources provided the highest subsidy for child care places in the latest year for which figures are available. [168367]

  Margaret Hodge
  We hold discussions with a range of organisations that help with the cost of child care in variety of ways, on both the supply and demand sides. Government provides the following substantial support for key groups of parents with their child care costs:The working tax credit where working parents can receive help with up to 70 per cent. of the costs of child care, subject to limits of £200 a week, or £135 a week for one child. This is paying out well over £700 million a year and can help families with incomes up to £42,500, where the family has two or more children;
  The Care to Learn scheme for teenage parents that can provide up to £5,000 a year for those returning to education;
  The new deal for lone parents can cover child care costs for lone parents going on training, attending interviews or working up to 16 hours a week, up to the same limits as the child care element of the Working Tax Credit;
  The Childcare Grant pays full time HE students with dependent children up to 85 per cent. of actual child care costs up to the same limits as for the WTC;
  The national health service provided over £70 million since April 2001 for child care for NHS staff, with a significant amount of that being capital costs for building nurseries or direct subsidies to parents to help with child care costs.

  Help with the cost of child care was considered as part of the child care review and in the Budget we announced that:
  From April 2005 a new tax exemption will apply to both employer-contracted child care and child care vouchers to encourage more employers to support their staff with child care.
  Government will be consulting in Summer 2004 on a voluntary light touch approval scheme extending access to the child care element of the working tax credit to users of a broad range of additional types of child care, to be implemented by April 2005.

  It is not possible to make meaningful comparisons between organisations that subsidise the cost of child care but the recently published National Audit Office report (Early Years: Progress in developing high quality child care and early education accessible to all, HC 268,

  1747W
  27 February 2004) provides a helpful overview of the situation, showing, on page three, how much different sectors contributed to the total cost of child care across the country in 2002–03:

  £ million

  Percentage

  Private individuals (parents)

  3,010

  45

  Local government

  2,540

  38

  DfES and Sure Start

  680

  10

  Childcare Tax Credit

  315

  5

  Private companies

  140

  2

  Child Abuse
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what restrictions there are on convicted child abusers working(a) as private tutors and (b) in private schools. [165944]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department's guidance to employers in the education service makes it clear that thorough checks should be carried out on all people who are appointed to work with children, including people who are employed as private tutors by agencies, and people who work in private schools. We recommend that employers check a person's identity, academic qualifications, professional and character references, previous employment history, criminal record, List 99 status, health, and in the case of teachers, whether they are registered with the General Teaching Council.

  Parents and other individuals are not able to obtain criminal record or List 99 checks on self-employed private tutors, but can safeguard against employing a convicted child abuser by engaging a private tutor through a tuition agency.

  Connexions
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many young people with learning disabilities have used the Connexions Service, broken down by region, in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [170397]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on the use of Connexions services by young people with learning disabilities is not collected centrally.

  In support of their key target of reducing the proportion of young people who are not in education, employment or training, many Connexions Partnerships have agreed a local target to increase the proportion of 16–19 year olds with learning difficulties and disabilities in education, employment and training. It is encouraging that there was a small increase of two percentage points in the numbers of young people with learning difficulties and disabilities in education, employment or training between June 2003 and March 2004.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received concerning the effect on private contractors of his Department's encouragement of Connexions partnerships to improve tax efficiency; and if he will make a statement. [169977]
  1748W
  Margaret Hodge
  My Department has received a number of representations from private companies, Connexions Partnerships and other organisations regarding the effect on private contractors of the need to reduce VAT transition funding.

  The decision about what tax efficiency means for each partnership, is the responsibility of individual Boards. Establishing a tax efficient delivery model does not necessarily affect the relationship with private sector companies. But the Department remains in discussion with representatives from Connexions service providers and will continue to consider any issues that they bring forward.

  Some partnerships have for some time been in the process of changing their model of governance. The need for tax efficiencies has not always been the catalyst for this but it does bring these partnerships in to line with others looking at how they structure themselves to become more tax efficient.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many contracts between the Connexions Service and private contractors have been terminated in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [169978]

  Margaret Hodge
  One private sector contract has been terminated in the last year by Essex Southend and Thurrock Connexions Partnership. In addition, Lifetime Careers (part of the Nord Anglia group) were not selected by Greater Manchester Connexions to deliver services in Stockport and Bury in 2004–05 following a competitive tendering exercise.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many subcontracting Connexions Partnerships have a local authority as the lead body for the receipt of grant. [169979]

  Margaret Hodge
  Of the 47 Connexions Partnerships, there are three subcontracting Connexions Partnerships who have a local authority as the lead body—Hertfordshire Connexions, Norfolk Connexions and Central London Connexions.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many private sector contractors have been used by the Connexions Service in each year since its establishment. [169981]

  Margaret Hodge
  Connexions Partnerships are themselves private companies. Many will also sub contract some services to other private sector companies. Information on the numbers involved is not collected centrally.

  Dyslexia
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to identify cases of dyslexia at the earliest opportunity; and if he will make a statement. [169133]

  Margaret Hodge
  Early intervention is one of the key themes of "Removing Barriers To Achievement", our strategy for special educational needs, published in February. Guidance on identifying and assessing special educational needs is given in the SEN Code of Practice, to which schools and local education authorities must
  1749W
  have regard. A range of material for teachers on dyslexia and dyscalculia has also been produced as part of the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies to help promote inclusion of pupils with specific learning difficulties. The guidance has been well received and other material is in preparation.

  The Department continues to work closely with the British Dyslexia Association and the Dyslexia Institute to help raise awareness and develop new resources that will be of practical assistance to teachers and other staff. We have, for example, supported a dyslexia friendly schools pack and a hand hints poster for primary schools. The Department has also supported research into eye movement characteristics as a possible means of identifying dyslexia.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps have been taken to deliver Early Years education in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [167876]

  Pupils achieving Level 4+: Mathematics

  Pupils achieving Level 4+: English

  Heywood and Middleton

  England

  Heywood and Middleton

  England

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage

  2003

  936

  69

  73

  927

  69

  75

  2002

  1,031

  72

  73

  1,069

  75

  75

  2001

  981

  69

  71

  1,056

  74

  75

  2000

  975

  72

  72

  991

  73

  75

  1999

  993

  72

  69

  997

  72

  71

  1998

  790

  58

  59

  882

  65

  65

  1997

  787

  61

  62

  780

  61

  63

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent on higher education in Heywood and Middleton in each of the last seven years. [168505]

  Alan Johnson
  The only publicly-funded institution providing higher education in Heywood and Middleton is Hopwood Hall College. The amounts of public funding spent in the years for which figures are available are shown in the table. Expenditure was by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and by the Student Loans Company (SLC). The latter relates only to spending on tuition fees, student loans (cash cost) and the dependants grant. Data prior to 1999/2000 are not available. The figures for student support do not include spending on other additional grants, namely, disabled students allowance, care leavers grant and travel grant. These were paid through local education authorities, up to 2003/04, and figures are not held centrally.

  £000

  Academic Year

  HEFCE funding

  SLC funding

  1999/2000

  264

  183.9

  2000/01

  273

  232.5

  2001/02

  342.5

  367.3

  2002/03

  443

  405.7

  2003/04

  508.2

  n/a

  1750W
  Margaret Hodge
  All authorities have received sufficient funding to enable them to fund free places for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want one, through the under-fives sub-block of their Education Formula Spending Share (EFSS)—the main source of funding for education. For 2004–05, over £2.6 billion of EFSS was distributed through the under-five sub-block. The funding includes 'top ups' which relate to the LA's local circumstances i.e. deprivation and area costs.

  Education (Heywood and Middleton)
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many and what percentage of pupils in Heywood and Middleton reached the(a) mathematics and (b) English standard in each of the last seven years; [168502]

  (2) how many and what percentage of 11-year-old pupils in Heywood and Middleton reached level four in (a) mathematics and (b) English in each of the last seven years. [168503]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  In addition, institutions located outside Heywood and Middleton may be undertaking activities in the area, for example, outreach to raise the attainment and aspirations of potential higher education entrants, or special arrangements with schools and colleges to improve progression into higher education. This information is not held centrally.

  Education (Stalybridge and Hyde)
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent on higher education in Stalybridge and Hyde in each of the last seven years. [168752]

  Alan Johnson
  The only publicly funded institution providing higher education in Stalybridge and Hyde is Tameside college. The amounts of public funding spent in the years in which figures are available are shown in the following table. Expenditure was by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and by the Student Loans Company (SLC). The latter relates only to spending on tuition fees, student loans (cash cost) and the dependants grant. Data prior to 1999–2000 are not available. The figures for student support do not include spending on other additional grants, namely, disabled students allowance, care leavers grant and travel grant. These were paid through local education authorities, up to 2003–04, and the figures are not held centrally.
  1751W

  £000

  Academic year

  HEFCE funding

  SLC funding

  999/2000

  455

  336.1

  2000/01

  562

  363.4

  2001/02

  636

  431

  2002/03

  670

  495.3

  2003/04

  724

  n/a

  In addition, institutions located outside Stalybridge and Hyde may be undertaking activities in the area, for example outreach to raise the attainment and aspirations of potential higher education entrants, or

  Pupils achieving Level 4+: Mathematics

  Pupils achieving Level 4+: English

  Stalybridge and Hyde

  England

  Stalybridge arid Hyde

  England

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage

  2003

  855

  71

  73

  893

  74

  75

  2002

  902

  72

  73

  904

  72

  75

  2001

  875

  71

  71

  914

  74

  75

  2000

  904

  70

  72

  933

  72

  75

  1999

  824

  64

  69

  861

  67

  71

  1998

  667

  53

  59

  740

  58

  65

  1997

  650

  54

  62

  695

  58

  63

  Education (Oldham, West and Royton)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much funding each school in Oldham, West and Royton has received from the New Deal for Schools; [170918]

  (2) how much public funding has been spent on repairing schools in Oldham, West and Royton in each year since 1997. [170916]

  Mr. Miliband
  Table A shows schools in Oldham, West and Royton constituency that benefited from investment through the New Deals for Schools (NDS) programme, which ran between 1997–98 and 2000–01.

  Table A: NDS allocations to schools in Oldham and Royton constituency

  Year/School

  Project

  Package

  Grant (£)

  NDSI1 1997/98

  Whitegate End Junior and Infant School

  Roof renewal

  LEA wide grant

  784,000

  South Chadderton School

  Laboratory refurbishment

  LEA wide grant

  784,000

  Grange School

  Re-roofing of main block and sports hall

  LEA wide grant

  784,000

  Yew Tree Junior School

  Roofing security measures

  LEA wide grant

  784,000

  Corpus Christi RC Primary School

  Security fencing

  LEA wide grant

  784,000

  Grange School

  Security CCTV

  LEA wide grant

  784,000

  Broadfield Primary School

  Security fencing

  LEA wide grant

  784,000

  St. Martin's CofE Junior Infant and Nursery School

  Security fencing

  LEA wide grant

  784,000

  NDS2 1998/99

  The Hathershaw Technology College

  Replacement of the heating system

  —

  641,580

  Grange School

  Replacement of the heating system

  —

  542,790

  The Hathershaw Technology College

  Re-roofing and associated window replacements

  —

  625,000

  Byron Street Infant and Nursery School

  Renewal of the roof covering and rainwater goods and upgrading of insulation

  —

  194,997

  The Radclyffe School

  Improved access and escape arrangements

  —

  71,500

  Mills Hill Primary School

  Replacement of the Early Years Building

  —

  515,500

  NDS3 1999/2000

  Burnley Brow Community School

  Replacement of School

  —

  3,344,291

  NDS4 2000/01

  The Radclyffe School

  Re-roofing and asbestos removal

  —

  149,336

  Freehold Community Junior Infant and Nursery School

  New Roof

  —

  103,351

  Holy Rosary RC Junior Infant and Nursery School

  Electrical re-wire

  —

  112,284

  1752W
  special arrangements with schools and colleges to improve progression into higher education. This in formation is not held centrally.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of pupils in Stalybridge and Hyde reached the(a) mathematics and (b) English standard in each of the last seven years. [168754]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  Since 2001, the majority of capital support has been allocated to schools and local education authorities by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about capital investment at constituency level; this should be held locally. Table B sets out the capital support provided by the Department to Oldham local education authority and its schools since 1997–98, in total and by programme (including all allocations through NDS mentioned in table A).
  1753W

  Table A: NDS allocations to schools in Oldham and Royton constituency

  Year/School

  Project

  Package

  Grant (£)

  Fitton Hill Infant and Nursery School

  Replacement of Boiler/Heating system

  —

  109,697

  Firbank Junior and Infant School

  Replacement of boiler plant

  —

  51,884

  Bare Trees Junior School

  Replacement of boiler/heating system

  —

  159,935

  Royton and Crompton School

  Replacement of dilapidated temporary classrooms

  —

  105,934

  St. Hilda's CofE Primary School

  Replacement of boiler/heating system

  —

  202,768

  South Chadderton School

  Re—roofing

  —

  57,923

  St. Anne's CofE Junior and Infant School

  Replacement of Boiler Plant and Heating System

  —

  214,447

  North Chadderton School

  Window replacements

  —

  193,949

  1 For NDS 1, the grant of £784,000 was allocated for Oldham local education authority as a whole, part of which was used for capital investment at each of the schools mentioned in the Oldham and Royton constituency. The LEA will be able to say how much was allocated to each school.

  Table B: Capital allocations—Oldham education authority

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Voluntary Aided formulaic allocations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  68

  386

  499

  Basic Need

  1,630

  2,564

  982

  1,206

  245

  107

  167

  City Learning Centres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  93

  —

  —

  Class Size initiative

  —

  1,112

  1,363

  22

  234

  1,436

  —

  Condition

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,810

  2,792

  3,621

  Devolved Formula

  —

  —

  —

  1,876

  1,516

  2,314

  3,560

  Energy

  —

  85

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modernisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,381

  2,669

  NDS 1

  784

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 2

  —

  2,591

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 3

  —

  —

  3,344

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 4

  —

  —

  —

  3,369

  —

  —

  —

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  66

  —

  —

  —

  School Labs

  —

  —

  —

  174

  174

  —

  —

  School Security

  70

  87

  88

  88

  62

  53

  —

  Schools Access Initiative

  31

  70

  100

  140

  232

  375

  549

  Secondary Learning Support Units

  —

  —

  —

  77

  67

  —

  —

  Seed Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  179

  198

  332

  330

  Specialist Schools

  —

  —

  —

  200

  —

  200

  —

  Staff Workspace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  69

  139

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  1,336

  109

  —

  54

  507

  25

  —

  Supplementary NDS for VA Schools

  —

  —

  —

  129

  47

  —

  —

  Targeted Capital Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,116

  5,000

  2,508

  Voluntary Aided School Grant

  773

  286

  350

  615

  1,539

  1,930

  —

  Total

  4,624

  6,904

  6,262

  8,195

  7,908

  16,400

  14,042

  To date we have allocated £75.4 million capital funding for 2004–05 and 2005–06, including £60 million of PFI credits.

  Education (Huntingdon)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching assistants there were in schools in the Huntingdon constituency in(a) each of the last seven years arid (b) on the latest date for which figures were available. [170840]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives the full-time equivalent number of teaching assistants employed in maintained schools in Huntingdon constituency in each January between 1997 and 2003, the latest year for which data are available.

  Number

  1997

  210

  1998

  240

  1999

  260

  2000

  260

  2001

  320

  2002

  340

  2003

  370

  Source:

  Annual School Census.

  1754W
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in schools in the Huntingdon constituency on the latest date for which figures are available; and what steps he has taken to reduce them. [170841]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on teacher vacancies is not available by constituency as it is collected at local education authority level. In January 2003, the latest information available, there were 32 full-time teacher vacancies in Cambridgeshire local education authority.

  Like other areas, since 1997 Cambridgeshire has benefited from the initiatives that the Government has put in place to recruit and retain teachers and to increase the number of staff supporting them in schools. Since 1997, the number of full-time equivalent regular teachers in maintained schools in the former Cambridgeshire LEA area has risen by 450 from 5,400 to 5,850 in 2003. Over the same period, the number of full-time equivalent school support staff in the area has grown by 1,080 from 2,470 to 3,550 in 2003.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate his Department has made of the number of young people who will continue in education as a result of the education maintenance allowance. [167988]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated number of young people of compulsory school leaving age expected to continue in full time education in 2004–05 is 505,000. This is out of a population of 666,000. Based on evidence from the pilot evaluation the Centre for Research in Social Policy and the Institute of Fiscal Studies an additional 72,000 young people will be participating in further education by 2006–07 as a result of the EMA.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) in which education authority areas pupils are able to benefit from the education maintenance allowance; and how many qualify in each; [169119]

  (2) in which education authority areas pupils are not able to benefit from the education maintenance allowance; and how many would have qualified for the allowance in each; [169120]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the likely take-up of education maintenance allowance and the costs. [169121]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  At present, young people are able to receive an education maintenance allowance (EMA) if they live in one of the 56 LEA pilot areas listed in table one. This table also shows for each LEA area the numbers of young people who have benefited from EMA in each area. It should be noted that different LEAs have been testing different versions of the scheme, in order to inform our decisions about the best national model.

  Table one: EMA pilot areas and recipients in 2003/04

  Local education authority

  Number of students who have received EMA in 2003/04

  Barking and Dagenham

  924

  Barnsley

  1,377

  Birmingham

  9,780

  Bolton

  2,227

  Bradford

  4,417

  Brent

  1,767

  Camden

  1,206

  Cornwall

  4,968

  Coventry

  1,089

  Doncaster

  2,492

  Ealing

  1,618

  Gateshead

  1,780

  Greenwich

  1,404

  Hackney

  1,887

  Halton

  1,127

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  853

  Haringey

  1,183

  Hartlepool

  807

  Islington

  1,324

  Kingston upon Hull

  2,025

  Knowsley

  1,943

  Lambeth

  1,603

  Lancashire (East)

  2,268

  Leeds

  4,764

  Leicester

  3,554

  Lewisham

  1,903

  Lincolnshire (N.E.)

  1,364

  Liverpool

  4,821

  1756W

  Table one: EMA pilot areas and recipients in 2003/04

  Local education authority

  Number of students who have received EMA in 2003/04

  Luton

  1,796

  Manchester

  4,554

  Middlesbrough

  1,112

  Newham

  2,577

  North Tyneside

  1,500

  Northumberland

  2,632

  Nottingham

  2,907

  Oldham

  2,510

  Salford

  1,212

  Sandwell

  1,872

  Sheffield

  3,876

  Southampton

  1,285

  Southwark

  1,370

  South Tyneside

  1,604

  St. Helens

  1,428

  Stoke on Trent

  2,705

  Suffolk

  2,460

  Sunderland

  2,287

  Tameside

  2,117

  Tower Hamlets

  2,754

  Wakefield

  2,249

  Walsall

  2,473

  Waltham Forest

  1,140

  Wandsworth

  1,055

  Wigan

  2,453

  Wirral

  2,457

  Wolverhampton

  2,377

  Worcestershire

  2,960

  England—total

  128,197

  From September 2004, the national EMA scheme will be available throughout England to all young people aged 16 at the start of the 2004/05 academic year who meet the eligibility criteria. It will also to be available to 17 and 18-year-olds in the pilot areas. Our forecast is that around 270,000 young people will take up EMA in 2004/05. By 2006 EMA will provide support to over 400,000 young people.

  The Department estimates the cost of the education maintenance allowance Scheme over the next three financial years to be:

  £ million

  2004–05

  275

  2005–06

  403

  2006–07

  476

  These estimates take account of the phased roll-out to one cohort at a time and the cost of administering, promoting and evaluating the scheme.

  English/Mathematics
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of 11-year-old pupils in Burnley reached level four in(a) mathematics and (b) English in each of the last seven years. [167928]
  1757W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  Pupils achieving Level 4+: Mathematics

  Pupils achieving Level 4+: English

  Burnley

  England

  Burnley

  England

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage

  2003

  876

  67

  73

  918

  70

  75

  2002

  939

  69

  73

  931

  68

  75

  2001

  879

  68

  71

  905

  70

  75

  2000

  896

  70

  72

  935

  73

  75

  1999

  913

  66

  69

  909

  66

  71

  1998

  775

  58

  59

  830

  62

  65

  1997

  784

  59

  62

  785

  59

  63

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of 11-year-old pupils in Preston reached level four in(a) mathematics and (b) English in each of the last seven years. [168125]

  Pupils achieving Level 4+: Mathematics

  Pupils achieving Level 4+: English

  Preston

  England

  Preston

  England

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Percentage

  2003

  851

  68

  73

  850

  68

  75

  2002

  864

  68

  73

  843

  66

  75

  2001

  827

  62

  71

  894

  67

  75

  2000

  819

  65

  72

  844

  67

  75

  1999

  794

  61

  69

  798

  62

  71

  1998

  655

  51

  59

  762

  60

  65

  1997

  664

  52

  62

  666

  53

  63

  Field Trips
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what steps hus Department is taking to increase the number of field trips;available to(a) GCSE science and (b) A-level biology students; [171054]

  (2) if his Department will commission research to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the state of fieldwork in secondary science education for 14 to 19 year olds; [171055]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the report by the National Foundation for Educational Research on Outdoor Learning; and if he will make a statement. [171056]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have no plans to commission further research to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of fieldwork an secondary science education for 14 to 19 year olds, having only just received the findings of NfER's "Outdoor Learning Review", which we partly funded. My officials will meet the English Outdoor Council, who also partly funded the review, in the near future to discuss ways forward.

  We are already working with the Field Studies Council, subject associations and others, together with our new national network of Science Learning Centres, to develop continuing professional development to improve teachers' confidence and skills in the planning, risk assessment and management of fieldwork. We see these as the key to developing both the quantity and quality of fieldwork in 14–19 science. This is in addition to the Science and Geography teaching resources provided by our Growing Schools programme.
  1758W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  Further Education (Level 2)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to expand the number of places available on level two courses in further education colleges. [169327]

  Alan Johnson
  The availability of learning at level two in further education institutions is key to meeting our Skills Strategy objective, outlined in the White Paper 21st Century Skills—Realising Our Potential, of reducing the number of adults without the foundation of skills needed for employability. Local Learning and Skills Councils are prioritising level two provision for those lacking such skills in their discussions with colleges about their plans for 2004–05. From September this year we will be trialling, in the North East and South East regions, a new entitlement enabling adults in the labour force without a full level two qualification to have access to free learning for their first full level two qualification.

  Higher Education
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many admissions to the higher education sector there have been of students from(a) overseas, (b) the Gulf States and (c) the United Arab Emirates in each of the last 10 years. [168567]

  Alan Johnson
  The available figures covering all overseas entrants to higher education in UK HE institutions are given in the table.
  1759W

  Overseas domiciled entrants1 to UK HE institutions

  Academic year

  All non-EU overseas

  Gulf States2

  United Arab Emirates

  1994/95

  47,776

  1,337

  231

  1995/96

  50,332

  1,504

  256

  1996/97

  51,604

  1,639

  338

  1997/98

  57,133

  1,739

  302

  1998/99

  58,481

  2,144

  357

  1999/2000

  61,385

  2,407

  427

  2000/01

  68,879

  2,439

  466

  2001/02

  78,625

  2,419

  498

  2002/03

  98,538

  3,027

  528

  1 Figures are a snapshot as at 1 December and cover both postgraduate and undergraduate study.

  2 Includes: Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen and Qatar.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent on higher education in Manchester, Gorton in each of the last seven years. [167440]

  Alan Johnson
  There is no higher education institution in Manchester Gorton receiving funding from the Higher Education Funding Council for England. We are aware of a small number of students (less than 10 in the 2002/03 academic year) at the Partnership for Theological Education receiving financial support via the Student Loans Company (SLC). The available figures for funding for these students are shown below. These relate only to funding for tuition fees, student loans (cash cost) and the Dependants Grant. Data prior to 1999/2000 are not available. The figures do not include any spending on other additional grants, namely Disabled Students Allowances, Care Leavers Grant and Travel Grant. These were paid through local education authorities, up to 2003/04, and figures are not held centrally.

  Academic year

  SLC funding (£000)

  1999/2000

  29.2

  2000/01

  49.5

  2001/02

  47

  2002/03

  28.4

  In addition, institutions located outside Manchester Gorton may be undertaking activities in the area, for example outreach to raise the attainment and aspirations of potential higher education entrants, or special arrangements with schools and colleges to improve progression into higher education. This information is not held centrally.

  Industry Interchange
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to encourage a greater interchange of staff between education and industry; and what discussions he has had(a) with other departments and (b) with employers on how best to facilitate such an interchange. [169454]
  1760W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department supports a number of schemes that encourage greater interchange of staff between education and industry: the Learning and Skills Council's Professional Development Placement scheme enables teachers in schools and further education colleges to undertake short placements in business; the Centre for Excellence in Leadership in co-operation with the Association of Colleges runs a work shadowing programme open to colleges and training providers involving exchanges of managers; and the Higher Education Funding Council supports a range of activities, often in partnership with the DTI, to make university staff more aware of business needs, including Business Fellowships.

  There are regular discussions with DTI and Treasury on promoting links between education and business. The Government's approach to promoting such links draws on a number of consultations with business including, for example, through Howard Davies' review of enterprise education in 2002

  Information and Communication Technologies
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 975W, on information and communication technologies, if he will place in the Library the independent research to which he refers. [171289]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the mpaCT2 Pupil Attainment report.

  Key Workers
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reasons further education lecturers are not permitted to apply for higher equity loans under the Key Worker Living housing programmes announced in March. [169822]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]FE teachers, like school teachers and other key workers, in London and other high housing cost areas in the South East and East regions, are eligible for equity loans of up to £50,000 under the Key Worker Living initiative announced by the Deputy Prime Minister on 23 March. This is the first time FE teachers have been eligible for such support.

  In addition, as part of the London Challenge, there is a specific scheme in London to retain school teachers who have the potential to be future leaders of the education service in London. This was developed in the light of evidence that, although London is very attractive to young school teachers, many leave London when they want to settle down and start a family. This is just the moment when they are beginning to take on crucial middle leadership roles in schools. The London Challenge Key Teacher Homebuy Scheme therefore offers school teachers in London equity loans of up to £100,000 to enable them to afford family homes.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the transfer of the learning and skills councils to the proposed regional assemblies. [170091]
  1761W
  Alan Johnson
  In our White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" we set out proposals for each assembly to appoint two members to the Board of each local Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in its region, and for the national LSC to consult assemblies on its guidance to the local LSCs. We also propose that local LSCs will be required to have regard to assembly strategies, including in drawing up their spending plans; and to consult the relevant assembly about their local plans.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on achievement levels of(a) young people and (b) adults in relation to basic skills in the North London Learning and Skills Council area. [170661]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). The Local LSC will write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Learning Disabilities
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local education authorities have provided parent partnership services for families of children with special educational needs; what proportion of families have been provided with the service; and if he will make a statement. [170611]

  Mr. Miliband
  Every local education authority is required under Section 332A of the Education Act 1996 to make arrangements for parent partnership services. Arrangements vary, with some authorities providing the service themselves, while others buy in the service from another provider such as a voluntary organisation or another local authority. Information on the proportion of families that have used the service is not collected centrally.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools have increased accessibility to children with learning disabilities through the School Access Initiative; what funding will be provided for the initiative over the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [170612]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Schools Access Initiative is designed to increase the accessibility of mainstream schools for pupils with disabilities. Over £274 million has been made available Knee the scheme began in 1996. A further £100 million will be made available each year for 2004–05 and 2005–06. Funding for the scheme beyond 2005–06 is subject to decisions relating to the outcome of the 2004 Spending Review.

  It is for local education authorities to decide which of the capital projects proposed by their schools should be supported in the light of local needs and circumstances detailed in their Accessibility Strategy. They are not required to provide us with information detailing how they have spent their allocation of the School Access Initiative to increase access to pupils with specific disabilities. It is therefore not possible to say how many schools have increased their accessibility for children with learning disabilities.

  Medical Courses/Schools
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places were available for(a) UK nationals and (b) fee paying students from overseas to study medicine in each of the last five financial years; and how many places are available in 2004, broken down by academic institution. [151237]

  Alan Johnson
  The available figures from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) are given in tables 1 and 2. Data are given for English medical schools only. Allocation of places for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish medical schools is the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

  Target figures for overseas students have remained constant during this period and are given separately in table 2.

  Figures for UK nationals only are not available.

  Table 1: Total places available to study medicine in England by Institution

  Target1

  University

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  20042

  Birmingham

  232

  332

  332

  332

  372

  372

  Brighton/Sussex

  —

  —

  0

  0

  128

  128

  Bristol

  169

  169

  169

  230

  249

  249

  Cambridge

  276

  276

  296

  296

  296

  296

  East Anglia

  —

  0

  0

  110

  110

  130

  Hull/York

  —

  —

  0

  0

  130

  130

  Leeds

  218

  218

  258

  298

  258

  258

  Leicester Warwick

  190

  239

  303

  303

  403

  403

  Liverpool

  218

  218

  268

  268

  308

  308

  Manchester/Keele

  261

  311

  341

  341

  396

  396

  Newcastle/Durham

  201

  220

  290

  340

  340

  340

  Nottingham

  194

  202

  218

  234

  324

  324

  Oxford

  113

  113

  160

  170

  180

  180

  Peninsula

  —

  0

  0

  127

  167

  167

  Sheffield

  218

  223

  238

  238

  238

  238

  Southampton

  171

  200

  200

  200

  200

  240

  Imperial

  311

  326

  326

  326

  326

  326

  King's College

  360

  360

  370

  380

  390

  400

  QMW

  241

  247

  253

  253

  305

  305

  St. George's

  187

  222

  222

  257

  257

  257

  UCL

  330

  330

  330

  330

  330

  330

  England total

  3,890

  4,200

  4,574

  5,033

  5,707

  5,777

  1 Target figures include all UK, EEA and non-EEA domiciles.

  Source:

  HEFCE

  Table 2: Overseas places available to study medicine in England by Institution

  Institution

  Overseas target

  Birmingham

  16

  Brighton/Sussex

  0

  Bristol

  12

  Cambridge

  19

  East Anglia

  0

  Hull/York

  0

  Leeds/Bradford

  15

  Leicester/Warwick

  13

  Liverpool

  15

  Manchester/Keele

  18

  Newcastle/Durham

  14

  Nottingham

  13

  Oxford

  8

  Peninsula

  0

  Sheffield

  15

  Southampton

  12

  Imperial

  21

  Kings

  26

  QMW

  17

  1763W

  Table 2: Overseas places available to study medicine in England by Institution

  Institution

  Overseas target

  St. George's

  13

  UCL

  25

  Total

  272

  Source:

  HEFCE

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations he has received on access to medical degree courses. [168913]

  Alan Johnson
  I have discussions from time to time with various groups on such matters, including the British Medical Association (BMA) Medical Students Committee and the Brightside Trust.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the intake into medical schools was in(a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [166859]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available figures for medical schools in England are shown in the table.

  Information for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish medical schools is the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

  Actual intakes of medical schools: England

  Year of entry

  Intake

  1997

  3,749

  1998

  3,735

  1999

  3,972

  2000

  4,300

  2001

  4,713

  2002

  5,277

  20031

  6,030

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many applications were made in the last academic year by students wishing to train as a medical practitioner from(a) the UK, (b) other countries in the European Union and (c) outside the European Union. [155878]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is taken from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and covers the number of applicants to full time undergraduate pre-clinical medicine courses. Figures are given in the table.

  Applicants1 through UCAS to pre-clinical medicine, 2003 entry

  Domicile

  Number

  Home

  12,728

  EU

  942

  Other Overseas

  2,220

  Total

  15,890

  1 Includes any student who made at least one application for medicine.

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service.

  1764W
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the universities, colleges and medical schools which provide places for the training of medical practitioners. [155879]

  Alan Johnson
  The institutions in England which offer undergraduate courses of medicine are listed as follows. Information for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish medical schools is the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

  University Medical Schools and Colleges:

  Birmingham

  Brighton/Sussex1

  Bristol

  Cambridge

  East Anglia

  Hull/York2

  Leeds

  Leicester Warwick3

  Liverpool

  Manchester/Keele4

  Newcastle/Durham5

  Oxford

  Peninsula6

  Sheffield

  Southampton

  Imperial

  Kings College

  Queen Mary and Westfield

  St. Georges Hospital Medical School

  University College London

  1 A joint partnership by the University of Brighton and the University of Sussex, taught at the University of Brighton.

  2 A joint partnership by the university of Hull and the University of York, taught at both institutions.

  3 Those with a degree in Biological Sciences can study at the University of Warwick for the 4 year graduate medicine program from the University Leicester.

  4 The University of Manchester medicine course can be studied at the University of Keele. The University of Keele is developing it's own curriculum, expected for 2007 entry.

  5 Option to study the first two years of the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne medicine programme at the University of Durham.

  6 A joint partnership by the University of Exeter and the University of Plymouth, taught at both institutions.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places for the training of medical practitioners at each university, college and medical school were available in 1997; and how many will be available this September. [155880]

  Alan Johnson
  The information is shown in the table. Information for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish medical schools is the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

  Medical school intake targets: England

  University medical school

  1997

  2004

  Birmingham

  213

  372

  Brighton/Sussex1

  —

  128

  Bristol

  155

  249

  Cambridge

  254

  296

  1765W

  Medical school intake targets: England

  University medical school

  1997

  2004

  East Anglia1

  —

  130

  Hull/York1

  —

  130

  Leeds

  200

  258

  Leicester Warwick

  175

  403

  Liverpool

  200

  308

  Manchester/Keele

  240

  396

  Newcastle/Durham

  185

  340

  Nottingham

  178

  324

  Oxford

  104

  180

  Peninsula1

  —

  167

  Sheffield

  200

  238

  Southampton

  157

  240

  Charing Cross2

  174

  —

  Imperial

  112

  326

  Kings College

  118

  400

  Royal Free2

  110

  —

  Queen Mary and Westfield

  202

  305

  St. George's

  172

  257

  University College London

  220

  330

  United Medical and Dental School2

  225

  —

  Total England

  3,594

  5,777

  1 Brighton/Sussex and Hull/York were set up in 2003, East Anglia and Peninsula in 2002.

  2 Charing Cross merged with Imperial College: Royal Free merged with University College; United Medical and Dental Schools merged with Kings.

  Source:

  Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students who entered medical training in the current academic year were from(a) the UK, (b) other countries in the European Union and (c) outside the European Union; and what the corresponding figures were for each of the past 10 years for which figures are available. [155881]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information for England is shown in the table. Information for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish medical schools is the responsibility of the devolved Administrations.

  Intake of medical students in English higher education institutions, by domicile and fee-paying status

  Academic year

  Total intake

  Estimate of students from the UK 1

  Estimate of students from other countries in the European Union 2

  Estimate of students from countries outside the European Union 3

  2003–044

  6,030

  5,507

  105

  418

  2002–03

  5,277

  4,835

  88

  354

  2001–02

  4,713

  4,315

  84

  314

  2000–01

  4,300

  3,923

  82

  295

  1999–2000

  3,972

  3,640

  77

  255

  1998–99

  3,735

  3,378

  71

  286

  1997–98

  3,749

  3,431

  39

  279

  1996–97

  3,594

  3,271

  53

  270

  1995–96

  3,486

  3,187

  38

  261

  1994–95

  3,514

  3,231

  33

  250

  1993–94

  3,374

  3,125

  34

  215

  1 These are UK domiciled students with home and overseas fee-paying status.

  2 Tese are overseas domiciled students with home fee-paying status.

  3 These are overseas domiciled students with overseas fee-paying status.
  1766W
  4 The intake for year 2003–04 is a provisional figure based on institutions' estimates in October 2003.

  Note:

  All student numbers relate to a headcount.

  Source:

  HEFCE Medical and Dental Survey.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new undergraduates were admitted to each medical school in 2003–04. [161510]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest available figures are shown in the table. Information for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish medical schools is the responsibility of the devolved administrations.

  Actual intakes of medical schools 2003: England

  University medical school

  Intake

  Birmingham

  428

  135

  Bristol

  272

  Cambridge

  299

  East Anglia

  110

  Hull/York

  130

  Leeds

  279

  Leicester Warwick

  448

  Liverpool

  318

  Manchester/Keele

  425

  Newcastle/Durham

  335

  Nottingham

  353

  Oxford

  182

  Peninsula

  176

  Shaffield

  263

  Southampton

  221

  Imperial

  334

  Kings College

  401

  Queen Mary and Westfield

  309

  St. Georges

  251

  University college London

  341

  Total England

  6,030

  Source:

  Higher Education Funding Council for England.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students(a) entered and (b) graduated from medical schools in England in each year since 1997; and how many graduates from medical schools in England in each year since 1997 have commenced full-time employment in the NHS. [162097]

  Alan Johnson
  The latest intake and output data for medical schools are shown in the first table. There is no precise data on how many students either do not complete undergraduate medical degree courses or do not join the NHS medical workforce after graduating. However, these figures do not include overseas students who return home immediately upon graduating based on figures from the annual NHS workforce survey as shown in the second table, the Department of Health believe that virtually all graduates from English medical schools take up posts as Pre-Registration House Officers (PRHOs) in the NHS within 18 months of graduating apart from those overseas students who return home immediately upon graduating.

  Actual Intake and Output of Medical Schools in England 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Academic year

  Intake

  Graduate output

  1997–98

  3,749

  3,261

  1998–99

  3,735

  3,097

  1999–2000

  3,972

  3,373

  1767W

  Actual Intake and Output of Medical Schools in England 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Academic year

  Intake

  Graduate output

  2000–01

  4,300

  3,286

  2001–02

  4,713

  3,280

  2002–03

  5,277

  3,522

  2003–04

  16,030

  2—

  1 Provisional until November 2004 when a finalised figure will be declared.

  2 Not available until November 2004.

  Source:

  Higher Education Funding Council for England

  UK Qualified Pre-Registration House Officers in England 1997–2003

  Number of House Officers

  1997

  3,028

  1998

  3,173

  1999

  3,122

  2000

  3,297

  2001

  3,176

  2002

  3,205

  2003

  3,344

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce survey

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost is of the education of a medical student up to registration with the General Medical Council; and what the expected average cost is of educating a medical student who commences on a clinical sciences foundation year up to registration with the General Medical Council. [168185]

  Alan Johnson
  The cost of training a doctor from entry to medical school to full registration with the General Medical Council is estimated to be of the order of £200,000 to £250,000, including the year as a Pre-Registration House Officer (PRHO). This is a considerable investment in medical training from public funds. Some students commence their medical training with a foundation year, for which the Higher Education Funding Council for England provides funding to the institution of £5,922.

  Modern Universities
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to which universities he was referring in his statement to the House on 8 January when he made reference to modern universities which have strong records in recruiting students from poorer backgrounds. [148532]

  Alan Johnson
  The Secretary of State was not referring to specific universities but making a general point. The following table, taken from data published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, shows the 11 universities with the highest proportion of entrants from the three lowest social classes.

  Proportion of young full-time first degree entrants from social classes IIIN, IV, V1 2001–02

  Proportion

  University of Wolverhampton

  45

  University of East London

  42

  University of North London

  42

  London Guildhall University

  41

  1768W

  Proportion of young full-time first degree entrants from social classes IIIN, IV, V1 2001–02

  Proportion

  University of Luton

  41

  University of Westminster

  40

  University of Sunderland

  39

  University of Central England

  39

  Coventry University

  39

  Middlesex University

  38

  University of Teesside

  38

  1 Skilled manual, semi-skilled and unskilled.

  Source:

  Performance Indicators in Higher Education in the UK Table T1A, published by HEFCE.

  National Childcare Strategy
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on the number of children in Oldham, West and Royton who have gained from the National Childcare Strategy; [170915]

  (2) how many child care places have been created in Oldham, West and Royton since 1997. [170932]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department is unable to provide details of child care places for Oldham, West and Royton. However, from April 1999 to March 2004 Oldham local authority created 5,489 new child care places helping some 9,979 children. This shows an increase in the stock of child care places, taking into account turnover, of 4,114 helping some 7,551 children.

  New Deal for Schools
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much funding each school in the Huntingdon constituency received from the New Deal for Schools; [170845]

  (2) how much money has been invested in the Huntingdon constituency since 1997 to build long-term sustainable facilities for school sports. [170839]

  Mr. Miliband
  Table A shows the schools in the Huntingdon constituency that benefited from investment through the New Deal for Schools (NDS) programme, which ran between 1997–98 and 2000–01.

  Since 2001, the majority of capital support has been allocated to schools and local education authorities by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about capital investment at constituency level; this should be held locally. Table B sets out the capital support provided by the Department to Cambridgeshire Local Education Authority and its schools since 1997–98, in total and by programme (including all allocations through NDS mentioned in table A).
  1769W

  Table A: NDS allocations to schools in the Huntingdon constituency

  Year

  School

  Project

  Package

  Grant (£)

  NDS1 1997–98

  Longsands College

  Extensive repair and refurbishment work to roof, gas and electrical supplies, damaged floor surfaces and toilets

  LEA wide grant

  1,065,000

  NDS2 1998–99

  Ernulf Community School

  Replacement of unsafe and defective lighting fittings in science block and other lower school buildings

  —

  45,600

  Priory Park Infant School

  Electrical work

  —

  34,200

  Middlefield Primary School

  Replacement of 3 condemned mobiles

  —

  192,110

  NDS3 1999–2000

  Thorndown Community Infant School

  Asbestos Removal

  Project including 8 schools

  185,516

  Thongsley Infant School

  Replacement of mobiles

  Project including 14 schools

  2,181,348

  Thorndown Junior School

  Asbestos Removal

  Project including 8 schools

  185,516

  Wheatfields Infant School

  Asbestos Removal

  Project including 8 schools

  185,516

  St. Ivo School

  Asbestos Removal

  Project including 8 schools

  185,516

  NDS4 2000–01

  Spring Common School

  Replacement of Mobiles

  225,605

  Hinchingbrooke School

  4 Science Laboratories

  —

  255,103

  Barnabas Oley CofE Primary School

  Provision of School Hall

  239,702

  Hemingford Grey Primary School

  Asbestos Removal

  Project including 17 schools

  229,153

  Offord Primary School

  Replacement of Temporaries—

  Project including 27 schools

  734,693

  Huntingdon Infant School

  Replacement of Temporaries-

  Project including 27 schools

  734,693

  Thorndown Community Infant School

  Asbestos Removal

  Project including 17 schools

  229,153

  Eastfield Infant and Nursery School

  Replacement of Temporaries

  Project including 13 schools

  1,542,906

  Eastfield Infant and Nursery School

  Replacement of Temporaries—

  Project including 27 schools

  734,693

  Thorndown Junior School

  Asbestos Removal

  Project including 17 schools

  229,153

  Little Paxton Primary School

  Asbestos Removal

  Project including 17 schools

  229,153

  Wheatfields Infant School

  Asbestos Removal

  Project including 17 schools

  229,153

  Alconbury CofE Primary School

  Replacement of Temporaries

  Project including 13 schools

  1,542,906

  Holywell CofE Primary School

  Asbestos Removal

  Project including 17 schools

  229,153

  Eynesbury CofE C Primary School

  Replacement of Temporaries—

  Project including 27 schools

  734,693

  Wheatfields Junior School

  Asbestos Removal

  Project including 17 schools

  229,153

  Crosshall Infant and Junior Schools

  Replacement of Temporaries

  Project including 13 schools

  1,542,906

  Crosshall Infant and Junior Schools

  Replacement of Temporaries—

  Project including 27 schools

  734,693

  Note:

  1. For NDS 1, the grant of 1,065,000 was allocated for Cambridgeshire local education authority as a whole, part of which was used for capital investment at the school mentioned in the Huntingdon constituency. The LEA will be able to say how much was allocated to the school.

  2. Where the project includes a package for a number of schools, each school received a share of the funding available.

  Table B: Capital allocations—Oldham education authority

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Assistance with Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  72

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Voluntary Aided formulaic allocations

  —

  —

  —

  —

  29

  63

  11

  Basic Need

  6,985

  7,220

  6,608

  8,693

  11,229

  10,393

  16,261

  Class Size initiative

  —

  543

  777

  500

  Condition

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,665

  3,917

  4,994

  Devolved Formula

  —

  —

  —

  3,663

  3,022

  4,561

  7,047

  Energy

  —

  108

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modernisation

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,928

  3,378

  NDS 1

  598

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 2

  —

  1,978

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 3

  —

  —

  2,367

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 4

  —

  —

  —

  5,859

  —

  —

  —

  Outside Toilets

  —

  98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  School Labs

  —

  —

  —

  174

  174

  —

  —

  School Security

  157

  149

  170

  171

  121

  104

  Schools Access Initiative

  45

  105

  150

  280

  452

  701

  970

  Secondary Learning Support Units

  —

  —

  —

  85

  92

  116

  —

  Seed Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  287

  327

  579

  582

  Specialist Schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  300

  200

  Staff Workspace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  108

  239

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  1,100

  118

  464

  1,761

  —

  75

  —

  Supplementary NDS for VA Schools

  —

  —

  —

  307

  —

  —

  —

  Targeted Capital Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  904

  813

  5,000

  Teaching Environments for the Future

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  460

  Voluntary Aided School Grant

  216

  667

  774

  375

  180

  404

  —

  Total

  9,146

  10,986

  11,382

  22,250

  19,590

  24,062

  39,142

  1770W 1771W
  To date we have allocated £44.6 million capital funding for 2004–05 and 2005–06.

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement about the number of overseas students attending UK universities following the recent report published by the British Council, Vision 2020: Forecasting International Student Mobility—A UK Perspective. [168969]

  Alan Johnson
  This is an important and valuable report. We have every intention of remaining one of the most popular destinations for overseas students. That is why we launched the Prime Minister's Initiative in 1999 to recruit an additional 50,000 international higher education students by 2005. UK Higher Education institutions have already exceeded that target by recruiting an additional 64,635 international students. We remain confident that overseas students will continue to choose to come here to take advantage of the high quality higher education which is on offer.

  Positive Activities for Young People
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement about the Positive Activities for Young People Initiative. [169875]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department for Education and Skills and New Opportunities Fund have joined forces with the Youth Justice Board, Home Office and Department for Culture Media and Sport to combine existing holiday activity schemes and deliver a Positive Activities for Young People (PAYP) programme. It is designed to divert and develop those young people aged 8–19 most at risk of social exclusion and committing crime and to steer their energy in a positive direction. It is being delivered across England from May 2003 to March 2006. £25 million funding for activities is available for the first year of the three year programme. A further £13.75 million is provided, annually, by the Connexions Service to fund Keyworkers throughout England.

  Provision takes place in all of the school holiday periods. Easter activities have already taken place but it is too early to measure it's success. In addition to activities one to one support is available for the most at risk young people.

  The programme comprises of quality arts, sports and cultural activities and encourages young people to continue in these activities after the programme ends. It aims to bring together young people from different geographical and ethnic minority communities to help break down prejudices and misunderstanding.

  Evaluation is scheduled to take place across the three year period but feedback indicates that at least 75,000 young people participated during summer 2003 and a further 40,000 in October half term in line with planned delivery targets.

  Pre-school Education (Wigan)
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) free nursery and
  1772W
  (b) pre-school places were available for (i) three and (ii) four year olds in Wigan in each of the last seven years. [169280]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. Figures on the number of free nursery education places taken up by three and four year olds in Wigan local education authority area are shown in the table.

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

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

  Psychology Postgraduates
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many education psychology training places have been available for postgraduate study in each year since 1997. [168633]

  Alan Johnson
  The information is not held centrally.

  Quality Protects
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the original target number was for families to be included in the Quality Protects Programme; how many families have been included in the programme; and if he will make a statement. [170178]

  Margaret Hodge
  Specific information on the number of families who benefited from the Quality Protects Programme was not collected centrally.

  School Funding
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much school funding(a) in 2003–04 was and (b) is planned for 2004–05 will be provided from (i) central Government and (ii) council tax revenue, broken down by local education authority. [171083]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Government does not fund local education authorities for school funding separately. Rather, they receive an amount of revenue support grant which provides revenue support for all their services. The amount of council tax revenue is a matter for local education authorities to decide.

  School Nurses
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school nurses were employed in(a) 2003, (b) 2002, (c) 2001, (d) 2000, (e) 1999, (f) 1998 and (g) 1997. [170371]
  1773W
  Mr. Miliband
  The number of nurses working in schools is not identified separately. The following table shows the full-time equivalent number of medical staff employed in maintained nursery and primary, secondary, PRUs and all special schools in each January between 1997 and 2003.

  Number

  1997

  1,190

  1998

  1,220

  1999

  1,190

  2000

  1,180

  2001

  1,200

  2002

  1,780

  2003

  1,750

  Source.

  Annual School Census.

  Numbers include matrons, nurses and other medical staff.

  The increase in numbers between 2001 and 2002 may reflect the change in data collection methods between these two years.

  Sex Education
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of whether there is a correlation between teenage sex education(a) advice programmes and (b) clinics and the prevalence of (i) sexually transmitted diseases and (ii) teenage pregnancy rates; and if he will make a statement. [167064]

  Margaret Hodge
  Increasing rates of sexually transmitted infections and high levels of teenage pregnancy have complex underlying causes. The best international research evidence supports the multifaceted approach being taken by our Teenage Pregnancy and Sexual Health and HIV Strategies.

  Increasing and improving access to contraception and sexual health advice services is one essential part. We are also helping young people to resist pressure to have sex, improving sex and relationship education to increase their knowledge and skill promoting condom use for those who are sexually active and supporting parents to talk to their children about sex and relationships without embarrassment.

  The number of family planning sessions aimed at young people has increased to tackle high levels of teenage pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections. In turn, increased provision will have created greater opportunities for raising awareness of sexually transmitted infections, increased screening and testing and identification of previously undiagnosed infections.

  Since 1998, the baseline year for the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, there has been a 9.4 per cent. reduction in the under 18 conception rate with 80 per cent. of local authorities seeing declining rates.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average age for 1774W
  identification of special needs has been in each year since 1997, broken down by (a) local education authority and (b) ethnic group. [167556]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  A table has been placed in the House of Commons Library giving the most relevant information. This shows the age group of children for whom statements were made for the first time.

  Specialist Speech and Language Support
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment has been made of the need for children with severe speech difficulties to have access to specialist speech and language support within mainstream schools; [169942]

  (2) what guidelines exist for the minimum level of specialist speech and language teaching support to be provided by each local education authority. [169943]

  Margaret Hodge
  Speech and language needs and the necessary the collaboration between education and health to meet those needs were considered in a research report published in November 2000, "Provision for children with speech and language needs in England and Wales: facilitating communication between education and heath services" (Department for Education and Employment Research Report RR239). This was published alongside the report of the Working Group on Speech and Language Therapy Services to Children with Special Educational Needs (England).

  Local education authorities, maintained schools, early years settings and others have to have regard to the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice published in November 2001. This gives practical advice on carrying out their statutory duties to identify, assess and make suitable provision for children with SEN. The Code includes a section on speech and language therapy support.

  No guidance has been issued in relation to the minimum level of specialist speech and language teaching support, since provision should reflect the assessed needs of individual children, some of whom may have severe or complex needs or multiple disabilities. The DfES and Department of Health have however established an Action Forum to improve provision for children with speech, language and communication needs in mainstream schools or other settings. This group brings together key interests with a view to identifying and promoting good practice.

  Staff Disciplinary Cases
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he has reviewed the handling of serious staff disciplinary cases in colleges following the publication and distribution of the Newby Report, Review of complaints against St. Austell College. [170641]

  Mr. Miliband
  Further Education institutions are independent corporate bodies and are therefore responsible for their own employment policies. The Government does however expect colleges to have robust and defensible policies and practices in place. In July 1996, at the request of the Secretary of State for
  1775W
  Education and Employment, the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) commissioned Professor Howard Newby to review the actions of and disciplinary and grievance procedures used by St. Austell College whilst conducting a staff disciplinary case. In his review Professor Newby concluded that serious errors had been made by the College, The FEFC published the review in June 1998 to advise and inform other Further Education institutions in reviewing their procedures.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate for each English university the net benefit from tuition fees if(a) the maximum fee is charged to all students, (b) the maximum fee is charged to 50 per cent. of students and (c) the maximum fee is charged to 25 per cent. of students. [166853]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 21 April 2004]Information on the additional income from fees in different scenarios is contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published on 8 January alongside the HE Bill. Because of the nature of a variable scheme, the additional net income from fees will vary not only according to the number of students an institution recruits, but also depending on decisions the higher education institutions themselves take on the level of fee and the cost of any measures, such as bursaries for students from lower income backgrounds, that they put in place to safeguard access. Figures for extra fee income cannot therefore be estimated precisely. Copies of the Regulatory Impact Assessment were placed in the Library of the House; it is also available on the Department for Education and Skills website.

  Sure Start/Early Excellence Centres
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) Sure Start centres and (b) early excellence centres have been created in Birkenhead. [166302]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are three Sure Start local programmes in Birkenhead-Birkenhead North, Birkenhead Central and Ferries. Five neighbourhood nurseries are being developed in Birkenhead. Of these, four are open and offering 175 Places. Two of these are linked to the Birkenhead North and Ferries programmes and are operating from temporary accommodation while the main building is completed. The fifth is due to open in the next few weeks. There are no Early Excellence Centres in Birkenhead.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many(a) Sure Start centres and (b) Early Excellence centres have been created in Bootle; [169081]

  (2) how many new nurseries have been established in Bootle since 1997. [169082]

  Margaret Hodge
  There are two Sure Start local programmes in Bootle constituency; Litherland Bootle and Orrell and Seaforth and Bootle. Seaforth and Bottle local programme have built a Sure Start centre in Seaforth. Litherland Bootle and Orrell have not yet 1776W
  created any new buildings. Sefton local authority have submitted their strategic plans for Children Centres and these two Programmes are included in these plans.

  No Early Excellence Centres have been created in Bootle.

  Sefton local authority are responsible for determining local need for nursery places in Bootle they maintain information on current provision. Under the Neighbourhood Nursery Scheme three nurseries were opened in Bootle constituency providing a total of 110 places. A further two nurseries are to be opened in June providing another 115 places.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many(a) Sure Start centres and (b) Early Excellence centres have been created in Burnley; [167919]

  (2) how many new nurseries have been established in Burnley since 1997. [167920]

  Margaret Hodge
  No early excellence centres have been created in Burnley since 1997. There are three Sure Start Local Programmes in Burnley. The first Local programme Burnley (Daneshouse and Stoneyholme) was approved in August 2000 and has spent all of their capital funding of 1,548,000, The other two Local Programmes Duke Bar and Burnley Wood and South West Burnley were approved by the Sure Start Unit with indicative capital funding of 1,000,000 for each of the programme. Duke Bar and Burnley Wood and South West Burnley have not yet submitted their capital plan for this money. This money will support the development of new nurseries places in Burnley.

  Lancashire local authority is responsible for determining the local need for nursery in Burnley. They collect information on current provision. Under the Neighbourhood Nurseries scheme 97 new nursery places have been opened in Burnley.

  Lancashire counts council is currently developing plans to implement Children's Centres in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards, Burnley will be included in these plans.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many(a) Sure Start Centres and (b) Early Excellence Centres have been created in Preston; [168136]

  (2) how many new nurseries have been established in Preston since 1997. [168133]

  Margaret Hodge
  No Sure Start Centres have yet been completed in Preston. There are five Sure Start local programmes in Preston. Sure Start Ribbleton has commenced work on a Sure Start Centre which is due to be completed in December 2004. Sure Start Preston West is building a Sure Start Centre as an extension to a nursery school which will be completed in August 2004. The other three programmes have yet to submit plans for the use of the majority of their capital funding.

  One Early Excellence Centre has been created in Preston, based at Stoneygate Nursery School.
  1777W
  Lancashire county council is responsible for determining local need for nursery places in Preston and maintaining information on current provision. Under the Neighbourhood Nurseries scheme 198 new nursery places have been created in Preston in six nurseries.

  Lancashire county council is currently developing plans to implement Children's Centres in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards, Preston will be included in these plans.

  Teacher Recruitment/Vacancies
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on progress with the recruitment of teachers; and how many new teachers have been appointed as a direct result of his Department's initiatives. [169954]

  Mr. Miliband
  Although difficulties persist in some individual schools and areas, the overall teacher supply position is continuing to improve. Recruitment to courses of initial teacher training in England fell for eight years in a row from 1992/93, but has risen for four successive years since the introduction of training bursaries and Golden Hellos in September 2000. This is having an impact on the numbers of teachers in schools. National Statistics published by my Department on 29 April showed that there sere 427,800 full-time equivalent regular teachers working in maintained schools in England in January 2004. That is 28,600 more than in 1997 and more than at any time since 1981. The teacher vacancy rate is now 0.7 per cent., down from 0.9 per cent. the previous year. There were 2,670 full-time teacher vacancies in January 2004, compared to 3,410 in January 2003.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in Oldham, West and Royton on the latest date for which figures are available; and what steps he is taking to reduce them. [170909]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on teacher vacancies is not available by constituency as it is collected at local education authority level. In January 2003, the latest information available, there were 19 full-time teacher vacancies in Oldham local education authority.

  Like other areas, since 1997 Oldham, West and Royton has benefited from the initiatives that the Government have put in place to recruit and retain teachers and to increase the number of staff supporting them in schools. Since 1997, the number of full-time equivalent regular teachers in maintained schools in Oldham LEA has risen from 2.240 to 2,250 in 2003. Over the same period, the number of full-time equivalent school support staff in the area has grown by 520 from 720 to 1,240 in 2003.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching assistants there were in schools in Oldham, West and Royton(a) in each of the last seven years and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [170910]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives the full time equivalent number of teaching assistants employed in maintained schools in Oldham, West and Royton constituency in each January between 1997 and 2003, the latest year for which data are available.
  1778W

  Number

  1997

  200

  1998

  210

  1999

  230

  2000

  250

  2001

  290

  2002

  310

  2003

  350

  Source:

  Annual School Census.

  Unexplained Infant Deaths
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many civil cases relating to unexplained infant deaths have been reviewed since the statement on 20 January 2004,Official Report, column 1215; what the outcome was of each; and if she will make a statement. [167813]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement that I made on 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 37, and the answer given in the other place by my right hon. Friend Baroness Ashton of Upholland on 30 March 2004, Official Report, column WA153.

  University Fees (EU Enlargement)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the cost to United Kingdom universities of the changed fee obligations of students from the accession countries after EU enlargement. [166735]

  Alan Johnson
  In 2002–03 around 3,400 full-time undergraduate students in UK higher education institutions came from countries about to join the EU. Assuming that international students pay upwards of £6500 in 2004–05 in tuition fees, the likely loss of that direct fee income to higher education institutions—the difference between the "overseas" and the "home" fee rate—from those students would be at least 18 million.

  From the start of the 2004–05 academic year, higher education institutions will be eligible for funding from the HE funding councils in respect of students from the accession countries, on the same basis as other EU students and home students. The exact amount will depend on the course of study. The students themselves will generally pay a means-tested fee contribution. Higher education institutions have been aware of this change for some years and of the need to budget accordingly.

  University Science Departments
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will list in the last five years, universities which have closed science departments, broken down by subject; and if he will make a statement; [165526]

  (2) how many chemistry departments have been closed in UK universities since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [169936]
  1779W
  Alan Johnson
  Information on the closure of particular university departments is not collected by either the Department for Education and Skills or the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). Higher Education Institutions are autonomous bodies and any decisions on closures of departments are made by the institutions themselves and not Government or the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).

  However, I am aware of two recent chemistry course closures; one at Kings College London and one at Queen Mary and Westfield College (University of London). These closures were largely due to lack of demand for the undergraduate Chemistry courses. Sir Gareth Robert's Review into the supply of people with Science Technology Engineering and Maths Skills made a number of recommendations concerning this issue and we are making good progress in their implementation.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Asthma
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases of occupational asthma there were in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) England in each of the last five years. [170236]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information on estimated numbers of new cases of occupational asthma reported in Great Britain, and in England by consultant chest physicians and occupational physicians in each of the last five years for which data are available is in the table.

  Occupational asthma: estimated number of cases reported by chest physicians and occupational physicians, 1998 to 2002

  Great Britain

  England

  1998

  808

  665

  1999

  1,128

  887

  2000

  785

  688

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–041

  Pipeline defect

  12

  15

  7

  6

  10

  12

  4

  7

  Release of flammable substance

  58

  63

  55

  45

  33

  3.1

  26

  36

  Release of other substance

  112

  91

  84

  80

  62

  74

  57

  48

  Totals

  182

  169

  146

  131

  105

  117

  87

  91

  1 (provisional only)

  Note:

  Information is not readily available prior to 1996–97 and the statistics include all reported chemical releases.

  Child Support Agency (Solihull)
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will cause enquiries to be made into the conduct of the Child Support Agency case of Mary Ahern of Haslucks Croft, Shirley in the Solihull constituency. [170654]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.
  1780W

  Occupational asthma: estimated number of cases reported by chest physicians and occupational physicians, 1998 to 2002

  Great Britain

  England

  2001

  649

  524

  20021

  670

  596

  1 Provisional data

  Source:

  The Health and Occupation Reporting (THOR) network.

  Cases of occupational asthma may not be seen by consultant physicians and may go undiagnosed. It has been estimated that the actual number of new cases may be around 5,500 per year.

  Information regarding Northern Ireland is a matter for the Northern Ireland Office.

  Chemical Plants
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average length of time was for the Health and Safety Executive to produce reports on leaks at chemical sites in 2003; and if he will make a statement. [165639]

  Mr. Pond
  HSE only prepares publicly available reports on the most serious incidents (including significant leaks) at chemical sites. The length of time for their publication is dependent on the nature and complexity of the incident and the action that was taken. If there were a prosecution, a report would not be published until that had concluded.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many gas leak incidents have occurred at chemical plants in the UK in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [165640]

  Jane Kennedy
  The number of releases from chemical plants in Great Britain reported to the Health and Safety Executive under RIDDOR1 since 1996–97 is as follows:

  1 Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations

  Letter from Doug smith to Mr. John Taylor, dated 6 May 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will cause enquiries to be made into the conduct of the Child Support Agency case of Mary Ahern of Haslucks Croft, Shirley in the Solihull constituency.

  As individual cases, are confidential, I will write to you separately about Mary Ahern when I respond to your letter dated 22 April 2004. This is in line with paragraph 12, part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Civil Partnerships
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether those registering a civil partnership will be entitled to the same pension rights as married couples; and if he will make a statement. [171111]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Provisions in the Civil Partnership Bill would extend state pension rights and contracted-out survivor pension rights to sane-sex couples who have formed a civil partnership.

  Schedule 17 of the Bill amends state pensions legislation. These amendments would extend those state pension benefits that are equally available to husbands and wives to civil partners when the Bill comes into force. Other state pension benefits would be extended to civil partners from 2010, when the conditions of entitlement for all state pension benefits will be the same for husbands and wives.

  The Civil Partnership Bill contains a pensions enabling power (Clause 187) which would allow my Department to amend the contracting out rules in relation to survivor pensions. The intention is to use this power to require:
  contracted-out defined benefit pension schemes to take account of periods of pensionable service after commencement of the Civil Partnership Bill for the purposes of calculating survivor pensions for civil partners; and
  contracted-out defined contribution schemes to provide survivor pension for civil partners from the protected rights accrued after commencement of the Civil Partnership Bill, if the member is in a registered civil partnership at the point of retirement.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the membership organisations of the Job Centre Plus Provider Liasion Group. [168632]

  Jane Kennedy
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mrs. Annette Brooke, dated 6 May 2004:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency. the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your question about the membership organisations of the Jobcentre Plus Provider Liaison Group. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The Jobcentre Plus Provider Liaison Group's membership includes representatives from several of our largest work-based private sector providers, together with providers in the voluntary and community sector, smaller private providers and Further Education establishments. In addition, membership includes the Association of Learning Providers (ALP), a trade body for the work-based sector who represent approximately 30 per cent. of Jobcentre Plus providers. The Group is supported by a small secretariat from Jobcentre Plus. Full membership of the Group is set out in Annex 1.

  The purpose of the Group is to provide a forum in which providers are consulted on changes to policy and operational processes. In practice this gives them the opportunity to comment upon policies from their perspective as of organisations that deliver these policies. The Group enables Jobcentre Plus to obtain the views of providers from a wide background and should help ensure that our business can be delivered more effectively and efficiently.

  I hope this is helpful.
  1782W

  Annex 1: Jobcentre plus provider group membership

  Contact

  Provider

  David Bailey

  Action for Employment

  Steve Marsland

  Action for Employment

  Pat Taylor

  Personnel Evaluation Consultants

  George Allon

  BTCV

  Roger Cole

  Pelcombe Training

  Stephanie Baslington

  Rathbone

  Janet Pibworth

  Seetec

  Jim McIntosh

  Shaw Trust

  Teresa Jolly/Colin Kearney

  Sheffield city council

  George Baines

  Standguide

  Jim Gambles

  Standguide

  Martin Dunford

  TBG learning

  Dawn Marsh

  The Training Network Group

  A Townson

  Bournemouth and Poole College

  Gerard Irwin

  Reed Co. UK.

  Sian Woolson

  Dash Training Ltd.

  Diane Prosser

  Dash Training Ltd.

  Sharon Cooke

  Bethany Group

  Sarah Cooke

  DHP enterprises

  David Cameron

  Scottish Council for voluntary organisations

  Sarah Knight

  Instant Muscle

  Paul Warner

  ALP

  Adrienne Nolan

  WACG LMD Skills and Int

  Beth Simpson

  DFES

  Peter Jordan

  LSC

  David Williams

  TD management Services

  Jill Valentine

  UFI

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the duties and responsibilities of Jobcentre Plus personal advisors are; [169973]

  (2) what the set-up costs of Jobcentre Plus have been; [170023]

  (3) how many (a) Jobcentre and (b) Jobcentre Plus centres there are in England. [170025]

  Jane Kennedy
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. Charles Hendry, dated 6 May 2004:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions concerning the cost of introducing Jobcentre Plus, the numbers of offices delivering our services to the public and what the duties and responsibilities of personal advisors are. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.

  The total cost recorded for Jobcentre Plus Implementation to the end of March 2004 is £608.9 million. Some financial adjustments still need to be made and the final figure for the year end is expected to show an increase on this amount.

  In England our delivery network comprises:

  388 Jobcentre Plus offices

  454 Jobcentres

  237 Social Security offices

  We plan to complete the rollout of the new integrated service across Great Britain by 31 March 2006.

  Jobcentre Plus is helping a wider range of customers than ever to secure employment with special focus on those customers who have to overcome particular barriers. Jobcentre Plus services are work focused for all customers, with personal advisers addressing individual customer needs.
  1783W
  Personal advisers make a key contribution to realising the Jobcentre Plus vision of a welfare system for people of working age that promotes work as the best form of welfare while providing appropriate help and support for those without jobs. They also deliver the service through which Jobcentre Plus will meet many of its aims, objectives and performance targets.

  The key responsibilities for personal advisers are to:
  carry out diagnostic, work targeted interviews to help customers understand the benefits of working and agree a realistic course of action to gain or move them closer to employment;
  submit customers to appropriate vacancies;
  manage a caseload of customers;
  develop and maintain partnership working with Jobcentre Plus colleagues and employers/relevant external organisations to improve and extend the range of support for customers; and
  help to protect the integrity of the benefit system by making sure people fulfil their responsibilities and remain entitled to benefit.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobcentres
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what degree of flexibility he will give jobcentres over their budgets(a) to improve local skills and (b) to target jobless blackspots. [166681]

  Jane Kennedy
  Jobcentre Plus has a wide range of employment programmes to support clients improve their employability and help them to move into work. Within the framework of national programme design, District Managers are responsible for ensuring that the provision meets the needs of their local labour market. Programme budget management processes support this local tailoring.

  Since 26 April 2004, the District Manager's Discretionary Fund (DMDF) has been made available to all District Managers and will run for two years, with lessons learned being taken forward.

  DMDF will allow greater freedom and flexibility to tackle local problems, including local skills gaps, and allow investment in local partnerships.

  In addition, since 1 April 2004 we have launched the Working Neighbourhoods pilots in 12 of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the country. The pilots include a flexible, discretionary fund for each neighbourhood to allow personal advisers in cooperation with local strategic partners to tackle the substantial and varied barriers that prevent residents in these neighbourhoods from returning to work.

  New Deal for Lone Parents
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents in West Lancashire have gained work through the New Deal programme. [171723]

  Jane Kennedy
  650 lone parents in West Lancashire have gained work through the New Deal for Lone Parents since the start of the programme in October 1998. Figures for lone parents who have gained work through other New Deal Programmes are not available.
  1784W
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents in Oldham, West and Royton have gained work through the New Deal programme. [170948]

  Jane Kennedy
  480 lone parents in Oldham, West and Royton have gained work through the New Deal for Lone Parents since the start of the programme in October 1998. Figures for lone parents who have gained work through other New Deal programmes are not available.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many women in Oldham, West and Royton have benefited from(a) the New Deal for Lone Parents and (b) the New Deal for Partners since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [170950]

  Jane Kennedy
  Through the New Deal we have introduced a wide range of initiatives to help individuals improve their employment prospects by giving them the skills, support and confidence they need to move into work. From 12 April we enhanced the New Deal for Partners in order to offer partners taking part in that programme the same level of help and support as our successful New Deal for Lone Parents programme. Also from this April W(have started to roll out Work Focused Interviews for Partners, offering greater support to partners of benefit recipients.

  720 women have started New Deal for Lone Parents in Oldham, West and Royton since the beginning of the programme in October 1998, of whom, 460 have gained a job. Information on the number of women who have benefited from the New Deal for Partners is not available.

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents have(a) gained work and (b) entered training or education through the New Deal for Lone Parents in Battersea. [169768]

  Jane Kennedy
  Since the beginning of the programme in October 1998, 400 lone parents have gained work, and 70 have participated in training or education, through the New Deal for Lone Parents in Battersea.

  Part-time Employees' Pension Rights
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Government intends to lay regulations before the House amending the Pensions Act 1995 and the Occupational Pension Schemes (Equal Treatment) Regulations to reflect the time limits of the European Court of Justice ruling in he Preston case. [169883]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Draft regulations were prepared and issued for consultation in July last year. They will be finalised as soon as possible but in the meantime employment tribunals are making decisions in light of the judgments of the courts about access to pension schemes.

  Pension Entitlements
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps the Government are taking to calculate the cost of compensating those people who have already lost some or all of their pension entitlement; and if he will make a statement. [170103]
  1785W
  Malcolm Wicks
  We are currently working with trustees to gather data about defined benefit schemes that are winding up under-funded. Using these data we will establish film estimates of the extent of the problem and the potential scale of losses. The potential cost of any assistance would depend on these estimates and on the nature of any assistance provided.

  State Pension
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the cost, net of savings in means-tested benefits and additional tax revenues, of paying a full basic state pension to each individual(a) regardless of contribution record and (b) on the current system of entitlement at the rate of the guarantee credit, from the age of 80 years; and if he will estimate in each case the cost in each of the following four years on the assumption that the pension was then indexed to earnings. [168860]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, such information as is available is in the table.

  £ billion

  (a) Net cost of guarantee level basic state pension paid to those over 80 regardless of contribution record

  (b) Net cost of guarantee level basic state pension paid to those over 80 on current system of entitlements

  2005–06

  2.4

  2.0

  2006–07

  2.6

  2.1

  2007–08

  2.8

  2.2

  2008–09

  2.9

  2.4

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for Great Britain in 2004–05 price terms, rounded to the nearest £100 million. It is assumed the change comes into effect from April 2005 and basic state pension is up-rated in line with earnings thereafter. It is assumed that part (a) would not apply to those overseas, and so for consistency, part (b) also does not include any changes to the state pensions of those who are overseas.

  2. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with Budget 2004 assumptions and use 2002-based population projections.

  3. For part (a) it is assumed that for those over 80 the basic state pension has been increased to the guarantee credit rate, any additional pension is then added to the lull basic state pension.

  4. In addition, no allowances are made for couples, and individuals aged over 80 have been assumed to receive basic state pension at the single rate of the guarantee credit, including those previously receiving no basic state pension through their own contributions.

  5. For part (b) for those over 80, the maximum rate of category A basic state pension is raised to the level of the guarantee credit and those receiving less than the maximum category A basic state pension and other categories of basic state pension will receive an increased pension according to the rules of the current system.

  6. Income related benefit offsets are calculated using the DWP policy simulation model and April 2004 benefit rates. It is assumed that the savings credit is left unchanged from the existing system and the current rules apply. Consistent w ith previous answers it is assumed that the offset for the first year will remain constant for subsequent years.

  7. Additional income tax revenue is estimated by the Inland Revenue using 2004 tax rates. The income tax estimates for 2004–05 to 2006–07 are based on the 2001–02 Survey of Personal Incomes and are projected in line wish March 2004 Budget assumptions. For illustrative purposes, it is assumed income tax revenue will be a fixed percentage of the gross cost for this option in 2007–08 and 2008–09.

  1786W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) divorced and (b) widowed people who have made a claim for state retirement pension have yet to receive it; and how long they have been waiting in each case. [167336]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of claims to state pension from divorced and widowed customers who have yet to receive their award, as at 21 April 2004, is broken down as follows:

  Number

  Divorce

  4,349

  Widowed

  1,083

  Total

  5,432

  Information on how long they have been waiting in each case can be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  StepUP Programme
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to extend the StepUP programme. [170042]

  Jane Kennedy
  StepUP builds on the New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus by providing transitional jobs for people who have not secured sustained employment through New Deal. There are currently 20 StepUP pilots operating in selected wards across Great Britain.

  An interim report (Evaluation of StepUP:Interim Report 186/2004) was published on 16 March and is available in the Library. It is too soon to say whether StepUP will be rolled out nationally. However, a final report on the programme, which will establish its effectiveness in helping people into sustained work, work, will include recommendations on roll out.

  The report is due to be published in July 2005 and a copy of this will be placed in the Library.

  Sure Start Maternity Grant
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many mothers in Burnley have taken up the Sure Start maternity grant; [167888]

  (2) how many mothers in Burnley have received the Sure Start Maternity Grant. [168323]

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

  Sure Start Maternity Grants in Greater Manchester Lancashire Social Fund District/East Lancashire Jobcentre Plus District

  Applications

  Awards

  2000–01

  2,936

  2,405

  2001–02

  3,746

  2,998

  2002–03

  4,637

  3,452

  2003–04

  5,297

  3,539

  Notes:

  1. Data are not available by parliamentary constituency. Burnley parliamentary constituency is part of East Lancashire Jobcentre Plus District, which was previously called Greater Manchester Lancashire Social Fund District.
  1787W
  2. Sure Start Maternity Grants were introduced on 27 March 2000. The very small number of cases for 1999–2000 has 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.

  Toilet Soaps
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to amend the current Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations and Biocidal Products Regulations for toilet soaps. [167222]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no such plans. The legislation applying to toilet soaps is clear: where they are already regulated under the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations they are excluded from the scope of the Biocidal Products Regulations.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many senior citizens in Wigan have benefited from the winter fuel allowance since 1997. [169313]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of senior citizens in the Wigan constituency who benefited from a winter fuel payment in each year since 1999–2000 (including provisional figures for 2003–04) is in the table. Information relating to the 1997–98 and 1998–99 winters is not available.

  Payments made

  1999–2000

  14,650

  2000–2001

  16,665

  2001–2002

  16,780

  2002–2003

  16,820

  2003–2004

  16,990

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Please note that the figures for 2003–04 refer only to the main payment run i.e. they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent. of all payments). However, since late payment runs are mainly in respect of non-system cases whose claim had not been received by Qualifying Week, they are heavily skewed towards men aged 60.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. samples.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many senior citizens in Preston have benefited from the winter fuel allowance since 1997. [169726]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of senior citizens in the Preston constituency who have benefited from the winter fuel payment in each year since 1999–2000 (including provisional figures for 2003–04) is in the table. Information relating to the 1997–98 and 1998–99 winters is not available.

  Payments made

  1999–2000

  15,375

  2000–01

  16,830

  2001–02

  16,735

  1788W

  Payments made

  2002–03

  16,570

  2003–04

  16,425

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5.

  2. Please note that the figures for 2003–04 refer only to the main payment run i.e. they do not include the late payment run figures. We estimate that there are approximately 100,000 people in Great Britain paid via late payment runs (0.8 per cent. of all payments). However, since late payment runs are mainly in respect of non-system cases whose claim had not been received by Qualifying Week, they are heavily skewed towards men aged 60.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. samples.

HEALTH

  Drug Addicts
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of addicts in the UK using(a) class A drugs and (b) heroin in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [168723]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is estimated that there are 250,000 Class A problem drug users in England and Wales (Home Office Research Study 2002). Problem drug users are defined as people who use illegal drugs and experience social, psychological, physical or legal problems.

  The Government is committed to tackling substance misuse and launched the updated drugs strategy in 2002. The Government is on track to meet the target in this strategy to double the number of people in treatment from 100,000 in 1998 to 200,000 by 2008 and to increase year on year the numbers retained in, or successfully completing treatment.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people from Liverpool, Walton are receiving drug treatment. [166985]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There were 2,191 people receiving drug treatment in Liverpool in 2000–01. This is the latest available data. Data broken down by drug action team for 2001–02 and 2002–03 have not yet been finalised and published.

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were seen at Warrington hospital accident and emergency in each of the last five years. [168689]

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

  First attendances at accident and emergency department

  Number

  2002–03

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  84,465

  2001–02

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  84,171

  2000–01

  Warrington Hospital NHS Trust

  55,978

  1999–2000

  Warrington Hospital NHS Trust

  57,786

  1998–99

  Warrington Hospital NHS Trust

  56,796

  Source:

  Department of Health.

  1789W
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is of the new accident and emergency unit at Warrington hospital; and what facilities it will provide. [168690]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The new accident and emergency unit at Warrington hospital will cost a total of £6 million. It will include major and minor injury areas, four bed resuscitation area a chest pain area, a seven bed coronary care unit, a paediatric area and x-ray facilities. The unit will provide a dedicated paediatric unit for the first time for residents of North Cheshire and comprehensive coronary care

  Source:

  North Cheshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust

  Alcohol
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary or State for Health what plans he has to place health warning labels on alcoholic products; and if he will make a statement. [169938]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy for England, published in March 2004, recommends that the Department of Health and the Home Office consult the alcohol industry on the introduction of a voluntary social responsibility scheme. As part of this scheme, the strategy urges that the drinks industry should be encouraged to display information on sensible drinking and on the unit content of drinks.

  Allergies
  Jon Cruddas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he uses the estimates of the extent of allergies in the June 2003 report by the Royal College of Physicians, "Allergy: the Unmet Need", as a basis for NHS planning; and what other evidence-based planning data he proposes to use; [169904]

  (2) what his latest estimate is of the annual cost to the NHS of allergies; and what assessment he has made of the recent changes in the incidence of more serious systemic allergies. [169905]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We welcomed the Royal College of Physicians' report and believe it is a useful contribution to the debate on how to improve national health service allergy services. It is the role of primary care trusts, in partnership with local stakeholders, to decide what services to provide for their popular ions, including those with allergies. They are best placed to understand local health care needs and commission services to meet them.

  Information about the annual cost to the NHS of allergies is not centrally available.

  We are aware that there has been a particular increase in severe allergic disease, including, anaphylaxis; severe reactions to food and drugs are now common.

  Asthma
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what strategies the Department ph ns to put in place to deal with an increased incidence of asthma. [170139]
  1790W
  Dr. Ladyman
  A number of initiatives are underway in the national health service in England to improve services for patients with asthma. These include:The national service framework (NSF) for children: asthma, as one of the most common childhood conditions, will be used as a key exemplar that will accompany the main NSF report.
  The chronic disease management programme provides arrangements for health promotion under the general practitioner contract including fixed annual payments for participating GPs, around 94 per cent. of the total, for running organised programmes of care for patients with asthma.
  The general medical services contract, launched in February 2003, includes a specific quality indicator for treatment and care of people with asthma.

  Breast Screening Sites
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of breast screening sites are providing screening for women aged 65–70 years; and if he will make a statement. [170975]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As at 31 March 2004, 44 per cent., of the 81 local breast screening programmes in England had begun inviting women aged 65–70 for breast screening. All local programmes are on track to begin inviting the older women by the target date of December 2004. Since the age extension began in April 2001, over 200,000 more women have been invited for breast screening. 400,000 more women a year will be invited once the extension is fully implemented.

  Cancer
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Coalition for Cancer Information was established; what its budget is; what its remit is; what its membership is; how often it has met; and if he will make a statement. [169715]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The coalition for cancer information (CCI) was formed in June 2002 as a result of a recommendation from the cancer information advisory group and is chaired by Professor Mike Richards, National Cancer Director. The CCI does not hold a budget, but is supported by departmental secretariat. The CCI brings together producers and consumers of cancer information from national voluntary organisations, the National Cancer Research Institute, the national health service and the Department. It was established to oversee the development and dissemination of high quality information materials for those affected by cancer.

  Since being established, the coalition has met approximately three times a year.

  Chest Pain Clinics
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rapid access chest pain clinics there are in Burnley. [167947]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The East Lancashire Hospitals National Health Service Trust holds rapid access chest pain clinics at Burnley General Hospital. The Trust is meeting the national service framework two week target for patients to be seen from date of referral by general practitioner.
  1791W
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rapid access chest pain clinics there are in Preston. [168107]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust has rapid access chest pain clinics at both the Royal Preston Hospital and Chorley and South Ribble Hospital. Both clinics are meeting the national service framework two week target for patients to be seen from date of referral by general practitioner.

  Cystic Fibrosis Screening
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 386W, on cystic fibrosis screening, if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the National Screening Committee on implementation of the Government's commitment to newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. [170582]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Following discussion at its meeting in March 2004 the United Kingdom National Screening Committee (NSC) has asked the UK newborn screening programme centre, a collaboration between Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, the Institute of Child Health and the Institute of Education to develop an implementation plan.

  The expectation is that, in England, with the emphasis in the current year on bringing existing provision up to high standards, this will enable a roll-out within two to three years. The precise pace of the roll-out will be determined by local priorities. However the NSC will be providing advice and help on costs, feasibility and timetables and learning from the experience of other UK countries.

  Dentistry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of NHS dental services in North Yorkshire. [169970]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  49.9 per cent. of adults and 68.2 per cent. of children in North Yorkshire were registered with a National Health Service dentist at the end of February 2004. There has been very little change in these numbers over the previous 12 months. There were 248 dentists treating NHS patients in north Yorkshire at the end of 2003.

  Departmental Expenditure (Entertainment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his latest estimate is of the amount spent by his Department on entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [169003]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Expenditure arises on hospitality and entertainment only in the context of promoting the Department's business objectives. All such expenditure is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety/based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".
  1792W
  Information for 2004–05 is not available. The total amount spent by the Department on hospitality for years since 1996–97 is shown in the table.

  £

  Expenditure

  1996–97

  105,192

  1997–98

  90,883

  1998–99

  67,953

  1999–2000

  50,114

  2000–01

  93,091

  2001–02

  121,968

  2002–03

  125,291

  2003–04

  76,742

  Direct Payments
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the original target was for the extension of direct payments; to how many people direct payments have been extended; and it' he will make a statement. [170201]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In 2002–03, 9,600 people received a direct payment. The Department has not set a target for the extension of direct payments. Increasing the take up of direct payments will contribute to the annual overall assessment of a council's performance. To achieve a performance rating of 'very good', councils must have at least 150 people receiving direct payments per 100,000 population aged 18 or over. The national average for 2002–03 was 23.

  Drug Treatment (Burnley)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Burnley are receiving drug treatment. [168319]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the number of people receiving drug treatment on a constituency basis is not gathered centrally.

  In 2000–01, there were a total of 2,874 people receiving drug treatment in the are covered by the drug action team for Lancashire. These are the latest available data. Data broken down by drug action team for 2001–02 and 2002–03 have not yet been finalised and published.

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistics

  Employment-Health Link
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned into the link between employment and a person's health; and if he will make a statement. [168718]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are two recent studies; working with the Employment Service, the Department undertook a study of the health impact of the new deal for young people which was published in 2002.

  More recently the Department has, in collaboration with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, commissioned a further study on the health impact of the new deal for communities.

  Erectile Dysfunction
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues to general practitioners on what constitutes severe distress for the purposes of the treatment of erectile dysfunction. [168446]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Health Service Circular (HSC) 1999/177, issued on 6 August 1999 contains guidance to general practitioners on the treatment of erectile dysfunction and severe distress.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many senior citizens in Burnley have access to free eye tests; [167949]

  (2) how many residents in Burnley aged over 60 years have benefited from the abolition of charges for eye tests. [167950]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the number of senior citizens are not collected centrally.

  The total number of sight tests paid for by Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority in the year 2002–03 for people aged 60 and over was 189,100.

  The total number eligible for a free sight test for those aged 60 and over was 429,300. Sight tests cannot be equated to the number of patients.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many residents in Manchester, Gorton aged over 60 years have benefited from the abolition of charges for eye tests; [167382]

  (2) how many senior citizens in Manchester, Gorton have access to free eye tests. [167381]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the number of senior citizens is not collected centrally.

  The total number of National Health Service sight tests paid for by the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority in 2002–03 for patients aged 60 and over was 189,900. The total number eligible for a free sight test for those aged 60 and ON er was 493,100. Sight tests cannot be equated to the numbers of patients.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many senior citizens in Preston have access to free eye tests;. [168098]

  (2) how many residents in Preston aged over 60 years have benefited from the abolition of charges for eye tests. [168099]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the, number of senior citizensis not collected centrally.

  The total number of sight tests paid for by Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority in the year 2002–03 for those aged 60 and over was 189,100.

  The total number of eligible for a free eye test for those aged 60 and over was 429,300. Sight tests cannot be equated to the number of patients.

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistics.

  GM Foods
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what discussions have been held by officials of the Food Standards Agency with, and what representations have been received by the Agency from,(a) the Food and Drink Federation, (b) the European Federation of European Food Additives and Food Enzymes Industries, (c) the Confederation of Food and Drink Industries of the European Union, (d) individual companies involved in the fermentation sector and (e) other stakeholders about the interpretation of the new traceability and labelling regulations in relation to products produced with genetically modified micro-organisms; [169958]

  (2) what the policy objectives of the Food Standards Agency are for the forthcoming discussions with the European Commission and other member states about the interpretation of the new traceability and labelling regulations in relation to products produced with genetically modified micro-organisms; and what communication the Agency (a) has had and (b) intends to have with other member states to secure those objectives; [169959]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Food Standards Agency (FSA), in conjunction with the Department for Environment, Rural Affairs and Food, has held stakeholder meetings with a number of interested parties, including industry bodies and associations, to discuss the implications and scope of both the Genetically Modified Food and Feed Regulation (EC) 1829/2003 and the Traceability and Labelling Regulation (EC) 1830/2003.

  The food and feed industry has raised specific concerns in relation to the labelling of products arising from a fermentation process using either genetically modified micro-organisms and/or genetically modified substrates. This issue has been raised throughout Member States and the Commission has undertaken to take forward a discussion at Standing Committee where the FSA will seek clarification on the status of these products.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on(a) heart disease and (b) cancer care in Manchester, Gorton in each of the last five years. [167378]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Allocations of funding for particular treatments are matters for the local primary care trust.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on(a) heart disease and (b) cancer care in Burnley in each of the last five years. [167956]
  1795W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Allocations of funding for particular treatments are matters for the local primary care trust.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on(a) heart disease and (b) cancer care in Preston in each of the last five years. [168103]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Allocations of funding for particular treatments are matters for the local primary care trust.

  Health Service Publications
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of publications in 2003 by(a) his Department, (b) primary care trusts and (c) hospital trusts. [167850]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The estimated cost of publications, including posters, leaflets, fact-sheets and resource packs produced by the Department's Communications Directorate in 2003–04 is £14.85 million. The estimated

  Total time spent in Accident and Emergency from arrival to admission, transfer or discharge, Air tree Hospitals NHS Trust, July 2002 to December 2003

  Quarter

  Name

  Total attendances

  Percentage of patients who spent less than four hours in A&E

  Actual number of patients spending over four hours in A&E

  2002–03

  2

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  19,630

  52.1

  9,394

  2002–03

  3

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  18,931

  59.3

  7,702

  2002–03

  4

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  18,360

  75.4

  4,516

  2003–04

  1

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  20,106

  77.4

  4,547

  2003–04

  2

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  21,348

  90.8

  1,957

  2003–04

  3

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  19,016

  85.0

  2,853

  Source:

  Department of Health dataset QMAE.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital beds were available in Liverpool for each year between 1997 and 2003. [166953]

  Average daily number of available beds by sector, NHS organisations in Liverpool, 1997–2003

  ID

  Organisation

  12002–03

  12001–02

  12000–01

  11999–2000

  11998–99

  11997–98

  REM

  Aintree University Hospitals NHS Trust

  905

  949

  1,163

  1,110

  1,152

  1,190

  RQ6

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen

  1,128

  1,212

  1,262

  1,227

  1,205

  University Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,156

  RBQ

  The Cardiothoracic Centre-Liverpool

  196

  214

  192

  186

  184

  NHS Trust

  185

  RET

  Walton Centre for Neurology

  124

  153

  114

  111

  104

  104

  REN

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology

  107

  106

  105

  113

  119

  137

  RBS

  Royal Liverpool Childrens Hospital

  241

  243

  238

  242

  243

  241

  Total

  2,801

  2,877

  3,074

  2,989

  3,007

  3,013

  1Available

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH03

  Heart Surgery
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents in Heywood and Middleton awaiting heart surgery have had the option of choosing an alternative hospital for quicker treatment in the last 12 months. [168492]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not held centrally.
  1796W
  costs of publications produced by primary care trusts and hospital trusts cannot be given, as these figures are not held centrally.

  Health Services (Bootle)
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding was spent on(a) heart disease and (b) cancer care in Bootle in each of the last five years. [170536]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Allocations for funding for particular treatments are matters for the local primary care trust.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions the Accident and Emergency Department of University Hospital, Aintree exceeded a four-hour wait for treatment between February 2002 and February 2004. [166952]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department began collecting accident and emergency performance figures from the second quarter of 2002–03. The available information is shown in the table.

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

  Hospices
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a staterr, ent on funding for hospices in the NHS. [169854]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The latest survey by the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services indicates the National Health Service allocation in 2000 to specialist palliative care was
  1797W
  £130 million, of which £65 million went to voluntary hospices and the remainder to specialist palliative care services provided by the NHS.

  The Government subsequently pledged in the NHS cancer plan to increase NHS investment in specialist palliative care, including hospices, by an extra £50 million per annum by 2004. This pledge has been met and represents an increase of nearly 40 per cent. in the amount of funding provided by the NHS over 2000 figures.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many prosecutions have been brought since 1991 for breach of the prohibition in section 3 (4) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 on the keeping or using for treatment or research of embryos beyond the 14 day limit; [166909]

  (2) when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will publish the results of its work with the Medical Research Council on the long-term effects of IVF; [166911]

  (3) how many cases of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome have been reported since 1991; and if he will make a statement. [166912]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised me that no prosecutions have been brought in respect of a breach of section 3(4) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

  No date has yet been set for publication of the outcome of the work that the Medical Research Council and the HFEA have been doing on the long term health effects of assisted conception treatments, including in vitro fertilisation.

  Data on incidences of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome are not collected centrally nor routinely recorded by the HFEA.

  Inflammatory Bowel Disease
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of trials using pigs' whip worm eggs to treat inflammatory bowel disease. [170164]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We are aware of the promising results from the research trials in the United States. The product, however, has not yet been licensed by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.

  Learning Disabilities
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with learning disabilities are inappropriately accommodated in long-stay hospitals; when he expects to be able to provide more appropriate accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [170198]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government are committed to the closure of the remaining long stay hospitals: it is not right that people with learning disabilities should live in 1798W
  national health service accommodation on a long term basis. Strategic health authorities are responsible for ensuring that primary care trusts and NHS trusts are working in partnership with local authorities to develop and deliver plans that will achieve the closure of the remaining hospitals.

  The latest information available (April 2004) is that 622 people are still living in long stay hospitals; this compares with about 1,500 when the White Paper, "Valuing People: A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century", was published in March 2001. It is disappointing that the 2004 closure date in "Valuing People" has been missed, but each remaining hospital now has an individually agreed closure date between now and April 2006.

  Liquid-based Cytology
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much has been allocated for liquid-based cytology in 2004–05; [167460]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the use made of the £1.2 million funding for liquid-based cytology in 2003–04. [167490]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government provided £1.2 million in 2003–04 and is providing a further £6 million in 2004–05 to kick start the national implementation of liquid based cytology (LBC) across the cervical screening programme. Funding for further years is in primary care trust baselines. The intention is that cytology training centres should be converted first in order to be in a position to train the rest of the programme.

  The £1.2 million funding for 2003–04 was distributed to the service, and eight of the nine cytology training centres are at various stages of training in LBC techniques. The ninth is assessing which of the two main LBC technologies to implement before commencing training.

  Lupus
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to raise awareness of the particular problems of patients and carers suffering from lupus. [170726]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We are taking no specific action to raise awareness of the problems of patients and carers with lupus. Ministers however, have had two meetings with the All Party Parliamentary Group on Lupus in the past year.

  Mental Health Services
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been provided to improve child and adolescent mental health services over the last three years; what the planned spending on these services is; and if he will make a statement. [170613]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In the three years to March 2004, we have invested an additional £83.6 million for the development of child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) delivered by the national health service and local authorities.
  1799W
  A number of positive outcomes have been reported including improved access to specialist services, the development of new services for groups that traditionally have found it difficult to access CAMHS and better support to other agencies. In particular, this additional investment has led to a significant increase in multi-disciplinary and joint working across professions and agencies, engaging key local players in the development of the service.

  This is only the first stage in a continuing programme of radical improvements in the quality and quantity of CAMHS. Our current public service agreement target provides for an expansion of the service by at least 10 per cent., per year for the three years to March 2006. This development is further underpinned by £252 million of additional funding over the next two years.

  Mobile MRI Scan Units
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the ability of mobile MRI scan units to share data with the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [167711]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data produced by mobile magnetic resonance imaging units, including images acquired, will be provided in a format that is compatible with current national health service systems.

  MRSA
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 20 April 2004,Official Report, column 427W, on MRSA, whether the Commission for Social Care Inspection will collect and publish information on MRSA infections in care homes. [169719]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I understand from the Chairman of the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) that the Commission does not collect information specifically about methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), although regulated service providers must notify CSCI of death, illness and other events.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS) Doctors1, General Medical Practitioners (excluding retainers)2 Qualified Nursing, Midwifery and health visiting staff and Practice Nurses employed by Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)3 for Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority and specified organisations

  Number (headcount)

  1997

  19984

  19994

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Greater Manchester

  Doctors1

  5,322

  5,441

  5,634

  5,834

  5,951

  5,965

  of which:

  HCTS Doctors1

  3,837

  3,957

  4,124

  4,172

  4,315

  4,440

  4,384

  General Medical Practitioners (excluding retainers)2

  1,485

  1,484

  1,510

  1,523

  1,519

  1,511

  1,581

  Nurses

  19,551

  19,834

  19,818

  20,087

  20,213

  20,982

  21,609

  of which:

  Qualified Nursing, Midwifery and health visiting staff

  18,678

  18,907

  18,767

  19,163

  19,258

  20,053

  20,674

  Practice Nurses

  873

  927

  1,051

  924

  955

  929

  935

  Heywood and Middleton PCT

  Doctors1

  5—

  5—

  44

  45

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Nurses

  5—

  5—

  21

  21

  5—

  5—

  5—

  National Information Centre
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people have used the National Information Centre in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement; [170605]

  (2) how much the National Learning Disability Information Centre and Helpline has cost to set up; and if he will make a statement. [170200]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Learning Disability Centre and Helpline was launched in December 2001. In 2002, the Helpline answered 6,482 enquires. The equivalent figure for the period from January to December 2003 was 10,522.

  The Department acid Mencap each gave £250,000 per year to run the National Learning Disability Centre and Helpline from 2001 until March 2004. We have recently confirmed that Government funding will continue for another two years from April 2004. The first year's allocation included set up costs.

  National Service Framework for Older People
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what age-related policies have been reported by local health authorities in response to the National Service Framework for Older People; and if he will make a statement. [171020]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave to her on 28 April 2004,Official Report, column 1091W.

  NHS Staff
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in Heywood in each of the last seven years; and if he will make a statement. [168484]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The table shows the number of doctors and nurses within the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority area, the number of general medical practitioners and practice nurses in Heywood and Middleton and the number of doctors and nurses in the Pennine Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust (including its predecessor organisations) each year since 1997.
  1801W

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS) Doctors1, General Medical Practitioners (excluding retainers)2 Qualified Nursing, Midwifery and health visiting staff and Practice Nurses employed by Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)3 for Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority and specified organisations

  Number (headcount)

  1997

  19984

  19994

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Heywood and Middleton PCG

  Doctors1

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  45

  45

  45

  Nurses

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  65

  142

  144

  Oldham NHS Trust

  Doctors1

  211

  224

  220

  229

  232

  5—

  5—

  Nurses

  1,185

  1,191

  1,203

  1,292

  1,296

  5—

  5—

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  Doctors1

  173

  224

  220

  229

  232

  5—

  5—

  Nurses

  1,001

  1,040

  859

  1,015

  915

  5—

  5—

  North Manchester Health Care NHS Trust

  Doctors1

  320

  315

  376

  373

  366

  5—

  5—

  Nurses

  1,184

  1,195

  1,103

  1,085

  885

  5—

  5—

  Bury Health Care NHS Trust

  Doctors1

  163

  171

  183

  196

  203

  5—

  5—

  Nurses

  881

  878

  907

  944

  997

  5—

  5—

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Doctors1

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  919

  696

  Nurses

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  2,922

  3,221

  1 Excludes Hospital Medical Hospital Practitioners and Hospital Medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are GPs working part time in hospitals.

  2 All Practitioners (excluding retainers) include Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para. 52 SFA), PMS Other, Flexible Career Scheme GPs and GP Returners.

  3 UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried Gps.

  4 Headcount Practice Nurse Figures are estimated for these Years.

  5 Not available.

  Notes:

  Data as at 30 September every year except GPs which are as at 1 October 1997–99.

  Sources:>

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in Burnley in each of the last seven years. [167951]

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS) Doctors1, General Medical Practitioners (excluding retainers) for Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority and specified organisations serving the Burnley area as at 30 September

  All Doctors1

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Cumbria and Lancashire SHA

  3,173

  3,283

  3,263

  3,380

  3,350

  3,413

  3,494

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care2

  201

  211

  219

  239

  250

  238

  n/a

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust2

  211

  232

  238

  280

  232

  230

  n/a

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  499

  Burnley PCG

  n/a

  n/a

  52

  53

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Pendle PCG

  n/a

  n/a

  51

  51

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Rossendale PCG

  n/a

  n/a

  33

  31

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  138

  151

  158

  n/a = not available

  1 Exclude Hospital Medical Hospital Practitioners and Hospital Medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are GPs working part time in hospital

  2 Mental Health elements transferred to Lancashire Care Trust from 1 April 2002

  Notes:

  Data as at 30 September every year except GP as at 1 October 1997–1999.

  Sources:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census.

  1802W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the number of national health service doctors and nurses is not gathered on a constituency basis. The tables show information based on NHS organisations serving the Burnley area.
  1803W

  Qualified Nursing, Midwifery and health visiting staff and Practice Nurses employed by Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)1 for Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority and specified organisations serving the Burnley area as at 30 September

  Nurses

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Cumbria and Lancashire SHA

  Q13

  13,359

  13,400

  13,859

  13,494

  13,794

  15,011

  15,049

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care1

  RMB

  1,260

  1,274

  1,547

  1,189

  1,206

  1,161

  n/a

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust2

  REU

  1,382

  1,369

  1,358

  1,364

  1,536

  1,185

  103

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

  RXR

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2,143

  Burnley PCG

  4PG13

  n/a

  n/a

  37

  39

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Pendle PCG

  4TA20

  n/a

  n/a

  49

  31

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Rossendale PCG

  4DK34

  n/a

  n/a

  22

  22

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PCT

  5G8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  392

  403

  n/a = not available

  1 UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried Gps.

  2 Mental Health elements transferred to Lancashire Care Trust from 1 April 2002.

  Note:

  Data as at 30 September every year except GP as at 1 October 1997–1999

  Source:

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics.

  Department of Health Non-medical Workforce Census.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) therapists and (b) scientists were located in Manchester, Gorton in each of the last seven years. [167384]

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff in the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority1 and each specified organisation as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Greater Manchester SHA1

  5,701

  5,796

  5,956

  6,248

  6,589

  7,029

  7,170

  of which:

  Manchester HA

  2,040

  2,045

  2,096

  2,160

  2,432

  2—

  2—

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  673

  668

  705

  730

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Manchester Childrens Hospitals NHS Trust

  187

  189

  191

  211

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Central Manchester PCT

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  116

  152

  152

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  923

  1,045

  1,115

  1 Figures for Greater Manchester SHA are based on the 2002 organisational structure.

  2 Not applicable.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Osteoporosis
  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on services for people with osteoporosis.[169870]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Services to identify, treat and offer preventative advice are available on the National Health Service. The Government's response to osteoporosis has been to include it in the falls standard of the national service framework for older people. The standard requires local health services to establish appropriate interventions and advice to prevent osteoporotic fractures.

  To support this requirement, the Department has asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to develop clinical guidance on osteoporosis and undertake a technology appraisal on new treatments.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to report its recommendations on a technology appraisal on(a) the newer osteoporosis treatments and (b) a clinical guideline on osteoporosis. [169871]
  1804W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Available information is shown in the table.

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE.) is due to publish its appraisal of technologies for the secondary prevention of osteoporotic fractures in postmenopausal women in October 2004. A clinical guideline on the assessment of fracture risk and the prevention of osteoporotic fractures in individuals at high risk is expected to be published in June 2005. A further appraisal of technologies for the primary prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures in postmenopausal women is being informed by work being carried out by the World Health Organisation and the NICE guideline development group, and is also expected to be published in 2005. Copies of the draft guidance and information on their progress can be found on the NICE website at www.nice.org.uk.

  Diana Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which primary care trusts provide preventative osteopososis services. [169873]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally.
  1805W
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of preventative measures likely to be of help in the management of osteoporosis; and if he will make a statement on how he will encourage an increase in(a) dietary calcium. (b) dietary vitamin D and (c) weight-bearing exercise. [169922]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department gives general lifestyle messages for preventing osteoporosis, revolving around diet, exercise, reducing smoking and avoiding excessive consumption of alcohol.

  We are linking the national service framework for older people with wider work on healthy active life in older age to encourage older people to increase levels of physical activity and to assist with accident prevention.

  We are funding projects around increasing and encouraging physical activity in residential care settings and increasing the availability of training for those offering exercise as part of falls prevention.

  In June 1998, the Department issued guidelines to general practitioners and primary healthcare teams entitled, "A quick reference Primary Care Guide on the Prevention and Treatment of Osteoporosis". It recommends that adequate intakes of calcium and vitamin D at the reference nutrient intake are maintained.

  The Royal College of Physicians guidelines on osteoporosis recommended to health authorities that they should put arrangements in place so that those at particularly high risk of osteoporosis have the opportunity to receive appropriate investigation, prophylaxis, such as hormone replacement therapy or calcium and vitamin D or calcium and bisphosphonates, and advice, for example, about smoking and physical activity.

  PCTs (North Derby shire)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he collates on the workings of the out-of-hours patient service in the areas of the three primary care trusts in North Derbyshire. [170095]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the workings of local general practitioner out-of-hours services is not collected centrally. Strategic health authorities have responsibility for the performance management of their primary care trusts in their delivery of out-of-hours services.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 21 April,Official Report, column 558W, on prostate cancer, if he will make an assessment of the recent findings of research by the US National Cancer Institute on the effect of frequent ejaculation in protecting men against prostate cancer. [170162]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We are aware of the research undertaken by the United States national cancer institute on the effect of frequent ejaculation in protecting men against prostate cancer. The prostate cancer risk management programme is supported by a scientific reference group. This issue will be discussed when the group next meets in the summer.

  Public Funding
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on health in Heywood and Middleton in each of the last seven years. [168491]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure per weighted head of the population in the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority (SHA) area, which includes the constituency of Heywood and Middleton, has increased from £582.33 in 1997–98 to £992.61 in 2002–03 (the latest year available). This does not represent the total expenditure per head as an element of health expenditure cannot be identified by SHA area.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on health in Stalybridge and Hyde in each of the last seven years. [168769]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure per weighted head of the population in the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority (SHA) area, which includes the constituency of Stalybridge and Hyde, has increased from £582.33 in 1997–98 to £992.61 in 2002–03 (the latest year available). This does not represent the total expenditure per head as an element of health expenditure cannot be identified by SHA area.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the risk to health of radon gas in the United Kingdom. [169711]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Radiation-induced lung cancers have been reported in uranium and hard rock miners for a long time. However, the aetiological role of radon was not recognised until 1951, when it was discovered that the lung hazard was due to radiation dose from the decay products of radon. Since the 1980s, the National Radiological Protection Board has kept the risk to health from radon gas under review. The main risk is still lung cancer, although it has been suggested that radon may also cause other types of cancer. On theoretical grounds, some such radon-induced cancers would be expected, but these would be far fewer than the lung cancers and have not been detected in well-designed epidemiological studies.

  School Blood Donations
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children donated blood at mobile blood units visiting schools in 2003–04. [169481]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The age limit for first time donors is 17 to 60 years, although regular donors can continue to give blood until the age of 70 as long as they continue to meet all the donor selection criteria.

  During 2003–04 across all donor sessions:
  20,776 donors aged 17 (as at 1 April 2003) made a total of 30,344 donations; and
  22,826 donors aged 18 (as at 1 April 2003) made a total of 32,309 donations.
  1807W
  The national blood service (NBS) actively targets 17-year-olds. In March 2004, the NBS launched a new direct marketing campaign targeting 17-year-olds. This mailing encourages individuals who have just turned 17 to pre-register to give blood. So far, 3,266 17-year-olds have signed up as blood donors because of this campaign.

  Surplus Property Sales
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the total costs associated with the proposed sale of surplus NHS sites and Inventures to date have been. [169125]

  Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  NHS Trust

  Total number of patients waiting for admission

  Less than three months

  Three to five months

  Six to eight months

  Nine to 11 months

  12 to 14 months

  15 to 17 months

  18 plus months

  March 1997

  Oldham NHS Trust

  8,436

  3,837

  2,293

  1,339

  967

  —

  —

  —

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,464

  2,472

  868

  577

  374

  173

  —

  —

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  5,787

  2,961

  1,506

  708

  427

  157

  22

  6

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,223

  1,471

  399

  196

  120

  37

  —

  —

  March 1998

  Oldham NHS Trust

  8,332

  3,954

  1,976

  1,650

  736

  16

  —

  —

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,684

  2,702

  924

  581

  305

  132

  40

  —

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  6,002

  2,911

  1,253

  827

  528

  308

  175

  —

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,437

  1,581

  375

  251

  128

  91

  11

  —

  March 1999

  Oldham NHS Trust

  7,338

  4,156

  1,904

  895

  315

  67

  1

  —

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,168

  2,351

  873

  484

  257

  167

  36

  —

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,699

  3,342

  737

  369

  148

  76

  27

  —

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,153

  1,210

  367

  240

  127

  158

  51

  —

  March 2000

  Oldham NHS Trust

  6,484

  4,012

  1,364

  682

  571

  50

  5

  —

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,032

  2,102

  841

  568

  330

  130

  61

  —

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,262

  3,131

  653

  230

  150

  78

  20

  —

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,103

  1,218

  341

  219

  164

  105

  56

  —

  March 2001

  Oldham NHS Trust

  6,427

  4,092

  1,478

  601

  213

  43

  —

  —

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,039

  2,456

  876

  397

  249

  45

  16

  —

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,016

  2,884

  680

  303

  119

  27

  3

  —

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,916

  1,250

  367

  181

  118

  —

  —

  —

  March 2002

  Oldham NHS Trust

  6,297

  3,830

  1,631

  611

  225

  —

  —

  —

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,530

  2,675

  1,029

  527

  254

  45

  —

  —

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,008

  2,804

  795

  265

  114

  30

  —

  —

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,045

  1,411

  336

  218

  78

  2

  —

  —

  March 2003

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  15,872

  10,226

  3,607

  1,575

  464

  —

  —

  —

  February 2004

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  15,892

  9,720

  4,536

  1,491

  145

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  DH form KHO7 and Monthly Monitoring.

  1808W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 Apri1 2004]The total project and property selling costs associated with the proposed real estate partnership was some £13.4 million at the end of 2003–04, a very small proportion of the likely eventual value of the property portfolio.

  Waiting Lists
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been to NHS waiting list time in the last seven years for the residents of Heywood and Middleton. [168486]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the number of patients waiting for admission to the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (including its predecessor organisations) each year since 1997.
  1809W
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of suspected cancer patients in Heywood and Middleton saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years. [168487]

  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 practitioner, at the Pennine Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust and its predecessor organisations for each quarter since quarter four of 2000–01. Earlier figures are not available.

  Waiting times for first consultant outpatient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  See within two weeks (percentage)

  Number

  2000–01

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  93.3

  167

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.0

  200

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  93.9

  200

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  97.1

  374

  2001–02

  1

  Oldham NHS Trust

  94.8

  181

  1

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  97.8

  224

  1

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  94.9

  242

  1

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  96.1

  345

  2

  Oldham NHS Trust

  96.4

  162

  2

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  93.0

  227

  2

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  90.6

  298

  2

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.0

  385

  3

  Oldham NHS Trust

  98.9

  181

  3

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.6

  235

  3

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  94.7

  286

  3

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.5

  398

  4

  Oldham NHS Trust

  98.5

  197

  4

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.5

  209

  4

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  99.7

  302

  Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  NHS Trust

  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

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  3,216

  2,062

  767

  321

  66

  —

  —

  —

  March 1998

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  3,704

  2,416

  789

  349

  150

  —

  —

  —

  March 1999

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  3,142

  2,453

  432

  197

  60

  —

  —

  —

  March 2000

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  3,460

  2,686

  486

  225

  63

  —

  —

  —

  March 2001

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  3,523

  2,508

  650

  237

  93

  35

  —

  —

  March 2002

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  3,660

  2,216

  920

  406

  118

  —

  —

  —

  March 2003

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  3,502

  2,408

  808

  254

  32

  —

  —

  —

  February 2004

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  3,077

  2,140

  747

  189

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO7 and Monthly Monitoring

  1810W

  Waiting times for first consultant outpatient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Seen within two weeks (percentage)

  Number

  4

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  450

  2002–03

  1

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.8

  1,215

  2

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.1

  1,240

  3

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.4

  1,325

  4

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  95.8

  1,190

  2003–04

  1

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  92.2

  1,214

  2

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  94.9

  1,174

  3

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  97.6

  1,276

  Source:

  DH form QMCW

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS waiting times for heart surgery in Heywood and Middleton. [168488]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There were two patients waiting nine to 11 months for heart surgery in the Heywood and Middleton Primary Care Trust area in June 2002, since when no patients have waited more than nine months.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been to NHS waiting list times in the last seven years for the residents of Stalybridge and Hyde. [168771]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the form requested. The table shows the number of patients waiting for admission to the Tameside and Glossop Acute Services National Health Service Trust each year since 1997.
  1811W
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents in Burnley awaiting heart surgery have had the option of choosing an alternative hospital for quicker treatment in the last 12 months. [167945]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents in Preston awaiting heart surgery have had the option of choosing an alternative hospital for quicker treatment in the last 12 months. [168109]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ward Managers
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether ward managers are provided with NHS purchasing cards. [167705]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency has agreements for the provision of purchase cards to the national health service. In 2001, each ward manager was allocated a budget of £5000 to improve the ward environment. The use of purchase cards was developed as part of this initiative, but it was for decision by individual NHS trust whether to join the scheme and to issue cards to ward managers. As at April 2004, there are 2000 purchase cards being used in the NHS.

  Warrington Hospital
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capital expenditure has been undertaken at Warrington hospital in each year since 1997; and for what purposes. [168707]
  1812W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Expenditure on capital additions—purchased

  £ thousand

  Warrington Hospital NHS Trust

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Land

  171

  0

  0

  0

  Buildings, installations and fittings

  773

  1,060

  1,621

  756

  Assets under construction

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Equipment

  687

  748

  1,668

  1,860

  Total

  1,631

  1,808

  3,289

  2,616

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  2001–02

  Land

  0

  Buildings, Installations and Fittings

  1,750

  Assets under Constitution

  0

  Equipment

  2,327

  Total

  4,077

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  2002–03

  Land

  0

  Buildings excluding dwellings

  2,380

  Dwellings

  7

  Assets under construction and payments on account

  1,545

  Plant and machinery

  2,165

  Transport equipment

  0

  Information technology

  83

  Furniture and fittings

  22

  Total

  6,202

  Sources:

  Audited summarisation schedules of the Warrington Hospital NHS Trust 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Audited summarisation schedules of the North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust 2001–02 and 2002–03

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Royal Household (Security)
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am today publishing the Security Commission's report on the implications for security of the activities of the Daily Mirror reporter, Ryan Parry, at Buckingham Palace. I assured the House on 19 November 2003, Official Report, column 775, that I expected the review to cover all aspects of the process of checking those who form part of the royal household. I also said that one of the strengths of our democracy is that such breaches are open to scrutiny, that we can learn quickly from them, and that nothing is swept under the carpet.

  I therefore welcome the Security Commission's report on this incident and applaud the thoroughness with which it has approached its task.

  The recommendations are clear and pragmatic and include the creation of a post of Director of Security for the royal households, the development of a wide range of checks that can be carried out on employees of the royal households and the creation of an annual plan to be agreed and implemented by the households, together with the police and the Home Office.

  I am happy to note the progress that has already been made in the intervening period to improve security within the royal households and I look forward to the implementation of the report's recommendations. The appointment this week by 13uckingham Palace of a director of security is particularly welcome, as this new post will oversee the security vetting process across the royal households reporting to the Queen's Private Secretary.

  It is clearly welcome to note the Commission's finding that the existing framework for dealing with the security of the royal family is considered sound and provides an appropriate strategic structure for the oversight of security vetting and related work. Responsibility for delivery will accordingly continue to be shared: policy and funding responsibility to rest with the Home Secretary; operational responsibility to lie with the police; and the royal households having overall responsibility for personnel security and for procedures within royal residences. The Commission recommended a tightening of the arrangements for day to day delivery of these procedures within the royal household through the creation of the director of security post, a new annual security plan and a regular process of review. Overall responsibility, as the House would expect, will continue to rest with me as Home Secretary with the constituent parts of the system being responsible for delivery in their areas.
  82WS
  The Commission also met the authorities of the Palace of Westminster, in order to discover whether similar issues might arise in relation to Parliament. On reflection, the Commission felt that the differences require a separate review, but none the less made a number of suggestions. The report will therefore be copied to those undertaking the existing security view of the Palace of Westminster announced by the Leader of the House of Commons last month. None the less, the Commission endorsed recent changes to security at the Palace of Westminster, including the decision of the House of Commons Commission to construct a security screen around the public gallery on the recommendation of the Director General of the Security Service.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Waste Management
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  I am pleased to announce today the publication of the "Review of Environmental and Health Effects of Waste Management: Municipal Solid Waste and Similar Wastes."

  The Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, in its report "Waste not, Want not" recommended that an independent body should bring together the literature and evidence on the relative health and environmental effects of all the different waste management options, relative both to each other and to other activities affecting health and the environment. Defra commissioned this report in response to that recommendation.

  The review was commissioned in early 2003, and has been carried out by a team led by Enviros, environmental consultants, and Roy Harrison, Professor of Environmental Health at the Institute of Public and Environmental Health, University of Birmingham. The team should be congratulated on bringing together and considering a wide range of evidence, both from the UK and abroad.

  The report examines the waste management options for treating municipal solid and similar waste. It focuses on the principal types of facilities that are currently used for dealing with such waste in the UK and in Europe and on what the currently available scientific evidence can tell us about their environmental and health effects.

  It is very comprehensive, bringing together, for the first time, a wealth of evidence from existing studies of the health and environmental impacts of waste management. It provides a convenient and authoritative compendium of current knowledge in this area.

  The report has been peer reviewed by the Royal Society and Professor Howard Dalton, Defra's chief scientific advisor, has provided me with advice on the scientific analyses.

  The report's authors conclude that, on the evidence from studies so far, present day municipal waste management has at most a minor effect on human health and the environment. For example:
  dealing with municipal solid waste by incineration accounts for less than 1 per cent. of UK emissions of dioxins, while domestic sources such as cooking and burning coal for heating account for 18 per cent. of emissions:

  83WS
  less than 1 per cent. of UK emissions of oxides of nitrogen, which reduce air quality, come from municipal solid waste management, while 42 per cent. come from road traffic.

  The report rightly recognises that there is more that we can and should still learn and we will be addressing the need and priorities for further research through our waste research strategy this summer. The search for knowledge is never complete, and this report usefully identifies areas of research that we will be taking forward as part of our continual efforts to refine the evidence base for policy making.

  We must manage the growing amount of waste we produce. We will do this by basing our policies on the best available scientific evidence and on an assessment of the comparative risks. We will continue to develop our scientific knowledge to support our policies. This report is a helpful contribution to that process.

  Emissions Trading Scheme
  The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Margaret Beckett)
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I are today publishing the UK national allocation plan for the EU emissions trading scheme. Copies of the plan will be available in the Libraries of the House from I l am today.

  The EU emissions trading scheme is the most significant measure in the EU climate change programme, and begins on 1 January 2005. The objective of the scheme is to reduce, in the most cost effective way, EU emissions of CO2 that contribute to the problems associated with global warming and to encourage investments by business to help EU member states and accession countries achieve the reductions necessary for meeting their Kyoto targets for 2008–12.

  The plan was submitted to the European Commission on 30 April to meet a commitment given by Ministers at the end of March. It is being published today as part of a package including a consultation document that explains decisions taken following earlier consultation on a draft of the plan and further issues on which comments are being sought.

  The overall number of allowances to be allocated in the first phase of the scheme is consistent with an initial reduction in UK carbon dioxide emissions of 15.2 per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010. The Government are firmly committed to its national goal of moving towards a 20 per cent. reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide by 2010. The overall level of allowances to be allocated in the UK in phase 2 of the scheme (which runs from 2008–12) will be consistent with the trading sector's contribution to achieving the 20 per cent. goal.

  I have emphasised to the European Commission the UK's commitment to the scheme and the importance that the UK attaches to the Commission's scrutiny of all national allocation plans to ensure that they deliver on the EU's Kyoto goals—not least because widely varying and inconsistent approaches could be said to have competitive implications. Given the approach that the UK has taken in its plan, it is politically important that the Commission plays this role effectively.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Spellar)
  Last year the Government announced a review of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Disapplication of Part IV for Northern Ireland Parties, etc) Order 2001.

  The Order, made under section 70 of the Act, exempts the Northern Ireland political parties from the requirement to comply with Part IV of the Act for four years. Part IV regulates donations to parties so that foreign and anonymous donations are prohibited.

  After consulting the Northern Ireland political parties, political parties in Ireland, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Electoral Commission, and taking into consideration the changed political landscape since the Order was first made, the Government are now minded to let the current Order expire in February 2005.

  The Government recognise that the current funding arrangements lack transparency and that they are open to abuse. Moreover, the current regime creates clear differences between political parties in Northern Ireland, on the one hand, and those in the rest of the United Kingdom and in Ireland in terms of their access to funds.

  However, the Government are fully aware of the special circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland both as regards the continuing fear of intimidation of donors and Ireland's special role in Northern Ireland's political life, as set out in the Belfast agreement. Any new arrangements, therefore, will have to take these important issues into account.

  Equally, however, there is a reasonable demand in many quarters for greater transparency and accountability. The Government are, therefore, inviting views on what new arrangements might be made within those objectives, and will aim to announce its decisions by the end of the year. Parties or individuals willing to comment should, therefore, do so by 30 June 2004.

  I will, of course, report back to the House in due course.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Lottery Young People's Fund
  The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris)
  I am pleased to inform the House that on 5 May I formally issued the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) with policy directions in connection with the new lottery young people's fund. We announced our intention to establish such a fund, initially funded with £200 million from NOF's balances, in the national lottery funding decision document published last July. It was specified as a new NOF initiative in the New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiative) Order 2004, which came into force on 23 January 2004. following a resolution of each House of Parliament.

  The policy directions I have issued to NOF ill allow it to take forward development of the fund, within a framework that supports key priorities for the Government and the devolved administrations. The

  85WS
  focus of the young people's fund will be on projects promoting youth inclusion, specifically by providing facilities and activities, both after school and in holiday periods. In England, the development of the fund will be closely aligned with the aims and principles of the Green Paper "Every Child Matters", published last September.

  The fund will address the particular problems faced by young people at risk of social exclusion and provide a welcome new focus for lottery funding for this age group. Plans for the fund will be developed in consultation with representative groups of young people. Young people will also be involved in the design and development of project proposals, decisions on which projects are supported, and the implementation, management and evaluation of projects.

  I have placed a copy of the policy directions in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEFENCE

  Queen Victoria School
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)
  The Chief Executive of the Queen Victoria School has been set the following key targets for 2004–05:

  Pupil Population
  To maintain the staying on rate at school for S4 to S5 at a minimum of 6 per cent. above the Scottish National average for the current year.*

  Educational
  To maintain a percentage of pupils of the S4 roll gaining 5 + awards at level 5 or better (post-appeal) by the end of S4, at 5 per cent. above the Scottish National average.*
  To maintain a percentage of the S4 roll gaining 3 + awards at Level 6 or better (post-appeal) by the end of S5, at 4 per cent. above the Scottish National average.*

  Financial
  To achieve a pupil per capita cost of not more than £15,750 by 31 March 2005. The 2003£04 target was £15,250.
  To generate gross income to the School of at least £330,000 by 31 March 2005. The 2003–04 target was £300,000.
  *All Queen Victoria school statistics to be based on the school's results over the last three years, compared with the Scottish National average for the current year, those statistics being as published in the Scottish Executive Statistical Bulletin. All educational key targets for 2003–04 are shown pre-appeal and will be updated with post-appeal figures when the latter are published by the Scottish Executive. However, the reported performances of all educational key targets for 2003–04 are shown post-appeal.

  Analytical Services Agency
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) for financial year 2004 –05, and are as follows:

  Delivering Services to Meet Customer Needs
  To meet at least 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets in the 36 Service Level Agreements with customers for on-going work, and Project Agreements for surveys, modelling and other one-off projects.
  86WS
  To publish the five key defence National Statistics on time, with no major errors and with no breaches of the pre-release access arrangements, and to meet 95 per cent. of the timeliness and quality targets for other defence National Statistics publications.
  To have at least 90 per cent. of customers saying, in the annual Customer Satisfaction Survey, that they are satisfied with the overall service they receive from DASA.

  Investing in Quality
  To conduct a National Statistics quality review of DASA's service pensioners statistics, and recommend improvements in their quality and scope.
  To implement 75 per cent. of the 2004–05 targets in the implementation plan for the defence finance and economic statistics National Statistics quality review conducted in 2002–03.

  Developing People
  To have at least 85 per cent. of staff saying, in the annual Staff Opinion Survey, that they are satisfied with working in DASA.

  Efficiency
  To make sufficient efficiency gains to provide the necessary resources for (a) Key Target 5 to be addressed, (b) a scoping study to be conducted into DASA's taking on responsibility for the collection and presentation of deployment statistics, and (c) an expanded investment appraisal advice service established.

  Anti-Structures Munition (ASM)
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  The Ministry of Defence has selected two systems offered by Dynamit Nobel and Saab Bofors Dynamics to proceed into a competitive assessment phase for the anti-structures munition programme. This follows a successful and comprehensive evaluation as part of the concept phase. The cost of the assessment phase is likely to be approximately £7 million.

  The ASM programme is intended to produce a man portable, shoulder launched, precision weapon for use against fixed structures and other emplacements at a range of around 200m, utilising enhanced blast warhead technology. A decision on whether to commit to demonstration and manufacture of the system will occur at Main Gate.

  The strategic defence review new chapter placed increased emphasis on the need for precision in the face of force and ASM has the potential to provide the armed forces with a significant advancement in capability in this area, particularly for expeditionary operations in urban and mountainous terrain. It is designed to minimise casualties and will be fully in accordance with our obligations under international humanitarian law.

  Defence, Transport and Movement Agency (DTMA)
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of DTMA for Financial Year 2004–05. The targets are as follows:

  Key Target 1

  To achieve at least a "SATISFACTORY" rating in the provision of planning and delivery of transport and movements support to emerging operations, an increase in the tempo of existing operations or other requirements.

  87WS
  Key Target 2
  To achieve at least a "SATISFACTORY" rating in the planning and delivery of transport and movements support to enduring operations.

  Key Target 3
  To provide Roll-on Roll-off (Ro-Ro) vessel capability at the Readiness States required.

  Key Target 4
  To meet customers' requirements as negotiated and agreed in Customer Supplier Agreements (CSAs) to deliver:
  97 per cent. or more of Agency transactions and services, however provided, to be within agreed Time, Quantity, Quality and Cost (TQQC) criteria.
  At least 92 per cent. of transactions against each service to be within agreed TQQC criteria.

  Key Target 5
  To reduce the average unit cost of output by 2 per cent. in real terms.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Armenia and Azerbaijan
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Her Majesty's Government remain committed to the OSCE arms embargo against both Azerbaijan and Armenia, which we interpret as covering all goods and technology controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 commonly known as the military list).

  In April 2004, the Government approved an export licence application for de-mining equipment for the HALO Trust for de-mining operations in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

  The decision was made in accordance with our practice occasionally to make an exemption to our interpretation of the embargo by approving exports of non-lethal military goods to humanitarian, media or peacekeeping organisations where it is clear that the embargo was not intended to prevent those exports and there is a strong humanitarian case for them.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Jamaica
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  Debt repayments totalling £9.45 million owed by the Government of Jamaica on past loans from the UK have been cancelled by the Department for International Development (DFID). This sum comprises the following:Relief under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative (CDI) for all repayments due in 2004–05, £3.53 million;
  Relief of loan repayments due to the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) in 2004–05, £2.91 million;
  Reimbursement of loan repayments made to the CDC during 2003–04, £3.01 million.

  Part of the debt held by the Commonwealth Development Corporation was transferred to DFID in 1999, when the CDC was transformed into a public limited company. This debt is now managed within the CDI process.
  88WS
  The Commonwealth Debt Initiative, launched in October 1997 by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, aims to provide additional relief in respect of Government to Government loans to low and middle-income countries in the Commonwealth that are committed to achieving the millennium development goals, promote transparent and accountable Government, and pursue economic policies that encourage sustainable, development.

  Approval of debt relief for Jamaica follows a detailed assessment by the Governments of Jamaica and the UK against these criteria. The assessment considered the effects of Jamaica's high level of debt and its impact on pro-poor expenditure, and the high levels of crime and violence. It also considered the steps taken by the Government of Jamaica to modernise the public sector, which is central to economic recovery and growth; to develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime and violence and promote security; and to develop a medium term socio-economic policy framework, which will provide a coherent framework for policy decisions which promote growth, security and the reduction of poverty.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Government Inquiries
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor has today, with the agreement of the Public Administration Select Committee, published a consultation paper which sets out the Government's response to the "Issues and Questions" paper published by the Public Administration Select Committee on 24 February 2004 as part of its inquiry into "Government by Inquiry".

  The consultation period will run until 29 July 2004.

  The Government believe that there is a strong case for considering what steps could be taken to improve the arrangements for inquiries called by Ministers to ensure that the benefits of their recommendations can be obtained more quickly, and economically. On 25 May, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor will give oral evidence to the Committee. As well as consideration by the Committee, the Government feel that matters discussed in the memorandum merit wider comment.

  I have placed copies of the consultation paper in the Libraries of both Houses and it has been published on the Department for Constitutional Affairs website at: www.dca.gsi.gov.uk/consult/confr.htm

  Hutton Inquiry
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  My noble Friend Lord Filkin has today made a statement concerning the cost of the Hutton inquiry.

  The estimated cost to the Government is £2.54 million, of which £1.68 million was incurred by the inquiry itself.

TREASURY

  International Monetary Fund/World Bank
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)
  I travelled to Washington last week for the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, and for a meeting of G7 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors. I chaired a meeting of the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC), the main policy-making committee of the Board of Governors representing the 183 members of the IMF. I then attended the Development Committee of the IMF and the World Bank in his role as Chairman of the IMFC.

  In addition, I addressed a G7 dinner with Middle East and North African Finance Ministers; attended a G7 outreach meeting on combating the financing of terrorism; and attended a conference on the private sector in developing countries with representatives from the private sector.

  I also had bilateral discussions with Jim Wolfensohn (President of the World Bank), Anne Krueger (Acting Managing Director of the IMF), US Treasury Secretary John Snow, Nicholas Sarkozy (Finance Minister, France), Ali Babacan (Minister oi State, Republic of Turkey), Ralph Goodale (Finance Minister, Canada), Hilde Johnson (Minister of Development, Norway), Rodrigo Rato (candidate for the post of Managing Director of the IMF) and attended a meeting of African Finance Ministers.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Overcrowded Housing
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  I am publishing today a review by De Montfort University of the evidence and literature relating to the impact of overcrowded housing on health and education. Copies of the report will be made available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website www.odpm.gov.uk and will also be available from the ODPM Publication Sales center.

  I am also making available two in-house statistical papers describing overcrowding at national and regional level and at sub-regional level. These papers bring together the available data from household surveys: "The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Survey of English Housing",? The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Housing Condition Survey" and "The Department for Work and Pensions Family Resources Survey". Copies of these papers will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website.

SOLICITOR GENERAL

  Infant Death Convictions
  The Solicitor-General (Ms Harriet Harman)
  My noble Friend the Attorney-General has made the following ministerial statement:"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.
  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 independently decide 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 should be 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".

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Libraries: Libri Report
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they respond to the report published by Libri, a charity for libraries, concerning the well-being of public libraries in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the Libri report is a very useful contribution to debate on the future of public libraries, though its launch was marred by an intemperate press release. Libraries are not in near-terminal decline. In an age when society's need for information and knowledge is so significant, libraries have a key role to play. I expect to see a small, but significant, rise in the number of library visits when the 2002–03 annual public library statistics are published shortly, and that was before the People's Network project put computers into every library.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Nevertheless, does he share my concern that the Libri report suggests that some £200 million a year is wasted in poor management and administration, that only £9 out of £ 100 are spent on the book fund and that the Government's 1997 target for opening hours is still only two-thirds achieved? In the light of the proposed June summit meeting of those concerned with libraries, will he bring council leaders and chief executives to book to ensure that the worry expressed by Libri that the public library service will have a shelf life of only a further 15 years does not materialise?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I would prefer to call my meeting in June a seminar rather than a summit. I think that summit is a bit grand. I will not call chief executives and leaders of councils to book; I will invite them to be present, which I think is more constructive. I will also invite Tim Coates, the author of the Libri report, and he will have an opportunity to defend his statements about the decline of libraries, some of which I have a good deal of doubt about.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the Minister will recall that in a recent debate on the library service in your Lordships' House the Minister stated that something will have to be done about the problem that more money gets spent on administration than on frontline services. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, has asked, will the Minister
1212
confirm what action is being taken to ensure that money will be spent on resources for libraries rather than on over-elaborate management?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a major issue that we will be discussing at the meeting to which I referred. Clearly, we need to have not only people responsible for running libraries at that meeting, but also people from outside libraries who have a contribution to make. People other than library staff have been invited, have accepted and will be present. It has to be said that the Libri report, which is very damning about some aspects of library services, is based on two things: first, a study of one library service in Hampshire and, secondly, statistics from the Audit Commission that are two years out of date. I am not as despondent as some people about this.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, will the Minister encourage the House, and the wider audience, by saying that, although the developments in the way in which computers are now used in libraries are highly admirable, it is still the book that is the thing, particularly for older people? In many libraries there is a notable absence of buying of new titles. Would he agree with me that books, apart from information, produce an atmosphere that gives a library added value for people who are sometimes lonely or very poor?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are many things that libraries can offer, notably information technology and reference support, but the core of libraries is books. We must never forget that. It is important that spending on books should be kept up. At the same time, to keep the matter in context, books for purchase in booksellers are much cheaper than they were 100 years ago. One must look at what people read and whether they buy books or borrow books to discover whether literacy in this country is, as is wrongly alleged, in decline.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, are the Government not as worried as a lot of my friends and I are that young people are not reading as much as we did when we were young? When I was a young person I loved my books and got the greatest enjoyment from them, and education, I think. Are the Government worried on that point? It is no good having all the libraries in the world unless one can interest the young.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think it is true that the young are reading less than we did—well, they are reading less than the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, and I did. On the whole, I do not think that it is true that the young are reading less. If one goes into any public library, one will see that the children's library is thronged with young people. I think that libraries are a great success for children.
Lord Acton: My Lords, my noble friend said that, when the figures are available, he expects them to show

1213
a small increase in the number of library visits in 2002–03. What does that compare to? What was the number of library visits in 2001–02?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have the statistics, but the fundamental point is that both library visits and book sales have been in decline for a number of years. That is the point that the Libri report addresses and which the Audit Commission has addressed. It is very serious. It is not terminal decline but it certainly is a significant and dangerous trend that we have to reverse. At the same time, if we look at public baths or other such facilities, we have moved from public to private provision in many areas: from the town hall clock to the wristwatch and so on. I think that libraries are surviving pretty well.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the plight of small rural libraries? As local authority budgets are pushed at the moment, those small branches, in particular, suffer from cuts in hours. It is not just the number of libraries and the number of books, it is the ability of local authorities to provide the all-hours service. It is not a lack of will on the part of local authorities, it is the lack of the funds to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree that it is important that libraries should continue to be accessible, for example, mobile libraries and small local libraries in rural areas. What the Libri report seems to show is that it is not necessarily a matter of funds. There are other managerial issues that need to be taken into account. I was very frightened when I saw the threats of cuts in public libraries when council budgets were being formulated earlier this year, but most of those threats have gone away.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend have plans to enlist the help of the Audit Commission to tackle some of the issues of value for money within public libraries?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. In addition to its very valuable reports in 1997 and 2002, which are the statistical basis for the Libri report, the Audit Commission audits the cultural services of local authorities on a three-year cycle. It will be coming to my meeting and I shall certainly be looking to its audits as being the beginning of action rather than the end of it. I see this matter as commencement, not graduation, to use the American term.

Directory Inquiry Service: Competition
11.8 a.m.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect the opening of BT's directory inquiry service to competition has had on the number of inquiries made by telephone customers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the matter raised is the responsibility of the Office of Communications, Ofcom, as independent regulator. Accordingly, my officials have asked the chief executive of Ofcom to respond directly to the noble Lord and copies of the chief executive's letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer as far as it goes. In fact, however, all the published information shows that calls to directory inquiries have decreased very markedly since the introduction of competition to the sector. Moreover, subscribers dialling the number are often offered an inferior service and one where they can be misled into paying extra money for the calls they are making. Therefore, while I accept that it is a matter for Ofcom, I question the purpose of competition policy generally; whether the interests of the consumer should not always be paramount; and whether we are about protecting the interests of producers to the exclusion of consumers.
I can give examples in the bus industry where the Office of Fair Trading pursues competition that is absolutely against what customers want. Customers want through journeys and through tickets. Those things are often not available because of the rigorous adherence to the theory of competition law. I wonder whether the Minister might say something about that.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the regulation of directory inquiries takes place through the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services and a code of practice with which the premium rate service providers have to comply. That is about the quality of the services, not about the commercial interests of the providers. ICSTIS has already fined several of the directory inquiry companies for breaches of the code of practice. So there is a regulatory system that requires that the code of practice is put into place.
The number of calls has decreased. It is difficult to interpret that information as it has occurred against the background of a steady decline of about 15 per cent per year in the number of directory inquiries. The decline is not entirely surprising given the increase in the number of mobile phones and the development of the Internet, but the figures seem to have stabilised.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that while competition in the provision of services is generally good for the consumer and enhances consumer welfare, there might be exceptional cases? Perhaps our experience since the introduction of competition in this field demonstrates that, in place of the public service ethic, we have so-called "competition" and a number of companies have come into the field that are not capable of giving good service. If that has resulted in a decrease in the number of calls to the directory inquiries services, it would hardly be surprising, because the public have been suffering.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is a very interesting situation. I do not think that the service that is being given is satisfactory. However, when one asks how the current service compares with the previous one in terms of accuracy, one learns that it is very much in line with the previous service. We should not take the romantic and charming view that we used to have a wonderful public service. We have had a rather consistently low standard of service both before and after this event. It is encouraging that Ofcom is now taking action by means of mystery shopping information to study the accuracy levels of the service so that appropriate action can be taken. That work was done in March and April and will be published in the next few weeks.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, who did the Minister ask about the satisfactory nature of the service? According to everyone I have asked, and based on my own experience, the service is appalling. There are at least twice as many mistakes as there were prior to this nonsense of the 118 numbers. It is also extremely expensive. So who did he ask, and who are these wonderful people who are getting such great service?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that that follows on from the information that I gave. I said very specifically that I do not think it is a good service. However, I think it extremely encouraging that Ofcom is now doing a proper mystery shopping exercise. The National Audit Office is also playing a part in developing the methodology for that so that we will have reliable information. I do not think it is a satisfactory service, but it follows on from a previously unsatisfactory situation. The important action is being taken, and it is not relying on anecdotal information but entails a proper survey. As I said, the survey will be published in the next few weeks so that people can see the situation and proper action can be taken.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say how many of the original 118 numbers are extant and how many have gone to the wall?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the number of service providers has remained fairly constant since the liberalisation.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that when the new competition opened there was adverse press publicity indicating that, coupled with inaccuracies, the previously high charges had become extortionate? Was it not therefore almost inevitable that there would be a decline in the use of the service? I have not used directory inquiries since the introduction of the new numbers because of my fear that I will he taken for a big ride by whichever company I phone up. Is that not the problem that Ofcom will have to tackle?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one of the interesting factors here is that, before liberalisation,
1216
many people thought they were getting a free directory inquiries service. So the large amount of advertising saying that people will get a cheap service has probably put a lot of them off. That is one factor that has almost certainly influenced the situation. People thought they were getting a free service, but now there are other ways of obtaining the information.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, a free service is provided by at least one competitor. You do not pay One Tel for any inquiry, as it emphasises when you ring up its number—118 111, I think.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure Members of the House will be very grateful for that information about how they can proceed in future.

Palace of Westminster: Disability Legislation
11.17 a.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington asked the Chairman of Committees:
Whether the House will implement forthcoming changes in disability law that do not automatically apply to the Palace of Westminster.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the House of Lords is committed to meeting all its obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended by the Disability Discrimination (Providers of Services) (Adjustment of Premises) Regulations 2001 which come into force on 1 October. The House will also take all reasonable steps to implement in practice provisions in legislation which do not automatically apply to the Palace to facilitate access for disabled Members, staff and members of the public.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Will he give me a further assurance that the House will ensure that—without being asked, taking a proactive stance—it has plans in place for future implementation? Will he also assure us that staff are properly covered in this respect as they are probably more important than Members to the efficient running of the place?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, the obligation to staff is most important. In fact, the obligation on us regarding staff is different from that applying to Members, and the staff are actually better off than we are in this regard.
As for future action that we might take, noble Lords will be, I hope, interested to know that the whole Palace was surveyed by specialists during 2003 and their report has recently been received. Planning is beginning to implement recommended improvements for access and use of the premises by people with disabilities. This will cover areas to which the public are admitted and areas used by Members and staff of the two Houses subject to the tests of reasonableness. These matters will initially be

1217
considered by the domestic committees of the House, and English Heritage and Westminster City Council will be consulted as appropriate on listed building and planning issues. Provision for these works is included in the estate's rolling programme.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Chairman of Committees aware that, last Tuesday, Anne Begg, the Member for Aberdeen South, who uses a wheelchair, was on her way to a reception at the Cholmondeley Room when it was pouring with rain outside and she got stuck in one of the lifts? Is he aware that the other place now has better facilities, with new lifts, than our House?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I was not aware of the specific incident to which the noble Baroness referred. We are obviously much constrained by the size of lift shafts and so on, the fact that this is a listed building and that it is sometimes difficult to make changes which would otherwise be desirable. However, I can certainly look into the question of access to the Cholmondeley Room. While there is wheelchair access available, it may sometimes be necessary to go rather a long way around, I am afraid. In view of the question on St Mary Undercroft that the noble Baroness asked last time this subject was raised, she may be pleased to know that the lift to St Mary Undercroft is now up and running.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we are keen to support the endeavours of the various domestic committees to ensure that the Palace complies with legislation, even if it is not obliged to. Clearly, that is right. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to staff in addition to Members; but is it not the public areas which pose some of the most difficult problems, particularly giving the public access to the galleries, given the nature of this listed building that we occupy? I am sure that the Chairman of Committees will appreciate that.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, indeed, I do. Unfortunately, it is not possible to arrange wheelchair access to our gallery here, because of the constraints of building and planning controls, but I remind your Lordships that there are four places available for wheelchairs below the Bar which are used quite regularly.

Civil Partnership Bill [H.L.]
11.20 a.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
1218
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Civil Partnership Bill [HL] has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 35,

Schedules 1 to 3,

Clauses 36 to 68,

Schedule 4,

Clause 69,

Schedules 5 to 7,

Clauses 70 to 78,

Schedule 8,

Clause 79,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 80 to 82,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 83 to 121,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 122 to 132,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 133 to 139,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 140 to 153,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 154 to 182,

Schedule 15,

Clause 183,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 184 to 186,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 187 and 188,

Schedule 18,

Clause 189,

Schedule 19,

Clauses 190 to 193,

Schedules 20 to 22,

Clauses 194 to 196.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Children Bill [H.L.]
11.21 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [General function of Commissioner]:
Baroness Howe of Idlicote Baroness Howe of Idlicote moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert "including the need for a nutritious diet"
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 25 is to have on the face of the Bill recognition that an important part of children's well-being is a need for a

1219
balanced and nutritious diet. My amendment is supported by a number of children's and other organisations concerned at the growing impact of poor diet on children's health. It was suggested to me by Which? and is supported by the National Union of Teachers.
In 2002 the Chief Medical Officer for England described childhood obesity as a public health time bomb. Since then public concern has grown. Already, as Which? magazine has pointed out, 8.5 per cent of 6 year-olds and 15 per cent of 15 year-olds are obese and that trend is undoubtedly upwards. Earlier this year your Lordships held a useful debate on the dangers of marketing goods on TV, particularly those aimed at young children. I know that another debate took place in this House only last night, although, unfortunately, I have not yet had time to read it. Articles continue to appear in the press, which also testify to the growing concern.
Children are certainly bombarded with images of foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt. Huge sums of money are spent on promoting goods to children and that is clearly having an effect on children's food preferences, purchase behaviour and consumption. Indeed, research by Which? tells us that food advertisements aimed at children can be even higher in fat, sugar and salt than the adult versions. In general a far more responsible approach when marketing food to children is needed, along with improved information and education to enable children to learn what is healthy and unhealthy and to encourage them to eat a balanced and nutritious diet.
The Children's Commissioner for England will be in a key position to influence policy and, therefore, should play a role across government in ensuring that all children, especially those from less affluent backgrounds, have access to a nutritious diet. There needs to he a strong voice for children at the heart of the continuing debate on how to tackle the obesity crisis. I hope that the Minister will reassure the Committee that this strong voice will be that of the Children's Commissioner for England. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: I shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 26 and 91, which concerns housing. There are two sections of amendments within my groupings.
At Second Reading the Minister said, with reference to arts, music and sport,
"We believe we capture those in the language of social well-being, but, again, we are happy to discuss this and make it as clear as possible".—[Official Report, 30/3/04; col. 1302.]
The Minister will not be surprised that I have tabled my amendment. I think that we all agree that children need to play. They need especially in early years to be able to play in as unconstructed a way as possible. Adults should obviously protect them from public danger, traffic, fire, sharp instruments and so on, but should allow them free rein to use their imaginations. I was struck at Second Reading by the excellent contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, who is in his place and will probably speak to the amendment. I smiled when he referred to the empty cardboard box, because I recalled my children's youth. While they had
1220
other bought toys to play with, the big cornflakes packet was always a favourite with them. Later in his contribution the noble Lord rightly said,
"Through play, children learn their strengths and weaknesses, establish and develop their identity and learn to work with others. Play allows children to explore their imagination; it teaches them empathy, how to interact and make friendships; it teaches them what is socially acceptable and what is not".—[Official Report, 30/3/04, col. 1235.]
I emphasise that because I would have liked to have enlarged on it when I responded at Second Reading. I shall not repeat the rest of what the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, said, because I do not wish to steal his thunder. But that quote highlighted the reason why play was so important.
During my years of teaching tennis to children of all ages and from different backgrounds, the joy of achieving co-ordination between ball and racquet was exciting to behold. Whether a child went on to become an accomplished player at school, club or county level was up to them. But, rather like learning to ride a bike, confidence is established when balance and speed are achieved.
Sport or play gives children a chance to explore, to learn new skills and, once achieved, gives that child confidence to tackle other opportunities. Sport and play encourage children to interact with each other. Training is an essential part of life, but the role of the Children's Commissioner must encompass the fullness of a child's needs. We agree that it must cover education, but feel that, in the context of the child, play and recreation is to education as training is to the personal development of an adult.
My amendment has been supported by many organisations including the Children's Society, Mencap, the Disability Rights Commission, Church Lads and Church Girls Brigade and the National Children's Bureau—the last of which said:
"Education and training lacks the more creative aspects implicit in enjoying and achieving, including the opportunity to participate in play and recreation".
I know that Amendment No. 27 would leave in "training" and add "play and recreation". Although our amendment would not do that, I have no difficulty with that alternative.
My other amendment refers to housing. There has been a tradition in this country that a career in journalism should begin on a local paper, down among the wedding pages, the amateur dramatic reports and three paragraphs of prose on the local church fete. We perhaps scoff at that, but local papers report on matters of concern to local people—I nearly said "real people". Pick up any local paper and study one month's editions. I would be amazed if you did not find at least one reference to a sorrowing. often single, mother condemned to living in council accommodation that leaks, smells and was left in a disgusting state by the previous tenant. Ask in the Library for figures of council houses that are still empty after more than six, 12 or 20 weeks and then ask why in a Parliamentary Question. I have done it and continue to do so. Often the Answer has something to do with waiting to renovate, repair or refurbish, but I believe that more action could be taken in that regard.

1221
There is a large stock of houses that are empty, mainly due to lack of funds to maintain them or to go to court to instigate their reuse. Many children would welcome the opportunity to live in those houses. When new housing is designed, particularly in the public sector, what guidelines are there to ensure that children's needs are even considered, let alone met? In our many debates on housing—we shall have one in a week on Wednesday—the link between poor housing and poor health is well understood. I am sure that no Member of the Committee is unaware of his home: four walls, a roof and a stout door. It is crucial to one's security, well-being and mental health. I hear constantly that many of those unfortunate enough to live on the streets survived divorce, redundancy or imprisonment but when their home went so did their spirit. Housing is central to the role of children's services and authorities and should be included in the Bill.
My thoughts are strongly supported by Shelter, which raised the issue in its recent magazine. Adam Sampson, director of Shelter, says:
"There is a hidden housing crisis in Britain, and over a million children are suffering the devastating consequences on health, their education and their chances in life. It is time for housing to be put back on the political agenda along with education and health where it belongs".
I could raise many other issues relating to that article but I think that I have said enough. I urge the Minister to respond favourably.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Pendry: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 88, standing in my name, which follow my Second Reading speech. They would establish legal recognition that play and recreation are essential to the development of happy, healthy, balanced children, and oblige local authorities to work with partners to do all they can to stimulate and safeguard opportunities for all children to play. My amendments would not change the current wording of the Bill; they would merely add to its content, leaving in the word "training". It is for others to argue to the contrary. I believe that the words "education and training" should remain but I strongly advocate the inclusion alongside them of the words "play and recreation", for reasons that I shall explain later.
The amendments are supported by the Children's Play Council, SkillsActive and a vast section of the children's sector. At Second Reading the Minister expressed sympathy with the aims of the amendment. In subsequent correspondence with interested parties it is plain that the Government are seized of the importance to children of play and recreation. However, correspondence and dialogue with interested parties are two different things—I shall refer to that later. It is to the Government's credit, however, that they have taken important steps in the right direction for children's play, with the Children's Fund, Positive Activities for Young People and the recent Play Review carried out by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to name but a few. Nevertheless it is time for the Government to consolidate that action and bring together their somewhat piecemeal approach in a more solid, legislative contribution to children and play.
1222
Will the Minister look again at the wording of the Bill in relation to the outcomes outlined in the Green Paper and in the light of the recent representations that I have received? As she knows, during the consultation, children and young people told the Department for Education and Skills that, of the five proposed outcomes, enjoyment and achievement were overwhelmingly the most important to them. Although that related partly to education, it referred primarily to free-time activities. Although that is reflected in the Green Paper Every Child Matters, it is not fully included in the Bill. At Second Reading the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, suggested that the outcomes of enjoyment and achievement were encompassed in social and economic well-being and education and training. Neither I nor the organisations from which I have received representations believe that to be an adequate or accurate reflection of the qualitative meaning of the outcomes. I shall explain why.
First, services to promote children's social well-being are currently seen as those provided by social services departments and tend to focus on early development, family support and improving living circumstances. They do not encompass provision for children's enjoyment of their free time through play and recreational activities. Secondly, although education and training might contribute to children's enjoyment and achievement, they are not enough. School-age children and young people spend only 25 per cent of their working hours in compulsory education. For much of the rest of the time they should be enjoying themselves, learning and developing through play and recreational activities. During the Children's Play Council consultation, one child said:
"We want something good and fun. We do not want people telling us what to do all the time. That is what happens all day at school. You need it to be different".
Children are clear about the different roles that school and recreational activities have in their lives. The Bill is not clear on that. Research shows how in the modern world many opportunities to play, which Members of the Committee perhaps took for granted in their youth, are being lost to the children of today. I do not have time today to go into the details of many of the ways in which those opportunities are being lost. Nor do I have time to outline the ways in which play is intrinsic to the healthy development of children, or the ways in which it contributes to every other outcome in the Green Paper. However, unless play and recreation are included in the Bill, we are at risk of missing the wood for the trees, as it were, letting children down by missing yet another opportunity to enhance significantly yet simply the quality of life for children of this country.
In her winding-up speech at Second Reading, the Minister said that she would be "happy to discuss" the concerns raised at that time in order to make it "as clear as possible". Clearly, she has been unable to satisfy a number of the organisations that made representations to others and me. To what extent did she discuss the matter with the Children's Council, SkillsActive, the National Children's Bureau, 4Children, Groundwork UK, Learning Through Landscapes, the National Playing Fields Association, Mencap, the National

1223
Youth Agency, PLAYLINK and the Children's Society? Had she had meaningful discussions with those organisations I believe that she would have reconsidered her stance on including "play and recreation" in the Bill. I and, I am sure, others would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on that.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I apologise for being a little late and missing the beginning of my noble friend Lady Howe's Amendment No. 25. Unfortunately, it seemed to me that Starred Questions were cut rather short. Mind you, the first time I was ever off in the theatre when I was a junior actor, the Theatre Royal Nottingham cut the interval because it was a very poor house, and I was busy ogling the girls at the Empire Theatre opposite—Chu-Chin-Chow was then playing—and I was reprimanded very severely by Donald Wolfit and have never forgiven myself for being late for any occasion since.
I rise to support Amendments Nos. 27 and 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, which I regret to say I prefer to Amendments Nos. 26 and 87, because the words "and training" are still included. Play and recreation are vital to the well-being of all children, but especially to children with learning disabilities. Yet in a recent study it was found that eight out of 10 parents of such children reported that they could not go to local clubs or enjoy play facilities, because of access or awareness issues. Furthermore, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, I can assure the House that a number of major organisations, including Mencap, of which I have the honour to be president, felt that the Government's current phrase "education training" does not do sufficient justice to the Every child Matters outcome, "enjoying and achieving". I am therefore very happy to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, and I trust that it will be accepted.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I speak to Amendments Nos. 27, 88 and 188, all of which seek to add "play and recreation" to the duties of the commissioner under Clause 2, and the children's services authority under Clause 6. I also speak to Amendments Nos. 29 and 92, which seek to remind those same people of the vulnerability of young minds to advertising and mass marketing.
The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, have eloquently set out reasons why we should include "play and recreation". It is very timely, when exercise as well as diet are being advocated for us all, both to combat the problems of obesity among the population, and to promote health.
It is important that "training" should be left on the face of the Bill. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has agreed that we should not eliminate it. We shall be debating precisely what definition we give in age terms to the word "children" later, but it is quite clear that those who are aged 14 to 17 are included, and it is important that we think not just about their education, but about their training, particularly of some of those whose training has been
1224
forgotten—the looked-after children. There is a sad history of failure on the part of the state to fulfil its responsibilities of training vulnerable and looked-after children. I certainly do not wish to give priority to "training" over "play and recreation", however. My preference was, therefore, that we kept "education and training" and added the words "play and recreation" to the face of the Bill.
It is also important because we are increasingly conscious of the importance of the early years in a child's development, and the need in those years for children to indulge in the creative, imaginative play that the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, spoke about. The teaching, not just of children in how to play, but of parents in how to teach children how to play, is a very important part of the Sure Start agenda that we all support. Given this importance to the later development of children, it is vital that these words are on the face of the Bill. In Scandinavian countries, formal education—the teaching of reading and
writing—does not begin until the age of six. A growing number of people in this country argue that we should adopt the same position in Britain. If we look at OECD studies of achievement, we see that countries like Finland and Denmark top the list of achievement in later years. It is vital for children to get over those early stages of learning, which come from imaginative play, before they move on to number and literacy work.
We on these Benches have put forward Amendments Nos. 29 and 92 on behalf of the NUT, because we share its concerns about the effects of mass marketing on children's health and well-being, and their ability to learn and develop as young adults. Other speakers, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, have already spoken about the need for a nutritious diet. Our concern in these amendments is with the vulnerability of young minds to advertising and mass marketing. This is true both in terms of their pressurising parents for particular foods, chocolate bars and toys, and in terms of pressurising schools to participate in marketing campaigns. Schools are being targeted with increasingly sophisticated materials, presented as educational resources. Over £300 million a year is now being spent by large companies in targeting classroom sales. Many children's food products include fundraising offers for school books, equipment and sports clothing. The National Audit Office has expressed concern that the product involved in the Walkers "Free Books for Schools" scheme detracts from healthy eating messages. In its report Tackling Obesity in England, it refers to the risk that some schemes may encourage children and their families to buy more snack foods with a high fat, salt and sugar content.
The link between food promotion and children's eating patterns is confirmed in the Food Standards Agency's report Does Food Promotion Influence Children?, a systematic review of the evidence. Published in September 2003 by the University of Strathclyde, the report concluded that advertising to children does have an effect on their preferences, purchasing behaviour and consumption. These effects

1225
are apparent not just for different brands, but for different types of food. They affect whether children buy a chocolate bar or a piece of fruit.
The purpose of these two amendments is to probe the role of the Children's Commissioner in Clause 2 and the role of the children's services authority in Clause 6 in regulating the promotion of products for children. How far will the work of the commissioner influence that carried out by bodies such as the Advertising Standards Authority and Ofcom? Will such bodies be required formally to consult with the commissioner and the children's services authority on a regular basis? Will the commissioner and the children's services authority have places on the Advertising Standards Council and the Ofcom consumer panel?
1.45 p.m.
Lord Chan: I support Amendment No. 25 in the name of my noble friend Lady Howe. I regret that I was not able to speak at Second Reading, although I had my name on the list of speakers. I had to return to Merseyside for an early morning meeting the next day, where we discussed issues of our deprived and underprivileged families in those areas where we are still trying to tackle health inequalities. It is clear that the physical and mental health issues do not cover the well-being of children, because they tend to be seen as areas where one has to use clinical skills to assist.
The preventive aspects of public healthcare, with particular regard to the health of children, begin before birth and certainly exist at birth and onwards. That is not covered unless one highlights the need for a nutritious diet. Mothers should be aware that they ought to eat well and wisely during pregnancy. We should take the opportunity to go across the work of various departments. We have mentioned Sure Start many times, and I shall mention it again: it does wonderful work, particularly among people who do not get access to our services and suffer in silence. Their children, in particular, suffer long-term disadvantage.
The reference to the need for a nutritious diet would remind not only industry, advertisers, schools and local government but individuals. That way, all aspects of living will be taken into consideration. I support the amendment also because it would mean that we would take steps to assist people in their choice of food and in how to live well on a low income. That skill will not be covered, if we think only in terms of physical well-being and health.
There are other measures that I wish to support. I would welcome the addition, through Amendment No. 27, of a reference to "play and recreation". Training is part of education and is extra to education, but play and recreation are essential parts of our interest in the well-being of the young baby, the infant and the very young child. For all those reasons, they are important amendments, and we should support their inclusion in the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I urge the Government to accept Amendments Nos. 27 and 88, in the names of
1226
the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, and my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford. It is, perhaps, appropriate that the amendments should have been tabled by a combination of Labour and Liberal Democrat Peers. The National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Assembly government, when in coalition, produced a Welsh play policy, which I commend for the Committee's consideration. That policy was based on the principle that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child should be followed in recognising the importance of play.
The policy set out the means by which the principles should be achieved. The Assembly government said that the policy statement on play and recreation was,
"predicated upon the principles that: every child is entitled to respect for their own unique combination of qualities and capabilities; the perceptions of the child, their views and opinions should always be respected for each child is connected to, and a bearer of, a wider culture; the child's free choice of their own play is a critical factor in enriching their learning and contributing to their well-being and development".
Having produced that policy, they formed the Welsh Assembly government play policy implementation group, which carries forward the policy in important practical respects. The group includes the Sports Council for Wales, Play Wales, an organisation called Funky Dragon, which sounds interesting and entertaining, and many other organisations concerned with recreation and sport.
I mention that to the Committee for two reasons: because we will propose that similar wording be added to Clause 20 and to illustrate how, in this respect, the Welsh Assembly government are ahead of what is going on in England. If the Government do not accept the principles, we may see different results on the playing fields in a few years' time.
Lord Northbourne: I support Amendments Nos. 27 and 29. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, in whose name Amendment No. 27 stands, I suggest that play and recreation are education. They are a fundamental and essential part of education. I refer to play and recreation for children not only before they go to school but during the whole time that they are growing up. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could confirm that that is the view of the Department for Education and Skills. None the less, I support the amendment because many people do not understand that, and it is important that we should have it in the Bill.
With regard to Amendment No. 29, I endorse the importance of the advertising issue. I draw to the Committee's attention the excellent debate introduced by my noble friend Lady Howe of Idlicote on 14 January. The arguments were well set out in that debate.
Lord Elton: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has just said. My principal interest in the Bill is to minimise the number of children drawn into crime. The route into crime starts early in life and often relates to frustration at failure to achieve anything satisfactory in any area of activity.
Play is an area in which people learn to achieve and to socialise, which are two essential ingredients of a healthy and integrated life as a member of society. It would be

1227
good to have the amendment in the Bill. That is all that I will say at this stage, but I impress on the Committee that it is of fundamental importance that the commissioner and the legislators should understand that free play is a most important part of building up the character of a good citizen. The same goes for sport, as the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, ably said.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I was in the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and the times on the monitor and on my watch did not quite coincide. I apologise to the Committee for being late for the start of the debate on these important amendments.
I shall speak in support, in particular, of Amendments Nos. 25, 27 and 88, and I shall ask the Minister a question on Amendment No. 92. With regard to Amendment No. 25, I remind the Committee of our debate on the threat that obesity poses to the health of the nation and the importance of establishing good nutritional patterns early on. Incredible damage is done to children who become obese, not only to their health but to all aspects of their well-being.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 88 are extremely important. We have been concerned about play opportunities for children in Wales and about the gradual, inexorable erosion of free play facilities. It is apparent that children's play needs are not being provided for. There is an opportunity here for the Government to take the lead through legislation that recognises children's play for its own worth and as being as important as formal education, hence the requirement to have the wording differentiate between play and the educational aspects of a child's life.
It is the nature of our society that children's needs are subsumed in those of adults. In past years, provision for children's play has become more and more depleted. In our outcome-oriented world, play appears to be an aimless activity engendering fun, rather than producing tangible results. Nothing is further from the truth. Play is critically important to all children in the development of their physical, social, mental, emotional and creative skills. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, that has been articulated in the Welsh Assembly government's play policy.
Among a number of recommendations from that policy implementation group, the first and most important one is,
"that the Welsh Assembly Government place a statutory duty upon local authorities to provide for children's play needs to meet national minimum standards".
It is therefore very important that an English/UK commissioner has that embodied as a core function.
This proposal will contribute to what might be regarded by some as a paradigm shift in the way that children's play needs are perceived by society, becoming an issue of entitlement rather than discretion.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to training. Children need to be trained to live independently. Those who are in care or custody or those without family role models need to be trained in all aspects of personal
1228
welfare. They need to be trained in financial management. I suggest that this should also extend to training in parenting skills, which they have not experienced.
There are an alarming number of teenage and under-age pregnancies, which are often a desperate need for love. But, of course, a baby is not a compliant dolly. A baby in a household increases stress enormously. There is good evidence to indicate that those children who have been trained with responsive dolls learn the reality of having a baby versus the reality of receiving love, for which they are desperate.
I now turn briefly to Amendment No. 92. The Minister generously accepted Amendment No. 39 when we were previously in Committee, which means that due regard to the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is now a core function of the England/UK commissioner. I wonder whether the amendments concerning the commissioner's role and function may, in some way, prove to be superfluous. I hope that I will not receive that answer, although play and recreation are covered in Article 31 of the UN convention. To be free of exploitation is contained within various other articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Perhaps the Minister could also confirm that exploitation of children for the advertising promotion of products would be an infringement of those rights and would therefore be against the law when the Bill is passed. There is a very important intention behind Amendment No. 92, which reflects the pressures in our economically-driven, profit-motivated, consumer society to enlist children in that profit creation process when they are too young and without adequate experience, role models or training to differentiate between being exploited with temptation and being offered something from which they can choose.
Noon
Baroness Strange: I shall speak briefly and I declare an interest as a mother and a grandmother. In particular, I support Amendment No. 25. Play is very important to children. It is the outward, physical expression of what they feel and think inside and enables them to relate to the world as they begin to grow. I think that all children start with imagining things: for example, yesterday, I was eating imaginary grapes with my grandson. I said that they were delicious. He said that he was glad I liked them. Children do that. It comes from inside them; it is what is going outside. It is very important that they should have the opportunity to play and to stretch their imagination and spirit as they grow.
Lord Adebowale: Amendment No. 90 would apply to Clause 6(3). I declare an interest. My organisation, Turning Point, works with about 20,000 children and young people every year. I also express my gratitude to the End Child Poverty Campaign and the Local Government Association, which support the amendment. We discuss this issue in the context of about 3.6 million children in the

1229
UK who are living below the poverty line. The eradication of child poverty is one of the Government's most significant pledges.
In my experience, child poverty impacts significantly on other aspects of a child's life. We know that children living in poverty today are far more likely to be substance misusers, are far more likely to be affected by the criminal justice system and are more likely to live in poor housing conditions. While we know that no child's destiny is set in stone, we also know that children who grow up in poor households are more likely to leave school at 16 with lower than average educational attainment, have poor health, come into contact with the police, be unemployed as young adults, have very low expectations for the future and end up earning relatively low wages. We are told that poor children are 15 times more likely to die in a house fire than better-off children, and three times more likely to be hit by a car.
Ending child poverty will require more than using income transfers to lift those families living in poverty just above an arbitrary poverty line. It requires that public services ensure that poor people living in poor areas are not condemned to poor public services. It is too often the case that those in the greatest need of help and support are the least likely to receive it. That is called the inverse care law.
Local authorities have a crucial role in tackling child poverty through the commissioning and delivery of services. Poverty has a debilitating impact on children's lives. It affects their mental and physical health, their educational prospects, their social relationships and their perception of the opportunities and choices that are open to them. Each authority must have specified focus on children living in poverty.
I am pleased to say that such a focus would be welcomed by the local authorities. In addition to its support for this amendment, the Local Government Association has signed up to the Government's pledge to end child poverty by,
"Improving the quality of life for children, young people and families at risk, by tackling child poverty, maximising the life chances of children in care or in need and strengthening protection for children at risk of abuse".
The amendment seeks to ensure that such a commitment is specifically reflected in the work of local authorities and their relevant partners across the country. By supporting the amendment, the Government would confirm their 1999 pledge to end child poverty in a generation. It is a small but significant change. It would have significant impact on denying the impact of the inverse care law.
Lord Wright of Richmond: I hope that it is not out of order for me to intervene briefly to refer to the tragic death last week of Lady Brigstocke. She was chairman of a charity of which I am a trustee, which was set up five years ago to promote the principles of Home-Start UK. I am sure that many of your Lordships know that the charity is designed to help families in trouble of any sort. It helps both children and parents, but particularly parents of children under the age of five.
1230
A large core of volunteers helps to run this charity. We set up Home-Start International to promote the principles of Home-Start UK. I pay tribute to the extraordinary achievement of Lady Brigstocke in this regard.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I reciprocate those comments about the late Lady Brigstocke and her brilliant headship, as well as her voluntary activities. In this group of amendments, there are many worthwhile points. I should like to speak briefly about the emphasis on play and recreation. A number of Members of the Committee have rightly emphasised the social benefits of incorporating an amendment about play and recreation. That is perfectly proper for a legislative body. Social benefits, developing imagination, developing social skills, and developing the capacity for learning in later life are all very proper.
However, there is a paradox because play and recreation are worthwhile in themselves. From these Benches, we want to emphasise that in the culture and civilisation that we share, certain things are regarded as fundamentally worthwhile in themselves for themselves. While as legislators we stress quite properly social benefits and social consequences in a utilitarian way, it is still important to stress that certain things in life are fundamentally worthwhile for their own sake. Among those are play and recreation.
12.15 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I begin by echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, paying tribute to Lady Brigstocke. Her work within HomeStart was exceptionally important. Indeed, I plan to refer to her again later today when we talk about that organisation. I know that the House will join me in sending condolences to her family and to Brian Waller, the chief executive of HomeStart, who was in Greece when the tragedy occurred. It has been a terrible trauma and shock to all. The exceptional work undertaken by Lady Brigstocke means that a significant hole has been created in the organisation.
The debate on this group of amendments has been particularly important as it goes to the heart of something in the Bill of which I am especially proud; that is, our attempt—I use the word advisedly—to place legislative provisions within a context that has been given to us directly by children and young people. To my knowledge, although I stand corrected if noble Lords know otherwise, this is the first time that that has been done in legislation and it is very important. It also recognises that the work we do for children should be about outcomes for children rather than processes. I am sure that all noble Lords would support that.
In Clauses 2 and 6 we have proposed an explanation of well-being that reflects the outcomes that children and young people have told us are important to them. As I have said, this is a key concept that defines the breadth of ambition that we have for children and young people. The outcomes were developed as part of

1231
a wide-ranging consultation undertaken in 2002 by the Children and Young People's Unit. Over 2,500 children contributed to that consultation. We asked them to comment on key aspects of their lives, ones that were important to them. We talked to children aged as young as four and up through the age range.
The term "well-being" is designed to frame what I describe as a new partnership culture in children's services which we want to see reflected in our targets and standards, including those under the National Service Framework for Children, and through the new inspection regime to the important long-term programme for reforming the children's workforce.
So I understand absolutely the wish of noble Lords to ensure that a range of important issues is covered. I am very sympathetic to the various concerns that underlie this group of amendments. However, I want to say up front that I want to avoid restricting the scope of what is covered by the definition of "well-being". It intentionally sets a broad framework in Clause 2 within which the commissioner can focus his or her efforts in the light of priorities expressed by children and young people. In Clause 6 the same framework allows local partnerships to focus on the priorities identified in local areas in consultation, of course, with children, young people and families for the provision of services and opportunities. I shall respond to the individual amendments in that context.
Amendment No. 25, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, rightly underlines the importance of a nutritious diet in the lives of children, especially in the context of our concerns about rising levels of obesity among children. I should add to that our worries about the incidence of diabetes in children and young people, an issue which has been brought to my attention. The Government could not agree more on nutritional issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Chan, observed, ensuring that the commissioner can look at dietary issues is an important part of physical health. They will also form an important consideration for partners in the co-operation duty when deciding how best to secure better health outcomes.
I shall cite three basic examples. The first is the work of breakfast clubs in schools. They play an important role in providing a nutritious start to the day for children who might not otherwise have breakfast, thus enhancing the ability of children to enjoy their day and to learn, which is critical. Secondly, the school meals service is also an important player, ensuring that children have the opportunity to access a nutritious meal at lunchtime. Indeed, that meal is often the only hot meal provided in the course of the day. Whenever I visit schools I am interested to learn how many children have sat down to a meal because I would argue that part of a nutritious diet is being given the opportunity for social interaction. Many of our children are not able to eat a meal while talking with friends. Our schools are very effective in ensuring that our children are offered such opportunities.
Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Chan, referred to the Sure Start programme. Issues of nutrition are addressed at minus nine months, if I may so describe
1232
it. The Sure Start programme works from the time of conception through to the age of around five. Much of that work centres on supporting families to ensure they provide a proper and appropriate diet.
I agree completely with the sentiments underlying the amendment. Nutrition forms an integral part of the work that we will be doing. I hope that I have been able to give some reassurance on this area.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 29 and 32, which are designed to ensure that we think about how to protect children from being exploited by advertising. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, talked about the advertising of food and the high salt and sugar content in some children's food products. We fully acknowledge the importance of ensuring that advertising for children is appropriate. Noble Lords know that the Broadcast Advertising Code already regulates the content and timing of adverts aimed at children and Ofcom is now undertaking a major programme of work to examine the advertising regulations. We will continue to encourage industry initiatives such as Media Smart, which helps children deal with the complex messages of advertising in a critical way.
It is important that children receive educational support in order to understand the whole world of advertising so that they can deal with it rather than being unable to reflect on its messages. We cannot hide those messages away from children. As noble Lords are aware, they reach our children from a wide variety of sources.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked whether the commissioner could become involved in some of the issues around advertising. The commissioner can be a consultee on anything; it is entirely for him or her to establish relationships. However, we are aware that this is an extremely important area and we are sure that the commissioner will want to address it. So we think that these issues are covered in the broad definition.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked specifically about the vulnerability of children to exploitation. We are clear that such vulnerability is implicit in the current list of outcomes that the duty to co-operate encompasses. We do not need to make it explicit on the face of the Bill. It is part of the work that will need to be done. However, we think that the broad definition of well-being embraces both of these areas: ensuring that children are healthy and safe. and that their financial well-being is protected. Noble Lords know that I will resist a list, and we believe that these areas are covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, spoke to Amendment No. 90 which would place a particular focus under the definition of well-being on children living in poverty. I pay tribute to the work of Turning Point and the other organisations involved in this area. It is crucial to recognise the impact of poverty. As the noble Lord pointed out, we must focus not only on the issues surrounding financial poverty, but also on the other aspects that emanate from that such as poverty of aspiration in some of our families and children, poverty of physical and mental health,

1233
educational achievement and outcome, and so forth. The noble Lord is absolutely right to bring those issues to our attention.
That is why I return to the Sure Start programme. Its work was launched first in our poorest areas, helping to support families living in poverty and enabling their children to have the best possible start in life by addressing many of the issues that have been raised. I am very proud of this Government's pledge to eradicate child poverty. We understand that it is a broader issue than that of finance, but nevertheless financial considerations play a huge part in poverty. However, I shall not accept the amendment because the outcomes as we have described them are designed to apply to all children, although I am aware that the work of those co-operating and collaborating through the children's service authorities, along with the work of the commissioner, should focus on children living in poverty so that those with the deepest problems are the first priority.
Amendments Nos. 91 and 189 highlight the important issue of housing, outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. However, the same question arises as to whether housing should be specified as an outcome. The approach we have taken is to view housing as a function that agencies need to consider in carrying out their duties to co-operate. I can confirm that, under the co-operation arrangements, we expect housing decisions to be looked at in the context of well-being. Indeed, we have included district councils in subsection (3) of Clause 6 partly for that reason.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will not be surprised to hear that the Welsh Assembly also recognises the importance of housing in a child's life. The need to ensure that housing matters are included as a priority in the consideration of children's needs will be recognised in the preparation of guidance in Wales. I hope that noble Lords will accept that it is not necessary to specify housing on the face of the Bill, with the reassurance that this is part of the reason why district councils are there and, as I have described, a critical part of the issue of well-being.
Amendment Nos. 26, 27, 87, 88, 187, 188 and 189 all relate to the issue of play and recreation. As before, there is no issue of substance between us here. Noble Lords have spoken with passion about the importance of play. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford talked about play as being important in itself, with which I wholeheartedly agree. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, talked about the link between play and education. We have coined the phrase "learning through play" and there is a recognition of its importance. We know from the work of Sure Start that parents sometimes need help in understanding what is going on when children are playing and its importance and value to them. You cannot get it wrong when you play and that is something which children know only too well. Adults know it too, because sometimes we also play. You can try out, practise and, as a consequence, learn; very importantly, you can also have a good time—which is critical.
1234
We therefore agree that play is very important and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, it is critical in other areas of development. There has been a great deal of research—and this relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—about the value and importance of play and sport in enabling children to have a good time, to learn, to get more from their education, and all of the physical and physiological aspects involved. Also, its importance as a method of supporting some of our young people who might be in danger—partly through boredom and partly through lifestyle—of drifting into criminal activity. I know personally, from the work I did long before I entered your Lordships' House, that one can very effectively use activities to support children in that way.
Every Child Matters: Next Steps restates the Government's commitment to embedding the five outcomes. The report states,
"young people…need opportunities for personal development, learning and recreation outside school hours, including access to sport, art and cultural activities".
There is a substantial amount of work under way in relation to play. We have a number of programmes in place, some of which I have mentioned, through the Children's Fund, and the Youth Service; I also refer to the work of Neighbourhood Renewal, the New Opportunities Fund Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Programme and point out that the voluntary sector makes a very important contribution to our work in this area.
The Welsh Assembly, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, is very committed to ensuring that, in each local area, young people can access opportunities for personal development, learning and recreation. The Assembly will be able to specify the play and recreation needs of children and young people in the guidance issued in Wales.
As my noble friend Lord Pendry said, the work of our right honourable friend Mr Dobson in developing the play review—which I was pleased to work on as a Minister within the Department for Education—resulted in a number of recommendations regarding the importance of play, not just for younger children but also for older children and teenagers, for whom it is critically important to provide opportunities which, frankly speaking, do not include the pub. There is also the important matter of integrated play for children with disabilities and giving them the opportunity to play alongside other children. I pay tribute to Frank Dobson for that extremely good work. We are currently considering those recommendations across government.
It will not surprise noble Lords that I will not accept the removal of the word "training" from the list of outcomes, for the reason that other noble Lords have stated. It is an important aspect of the opportunities for those young people who wish to have vocational skills—work-based opportunities which enable them to gain employment and financial security. I suspect that noble Lords did not intend that we should take that away from young people and I reassure my noble friend Lord Pendry that there is no intention to do so.

1235
We believe that we have covered it in the outcomes. It was never our intention not to cover it. It is part of well-being.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Does the Minister accept that what came through in the outcomes—which resulted from consultation with children—and was written into the Green Paper Every Child Matters involved "enjoying and achieving"? It is translated into "education and training". Would she accept that that is a good translation?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: "Enjoying and achieving" is not translated into "education and training". "Achieving" is translated into "education and training"; "enjoying" was within "economic and social well-being".
I was wondering when noble Lords would raise that point, because it was quite understandably raised at Second Reading. The translation, in terms of the legislative programme, is "economic and social well-being" and that is specifically intended to cover play, recreation and leisure activities.
It is our intention not to take this away but to encompass it within that definition. In that context, I am very well aware of the number of noble Lords who have pressed this issue today.
Baroness Walmsley: Does the Minister agree that it is important that legislation is not obscure and that it is understandable to people? It has taken her several minutes to explain to noble Lords that translation of "enjoying" and where it appears in the Bill. How long would it take her to explain to the man, woman and child in the street?
I believe that adding "play and recreation" and not taking out "training", as the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, has suggested, would add to the clarity of the Bill and the understanding of the Government's intention. I am sure that, in advancing this Bill, the Government would want their intentions understood.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I do not believe that it took me several minutes. I thought that I answered the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, rather quickly. I am also not entirely sure that the way to involve people in our activities is to ask them to read legislation. I recognise that parliamentary language is important and legal certainty is absolutely critical, but I hope that we will find other and better means to send the message out to children and their families in order that they understand exactly what is our intent. I am with the noble Baroness on that to a degree, but not entirely.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Pendry that I came to your Lordships' House with the view that this was very much part of "economic and social wellbeing". As always, I have listened very carefully. Perhaps I may take this away once more and bring back on Report either more convincing and firmer considerations for not including it, or a recognition.
1236
My noble friend Lord Pendry asked me which organisations we had met. The good news is that I have met all of the organisations he listed during my time as Minister. I have not had any request to meet them at this stage. If that is what they wish, I would he more than delighted to do so. Officials have been meeting with them, however, not only within the Department for Education but also within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. There has therefore been a great deal of dialogue. If, on the basis of what I have said, noble Lords agree to withdraw this group of amendments, we will come back.
Lord Elton: Before my noble friend withdraws and while the Minister is reflecting further, may I ask her to include in the reflection a dimension which I do not think has been raised in this debate so far? I apologise for unavoidably missing three minutes of the debate. I refer to the growing and acute importance of tempting children away from the television screen, so that they learn to socialise with other human beings and to use their own imaginations. That is more important than we give it credit for, and the commissioner may have it in mind. That may involve a definition of "play".
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I would refer to computer screens as well as television screens in that regard, but I am also conscious of the interests of children and that the purpose of a good deal of the commissioner's work is to look at best interests and other interests; that goes back to a recent discussion in your Lordships' House.
I am very nervous of getting into lists of what we want to do. The opportunities that children and young people have are critical. This was alluded to by a number of noble Lords, who pointed out that the opportunities we may have had as children arc not so available to this generation of children. It is important to ensure that they have safe and appropriate places to play. I would not rule out the value that computers, technology or, indeed, television programmes can have in children's lives. It is, as ever, a question of balance.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I am sure we all thank the Minister for what she has said on this wide-ranging group of vital issues. I should have said at the beginning of the debate that I support all the amendments in this group. The word "play" dominated a great deal of the discussion as did the importance of play, whether it stands alone or is part of a learning process.
I was particularly struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said on the subject of teaching parents to teach children to play. We hope that it does not have to be that way for all parents; nevertheless, some guidance is crucial, particularly for those who perhaps did not play much when they were children. It comes back to the point that will come up again and again about the importance of parents; my noble friend Lord Northbourne will refer to it many times during the passage of the Bill.

1237
I think that we can take considerable comfort from what the Minister has said and the fact that she has agreed to take away these issues and think again before Report. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 8, leave out "and training" and insert ", play and recreation"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 26, I should explain two things which I may not have made quite clear earlier. Other noble Lords have spoken, and I indicated before I spoke that I was quite happy to support the amendment that does not include the removal of training.
Amendment No. 26 seeks to remove training because play and recreation are in some cases very organised and part of a training scheme for children. I was thinking of the work that youth clubs do: my husband is very involved in the Church Lads' and Church Girls' Brigade, for example. They have organised training as well as play activities, which I might not have explained as clearly as I should have. Scout and guide groups are also very involved in that context. The amendment seeks to highlight the more informal and loose activities that fall within "play and recreation". So I am more than happy to support the other amendments, as I hope I made clear.
When the Minister considers these issues, could she have particular regard to disabled children, whose needs are that much more acute and difficult to include in the general way of things?
Finally, I thank noble Lords who paid tribute to my noble friend Lady Brigstocke. She is indeed sorely missed. I was very thrilled that she launched Home-Start International, and very proud of Leicestershire, because Home-Start started in Leicestershire during my days working as a member of the county staff of the WR VS. Margaret Harrison was her inspiration; if she had realised that Home-Start would end up as an international organisation, she would have been quite surprised. I, too, should like to add my tribute.
I am grateful to the Minister for what she said about the previous amendment. I obviously cannot speak on behalf of other noble Lords who tabled amendments on play and recreation, but, for my own part, I am very disappointed that the noble Baroness was not able to accept the proposal. However, I am reassured that she will think about this; it is so essential and has been supported so strongly around the House that it would be foolish not to do so. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I want the Committee to be absolutely clear about what I am taking away: I shall reconsider the issues to do with play and recreation. I of course accept that all the other issues are important, and I am always sorry if my response disappoints anyone in your Lordships' House. Perhaps we can discuss these matters further in
1238
correspondence. However, I want to be absolutely clear that I am not even thinking of bringing back anything on the other issues.
Baroness Byford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
Baroness Howe of Idlicote Baroness Howe of Idlicote moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
"() In exercising his function under this section, the Children's Commissioner must have due regard to—

(a) the need, where opportunities for disabled children are not as good as those for other children, to promote equality of opportunity between disabled children and other children by improving opportunities for disabled children; and

(b) the need to promote equality of opportunity between—

(i) children of different racial groups, religions or beliefs, family status or sexual orientation; and

(ii) between boys and girls generally."

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of these amendments, which have been suggested by the Disability Rights Commission and supported by the NUT, among many other organisations, is to place a positive statutory duty on the English Children's Commissioner to promote equality of opportunity and report in his or her annual report on steps taken to achieve this. Similar amendments are tabled to Clauses 6 and 7 and to Clauses 20 and 22, which will be debated later.
What is proposed is something very similar to the duties placed on the Learning and Skills Council at its inception. Without such a positive core duty to tackle the systemic barriers and ingrained discrimination encountered by disabled and other excluded children, the Children's Commissioner may make very little real impact.
A positive duty to have due regard to the promotion of equality in carrying out the commissioner's functions would have several implications. It would mean, of course, that the commissioner's staff would need to receive comprehensive training in equality and diversity issues. It would help to ensure that the interests of particularly marginalised groups of children receive due weight in the policy and advocacy work of the commissioner.
Work on child poverty—a vital group, as we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Adebowale—would need to emphasise early intervention and, in addition, address areas of disproportionate disadvantage—for example, the fact that 61 per cent of Bangladeshi and Pakistani children live in the most acute poverty or the fact that it costs three times as much to bring up a disabled child than a non-disabled child. Work on mental health services would need to address the disproportionate risk of mental health problems among looked-after children, and so on.
At present, the Bill certainly deals with the need to reach out effectively to groups of children who find it hard to make their voices heard, but it should also ensure that the commissioner then goes on to prioritise the barriers such children face when promoting children's interests to government and service providers. As the NUT stressed, there is a pressing need for teachers to have their skills developed to meet the diverse needs of children with SEN.
The English Children's Commissioner may of course be subject to duties to promote racial equality under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, and there are plans to legislate for a public sector duty to promote disability equality. However, my amendment proposes a broader equality duty which covers many more grounds of discrimination and exclusion, including religion, belief, family status and gender. Without such a broad and inclusive duty, it is hard to see how the commissioner can focus effectively on issues of multiple discrimination, and some children will inevitably become marginalised.
We have many positive examples of the benefit of such explicit duties on public bodies. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 imposed just such a duty on the Learning and Skills Council, and the Disability Rights Commission testifies that this has made a vast difference to the effectiveness of its work on equality. Similarly, research into the impact of the race equality duty on public authorities demonstrates major benefits in terms of cultural change. It has been found that such duties are highly valued by public authorities for the way that they have improved policy making and service delivery design. Even with gender equality, there is still much to be done. As the EOC's annual report 2002–03 pointed out, 83 per cent of employees under 25 in science, engineering and ICT are men and 91 per cent of under 25 year-olds working in healthcare, childcare and personal services are women. Unsurprisingly, there is a pay gap attached of some 19 per cent.
The Children's Commissioner could and should play an important part, again, as the NUT said, in seeing that gender analysis is mainstreamed and built into policies, planning and thinking at school and LEA level as well as elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will give these amendments a sympathetic response. They are very much in harmony with the positive equality duties set out in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the Government's avowed commitment to an inclusive society. I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for introducing her amendment which I support in principle. I suspect that it may he too wordy for the Minister, but it is an important amendment. I look forward to hearing the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, which particularly relate to looked-after children and young people in custody. I will respond to those amendments after I have heard him speak.
1240
I rise to speak to Amendment No. 33 in this group, which relates to the whole question of disabled children and young people, some of whom were at a meeting yesterday, at which they were adamant that they wished to be called young people as well, rather than just children. It is true that the Children's Commissioner will have regard to the needs of all children and that will include disabled children. However, this Bill will, one hopes, become the guide not only for all organisations and individuals who have regular contact with children, but for those whose contact is rather more tangential. In that group, I include people who design and maintain buildings, roads and other public places.
At Second Reading, the Minister opened proceedings with a well structured presentation, in the course of which she drew attention to the commissioner's role in influencing,
"at a strategic level the opportunities available to children and young people".—[Official Report, 30/3/04; col. 1209.]
In that context, we feel that specific reference should be made to disabled children in the Bill. The Disability Rights Commission and Mencap have raised this issue with us. The latter stated that it was concerned that the new aspects of wellbeing introduced in the Bill miss important elements contained in the original outcomes set out in Every Child Matters.
Both organisations are rightly concerned that disabled children should be included. In the Government's own publication, the needs of disabled children are clearly spelled out. The foreword in, Removing Barriers to Achievement, the Government's strategy for SEN, clearly states:
"Removing Barriers to Achievement sets out the Government's vision for giving children with special educational needs and disabilities the opportunity to succeed. Building on the proposals for the reform of children's services in Every Child Matters, it sets a new agenda for improvement and action at national and local level. All children, wherever they are educated, need to be able to learn, play and develop alongside each other within their local community of schools".
In the debate on the previous amendment, I asked the Minister to have particular regard for the needs of disabled children. I have in mind another group of children who, in their way, are disabled themselves, but have duties and responsibilities to other people who are disabled, who may be siblings or older members of their own family. I understand that a recent children's programme on Radio 4 highlighted ways in which these children—in cases of the slow onset of illness in a parent or another child—cope magnificently with their added duties and responsibilities. This particular group of children may be overlooked under certain circumstances, if only because they are often isolated. Schools and local social groups to which they might belong ma) not be aware of their family commitments.
The Disability Rights Commission has lobbied us, along with many other organisations and I am grateful for its detailed lines on why it is so important that we have close regard for the needs of disabled children and young people in the Bill. We do not often have such a Bill coming through the House, so we must not miss this opportunity.

1241
I would also like to share with noble Lords that last night I attended a meeting with the Children Group here in the House, at which a presentation was made by Triangle. The group considered the implications of the Children Bill on this particular interest group. One important thing came out of that meeting: the group hoped that the Minister and the Government would take on board the great need to hear what disabled children and young people want for themselves. An example was highlighted of the difficulty of trying to make all of us who take speech and hearing for granted understand that people who cannot speak still understand and want to get their views across. That was a hugely important aspect and I was very moved. I was sorry that there were not more people from the parliamentary side there to listen to what the group said. The group was also very concerned to safeguard the interests of disabled children and young people, and we shall deal with that later on in the Bill. The most important issue that was raised was that the voices of disabled children and young people should be heard.
It is government policy that children and young people with disabilities should be treated in the same way as all children—I do not want to say normal children because children with disabilities are normal children who have different requirements. I am particularly thinking of school and local community activities. The group last night said very clearly that, although many children wanted to attend and could cope in ordinary schools, for some that is not possible because their needs are so great that they cannot compete and take part in normal community life. The group wanted to make it clear that the needs of such young people are special. They said that it was all very well the Government saying that we should treat all children alike: they are not all alike, which is why I am labouring the point today. The Minister is nodding and accepts that point. It is hugely important.
The meeting last night was very impressive and it was appropriate that it was held just before today's debate. Therefore, I move this amendment on two fronts. I move it on behalf of all disabled children, some of whom can cope in the normal accepted sense, and those who have additional needs. Those needs should be met and should be clearly spelled out in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will not respond by saying that their needs will be covered elsewhere, because it is so important that they are included in the Bill. This very simple amendment would specify that the Children's Commissioner is concerned with disabled children and young people and that they will not be lost in the wider aspects of wellbeing currently laid down in the Bill.
Lord Rix: Mencap was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. As President of the Royal Mencap Society, I must not only add its enthusiastic support for Amendments Nos. 30 and 33, I must also express my personal support for them. This is not just
1242
because I am president, but because I am the grandfather of a little lad with Down's syndrome who is aged three.
The amendment, which refers to "opportunities for disabled children", must apply to him. He, fortunately, has parents who know their way around the disability field a little because of their background. However, there are thousands of other parents who do not know their way around the complicated area of equality for disabled children. I would love to see Amendments Nos. 30 and 33—or something of a similar nature—on the face of the Bill, to make clear to all people responsible for opportunities for disabled children and learning-disabled children that they have a statutory duty to perform their best endeavours in this regard. Therefore, I heartily support both these amendments.
Lord Elton: My Lords, before the noble Earl, Lord Listowel speaks to his group of amendments, it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if I explain that his amendments cover in principle the area that my Amendments Nos. 100 and 110 cover. Mine relate to Part 2 of the Bill, his to Part 1. I think it would be better if we discussed mine in the second part, so I am disaggregating them, and leaving him free.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his helpful intervention. I shall speak to my Amendments Nos. 34, 42 and 44. Before doing so, perhaps I may also say how strongly I support the amendments of both previous speakers.
The first amendment, Amendment No. 34, is to include,
"in particular children looked after by a local authority and children and young people who have been so looked after".
My purpose is to obtain an assurance from the Minister, first, that particular attention will be paid to this group of children and, secondly, that she will at least consider that children who have left care and are over the age of 18 can be included on the face of the Bill in terms of the duties of the Children's Commissioner.
A significant number of children in care under the age of 18 experience disability. I believe there are about 10,000 children with disabilities who are in residential settings run by local authorities. About 40 per cent of the general care population have an emotional disorder—that is, an enduring emotional problem which impedes their ability to enjoy normal life, although that is not always identified.
The Government have made important steps in improving the quality of life for these children. In the Adoption and Children Bill they introduced a duty to provide independent advocacy on local authorities. Yet the Government will acknowledge that there is still a long way to go to ensure that the voices of these children are properly heard. Therefore I hope that the Minister will look very favourably on finding some way to incorporate the drift of this amendment into the Bill.
I give an example of a care leaver, a young man who left care and entered prison. He was then moved into inappropriate accommodation in Earls Court and had

1243
taken up drug use. He needed to gain the support of a mental health worker and an advocate in order to obtain better housing in a more appropriate and supportive setting. That is just one example of the issues that affect care leavers and need to be dealt with.
It would also be helpful to hear how the Commissioner for Children will work with Roger Morgan—the Children's Rights Officer at the Commission for Social Care Inspection—who has a special brief for these particular children. Obviously the Children's Commissioner may have significantly more powers than this Children's Rights Officer. How can we best ensure that these two officers work in the interests of these children, and all children?
I would like to divide Amendment No. 42 into two sections—42A and 42B—for ease of reference. The first part of this amendment is:
"For the purpose of this section 'children' includes young people in custody".
The purpose is again to obtain an assurance that the Minister will at least consider this group among the responsibilities of the Children's Commissioner. Approximately 40 per cent of this group have been in care—are care leavers. We know that only 10 per cent of children in care have had an involvement with the criminal justice system before being involved in the care system, but over 50 per cent have experienced sexual abuse or neglect. We know the origins of a significant number of these children. They have often been very badly let down by their parents, and then—I regret to say—badly let down by the systems that should have supported them.
I am not thinking only about the care system. However, if one does look at the care system—and I have no wish to bore your Lordships by repeating these facts—until recently, 80 per cent of the staff working in children's homes with the most vulnerable children had no relevant qualification to do such work. I salute the Government for the steps they are taking to improve this situation. The introduction of non-vocational qualification level 3 in child care is not yet achieved for all the staff in this group, but they are working towards the bulk of them achieving it.
However, if we compare what we do here with the Continent—if we look at Germany or Denmark—by far the majority of their staff have three years' specialist training in a high-level qualification to work with these children. This is just one example of how we have failed to intervene to support these children, who very often come from dysfunctional families, and have not provided the support to those families and children that would have diverted them from the prison experience.
We recognised in the Children (Leaving Care) Act that children who have this sort of poor experience in early life may take additional time to reach maturity. Therefore there are certain provisions in that Act permitting children to be looked after by local authorities until the age of 21—and, in certain circumstances, until the age of 25. So it is quite appropriate that we should consider extending the law in this particular area to children under 21 in young offender institutions.
1244
The second part of the amendment reads:
"For the purpose of this section 'children' includes those young people for whom a local authority has duties under the Children (Leaving Care) Act".
I understand that currently the commissioner will have no possibility of considering the needs of these children because his remit relates to children under the age of 18. In other parts of this Bill—the next part for instance—there is the possibility of considering these children's needs. However, in this part they are excluded. Why is that the case?
The outcomes of this group are, for example. teenage pregnancies—these women are two-and-a-half times more likely to become pregnant in their teenage years. A quarter of the prison population comes from this group. They are more likely to become involved in drugs. I have spoken long enough on this issue.
I look forward to some assurance that the Minister will at least consider the matter during the Committee stage, and report on how we might make the commissioner's role more important in this area. Indeed, how can his role add value to the role of Roger Morgan, and Roger Morgan's role add value to the work of the Children's Commissioner? I look forward to the Minister's response.
1 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: I support Amendment No. 30, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, to which I enthusiastically added my name. According to the Explanatory Notes and the Green Paper, the role of the commissioner will he to seek and represent the views of children and young people on how far the five outcomes that they identified as important are being achieved. The list of the five outcomes, as provided for in the Bill, unfortunately does not appear to include an explicit equality of opportunities concern. That is why we have tabled this amendment from three sets of Benches in this Chamber.
It is hoped that the commissioner will have a role in ensuring that services focus on addressing inequalities across social class, ethnicity, gender and special needs as well as disability. In addition, it is hoped that he or she will address issues such as how children's services can better combat all forms of bullying, including homophobic bullying. In any selection process, how will the credibility of candidates for the post of commissioner be tested in relation to their knowledge, understanding and experience of the needs of children and young people from minority groups and those with disabilities, and so on?
The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred to each of the minority groups. I shall add briefly to that. In February, the Secretary of State launched Removing Barriers to Achievement, a new long-term strategy to transform the education of children with SEN. The strategy proposes six very important principles. The NUT has briefed us on the amendment, which it enthusiastically supports. The union believes that in order to improve educational and wider outcomes for all children with SEN, the Government must in addition

1245
restore funding for continuing professional development on SEN, which provides opportunities to develop and enhance both generic and specialist skills. Will the Minister say something about the Government's commitment to that? The NUT is also anxious to know whether the Minister can assure the House that awareness of disability discrimination duties is, or will be, included in the standards for qualified teacher status and in any standards set for staff across all services.
It is also important that the commissioner is able to tackle the bullying of young people in schools or anywhere else. That issue is very much in the news at the moment. We very much welcome the Government's focus on reducing bullying in schools, but we were disappointed that the Green Paper did not spell out why a child may be bullied. Very often it is because the child is in some way different. The child may be from a minority group, or may simply be perceived by children to be different. It is vital that initiatives to tackle bullying in schools explicitly promote anti-discrimination on any of these grounds. Of course, staying safe is one of the goals set out for every child, so there should be more publicity given to statistics about racial harassment and homophobic bullying, to focus attention on the threat posed to the safety and well-being of young people by that sort of activity.
The Government's increased recognition that services need to focus on addressing inequalities across ethnicity is also very welcome. However, will the Minister ensure that those involved in the provision of children's services have the knowledge and skills necessary for them to support the needs of minority ethnic pupils?
Provision for minority languages is very important. International research shows that the maintenance of first-language proficiency has a beneficial impact on learning a second language. We know that when children have learnt a second language it is very much easier for them to learn a third and a fourth language. Equally, high-quality translation services are often vital for effective communication. How will the commissioner's office be resourced with respect to minority languages—including Welsh, of course?
Every Child Matters made no reference to the needs of Traveller pupils, which is the group most at risk in the education system. Although some make a reasonably promising start in primary school—and many schools make enormous efforts to encourage Traveller pupils to attend regularly—by the time they reach secondary level their generally low attainment is a matter of serious concern. Access to schooling is also a particular issue for Traveller pupils.
In the report, Raising the attainment of minority ethnic pupils, Ofsted found that a majority of Traveller children were on the SEN register. I am quite sure that that is not because of their intellectual capacity but because they have fallen behind in their schooling. In one primary school, 74 per cent of Traveller children were on the register; in one secondary school the figure was as high as 80 per cent. Alarmingly, in half the schools in the Ofsted study, no Traveller student had
1246
yet even sat for a GCSE. It is very important that the commissioner is able to focus on promoting equality of opportunity for those children, too.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has said, the commissioner must as part of his role take gender equality into account. There needs to be further exploration by Government and the commissioner, when he or she is appointed, in partnership with the representatives of those responsible for frontline delivery of children's services on the links between gender, subject, training and work choices and occupational segregation, the pay gaps to which the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, referred, and the skill gaps. If every child truly is to matter equally, gender equality must not be forgotten or sidelined in the agenda to improve children's services. I look forward to the Minister accepting some amendment to the Bill to put equality of opportunity right there at the heart of the commissioner's objectives.
Lord Laming: I have no doubt about the very best intentions behind the amendments in this group. However, the discussions that have taken place in this Chamber raise a number of great concerns for me. I would be grateful if the Minister would address those concerns.
One great strength of the Bill is that it seeks to address the well-being of all children and young people. That is a great strength that we must not put at risk. The more we attempt to specify a list of needs, the more we run the danger of excluding people, because the list will never be comprehensive. I take this part of the Bill to be one that deals with the general responsibilities of the commissioner to promote the well-being of all children and young people. With that in mind, I would hope that the commissioner would give particular attention to those children and young people with the greatest needs. Members of the Committee have already referred to some of those needs.
Will the Minister address what I believe to be a real problem? If we begin to specify, we either go for a comprehensive list, which I believe to be impossible bearing in mind the variety of need and the social situation of children and young people in our society—or, if we decide that we cannot be comprehensive, as I suspect that we cannot, there is a danger that we will emphasise the needs of one group of children above those of others.
The Earl of Listowel: I recognise the importance of what my noble friend Lord Laming said. I point out briefly that the two groups of children that I mentioned—the care leavers and the young offenders in institutions—would be excluded from the commissioner's role. I underline that.
Baroness Stern: I support the thrust of the amendments and, to my great sorrow, disagree profoundly with my noble friend Lord Laming. I should like to make a comment about what is in the Bill and the law and its meaning. The law does not just

1247
set out the law, it also gives messages about our values and about who is in and who is out, who has been thought about and who has not.
I think that we would all agree, either from personal knowledge or from being generally well informed, that the parents of disabled children face intolerable hurdles in getting what they need. Their lives are very difficult and a constant struggle. For them to see their situation mentioned in the Bill would be an important recognition by us that we understand and appreciate what they are doing and what their lives are like.
Without spelling it out, the same applies to children in care—looked-after children. They know that in many ways they are at the bottom of the heap. Perhaps what is even more important, the people who look after them know that their status is low and that they are not valued. It is important that we think about the meaning of the law to people who work in those services. They face many difficult situations in their work and it is sometimes hard for them to decide what is the right thing to do.
Members of the Committee who have had the time to read the coroner's verdict in the inquest on Joseph Scholes, which was issued on 30 April, will understand how public servants are sometimes placed in intolerable situations. Some of us remember the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—the death of Gareth Mayatt. Similarly, that involved people placed in a very difficult position. In my view, staff working in such situations need the clear and unambiguous support of the law in words that everyone can understand when they have to decide what is the right thing to do.
I would very much support thought being given to Amendment No. 42, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, because it could help the Government to rectify their unfortunate drafting in response to the Joint Committee on the Rights of the Child, when they said that children who commit crimes are not just children.
Lord Chan: Briefly, I identify with Amendment No. 30, especially concerning equality of opportunity for children belonging to racial groups and religious beliefs. Nine out of 10 ethnic minority children and families live in England, which makes it different from the other territories.
I ask the Minister to what extent the consultation of 2,000 children included representation from black and other ethnic minority children. I do not assume that all of them are at risk of exclusion, but there are definite, well known and well researched racial groups of children who have difficulty with our society and system. For example, one would be children whose parents are first-generation migrants, do not speak English and want to rear their children according to customs developed elsewhere. That immediately brings the children into conflict between the culture that they learn in school and society here and that of their parents. Therefore, groups such as Bangladeshi and Pakistani children need to be identified for those purposes, as well as because they are in poverty and tend to live in segregated communities.
1248
There is also the issue of black Caribbean boys, who continue to form a significant proportion of children excluded from school—a third, at least. Is there any way that the children's commissioner could have some oversight over such groups that are at risk of social exclusion? I know that racial incidents have been recorded, at least in schools on Merseyside, during the past three years, and that there is a cross-boundary consultation every month with voluntary bodies as well as all the statutory bodies in local government.
1.15 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: I had not intended to take part in this debate, but I thought that I ought to weigh in in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said. When discussing issues of enormous emotional attachment for noble Lords, the House often find itself saying, "All is all", and then starting to define all the different specialist interest groups that may be contained within "all". Indeed, during our discussion on Tuesday, we discussed whether "all" meant all children and generally agreed that it did.
There are three reasons why it is then important not to start qualifying "all". One is because, further down the road, when the Bill is on the statute book and people are using it, we are then in danger of excluding people who are not included in the list. That is a serious problem. The Government may not be the one that introduced the Bill or be particularly sympathetic to some of the groups. So it is important to leave "all" meaning "all" and not qualify it. Secondly, many of the groups that have been mentioned have their own legislation—which is quite right. Examples are disabled children and care leavers. We have discussed that legislation on many occasions and will rightly continue to do so.
Thirdly, I expect the commissioner to involve all of us in a large discussion about what his or her priorities should be and to which groups he or she should pay particular attention—whether they be ethnic minority under-achieving boys, disabled children, children who are living in extreme poverty or Travellers' children. We should not try to define the job of the commissioner in the Bill.
Lord Northbourne: I support those who share the concern of my noble friend Lord Laming about selecting particular sub-groups for special attention. His suggestion almost in passing that if one has in any way to define how the commissioner should select his priorities, words such as "the groups of children in the greatest need" would leave him to make the judgment. I could quite easily add half a dozen categories to those that have already been mentioned this afternoon, as, I am sure, could other Members of the Committee.
Lord Elton: I see that danger. Indeed, I am told that Laming's law is expressed in Latin as expressio unius est exclusion alterius—if one is in, it implies that the rest are not; and the more you have in, the stronger you imply it. However, I think that we must exempt the two amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, from that because the definition of a child is to be

1249
found in Clause 49(1), as it applies to this part of the Bill, as being under 18. Amendment No. 42 specifically refers to children as being under the age of 21 if they are in custody. So that does not breach that principle.
Slightly less respectable, but still passable, is his Amendment No. 34, because it is saved by the words, "in particular". The doubtful ground is whether we avoid the difficulty of saying that all does not mean all but particular people if we say that all means all but that the commissioner should be especially careful of these people.
There may be a blanket term with special regard to those in special need, which could be general. I warm to the cautions of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, because I have come across this difficulty so often in legislation. It is very good for us to air in debate on probing amendments the critical areas to which the commissioner should pay attention. We flatter ourselves that he or she will read every word of every stage of this Bill when he or she is appointed, which, of course, they will not. However, one hopes that an academic will do the job for us and draw these specific points to their notice.
Lord Hylton: I follow the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in venturing to oppose my noble friend Lord Laming despite his enormous experience and knowledge in these fields. My noble friend Lord Listowel responded very effectively in about one sentence by pointing out where his amendments would go beyond the existing text of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Listowel, all of whose amendments in this group I support, might have mentioned one extra thing which has not yet been said today; namely, that we are faced with a national shortage of good foster parents which leads to all too frequent breakdown in foster placements with very bad consequences for the children concerned.
I also support this group of amendments from the point of view of penal affairs and crime prevention. I invite the Minister when she replies to say whether in her opinion the change of name or terminology from "children in care" to "children looked after" made any real difference at all. Was it a purely cosmetic change, I wonder?
Will the Minister go a little further when replying to inform the Committee about what has been the real effect of the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which I think has now been in force for at least three years, or a period of about that length? Is it beginning to produce results? Have studies been conducted into improvements resulting from that Act?
More generally, I support the amendments that we are discussing from a penal affairs point of view. We know, and have known for a good many years, that a far too high proportion of those coming within the scope of the criminal justice system have previously been in care or looked after. I suggest that greater investment, for example, in foster parents and in improving the training and qualifications of care workers would yield—I hope that the Treasury will take this point on board—savings in criminal justice
1250
and in penal custody. I hope that I have made that point sufficiently strongly and that we shall get a really good and effective reply on these amendments from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I shall try to speak briefly. I am sure that we shall return to the issues of disability and discrimination when we discuss Amendment No. 94. I am slightly concerned that the term "racial groups" has been used in the amendment rather than the broader term "ethnic groups" to reflect the mosaic constitution of our current society. However, I wish to concentrate on Amendment No. 42 which I consider is terribly important.
I am very concerned about children in custody, particularly in Wales. This is exactly the situation that could result in a child in custody having no one directly to turn to. I remind the Committee of the twin boys in Hillside to whom I referred earlier in Committee when child B's needs fall under the England/UK children's commissioner.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, reminded us how difficult it is for a disturbed youngster to pick up the telephone to make contact for help. If there is any doubt whatever that the person answering is completely trustworthy and will act on behalf of the child, the child will not attempt to make contact. If the child cannot contact the commissioner, the whole purpose of the role is lost.
There have been suicides in custody. That shows how despairing some of the youngsters in care can become. You have to ask why they got there. How is it that they are in care? It is because they have been failed previously. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, highlighted, the care system lets them down—sometimes at every step of the way.
Until there was a Children's Commissioner for Wales, there was nothing. Since being in post, the Children's Commissioner for Wales has established open lines of communication with custody services. That is not as good as his formal powers but it is better than nothing. Now it is proposed that the England/UK commissioner will be at arm's length. That arrangement is perceived by young people in Wales as distancing them from their current champion.
I would love the important obligations, as outlined in the amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to be part of the functions of the Children's Commissioner for Wales. But if that cannot be done, they really must be considered on a UK-basis. I completely understand the reason for avoiding a list, but children in custody are in a very different situation. They have to be viewed as a core duty of someone who has responsibility for the children who have ended up in custody because at every other step of the way they have probably been let down. They may have disabilities or learning disabilities.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I shall speak very briefly. I am totally committed to young people in custody. There are issues concerning age here. I am extraordinarily committed to disabled young people. I am president of John Grooms Association for Disabled

1251
People. As the Minister knows from a conversation that I had with her earlier in the week, I also care passionately about the children of asylum seekers.
However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Laming and with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that lists are exclusive, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, rather than inclusive, and that "all" must mean all. My great anxiety is that restriction might be placed on the commissioner in the form of direction from the Secretary of State. I should like the Minister to assure us that all these groups of children can be accessed by the commissioner when issues need to be raised. Like the Government, I believe that the commissioner should he looking at strategic issues but should have to listen to children regarding those strategic issues.
I place on record my wish that all these children should have the right to access the commissioner, even if they do not individually reach him—with 11 million children that is difficult. The commissioner must work with other people and in particular with the children's rights director of the Commission for Social Care Inspection, Roger Morgan, who I think the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned. If we place such a great emphasis—I have mentioned this before—on the commissioner and do not pay attention to those people who must work with him or her in the interests of children, we lose the benefit of teamwork. That goes right through local authorities, schools and all the other institutions that work, I hope, for the benefit of children. I hope that they will be led and encouraged by a very strong commissioner for children.
1.30 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: While heeding the warnings on the dangers of lists from the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, I hope that noble Lords will not dismiss Amendment No. 30 on the basis that it has a list in it. The heart of Amendment No. 30 is the need for the commissioner to promote equality of opportunity. That is what it seeks to address. Later on, we will be moving the need for the commissioner to report on the actions that have taken place to promote equality of opportunity. That is what is at the heart of Amendment No. 30 and, in order to illustrate what is meant, that amendment does mention a list. However, the point of that amendment is equality of opportunity.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has been an interesting and important debate in our deliberations about the role of the commissioner. I want to begin by making it absolutely clear that the word "all" means "all". The commissioner's job is to listen to, and to find ways of talking to, all children; that is, with all of the children that noble Lords have mentioned and with many children that noble Lords have not mentioned.
The second point, in terms of framing the debate, is that, by talking about everything that the commissioner will do, we are investing a huge amount in that individual and his office just from this one debate. We should not fail to recognise that many of the responsibilities that noble Lords have described, for example, about bullying
1252
or the role of different agencies, rest with those agencies and with the Government. It is important that we do not forget that the Government rightly bear a huge responsibility for many of the issues that have been raised and for which they should be held to account—something which noble Lords strive to do. It is against that backdrop that I shall make my remarks in response to the amendments that have been tabled.
I shall address, first, the amendments that relate to the Children's Commissioner. I have already indicated that it is critical that all children and young people are heard, especially, as noble Lords have indicated, those who often do not get the opportunity to be listened to. I was not able to be at the meeting last night that was attended by the noble Lady, Baroness Byford, and was very interested in what she said. However, I have had the privilege in my other life, as it were, and in my ministerial life, of meeting people from many agencies and discussing with them the ways in which they are creatively able to involve children who do not communicate in the traditional sense, as we understand it.
Some fantastic work is being done, not least by Mencap and others, about understanding how to make sure that children's views are listened to, heard and understood by others. That will be a critical part of the work that we do with the commissioner; but, beyond the commissioner, it will be critical in the work done overall by the Government, by local government, and by others in making sure that we recognise that need. I encompass within that the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about minority languages and other aspects of communication skills, which are both critical and important.
We shall be looking at all of those issues in the appointment of the commissioner and will make sure that we find ways to involve the representation of all children in the process in one way or another. We shall take advice from those who have great experience of such matters. I accept the importance of this: the commissioner is the champion for all children. However, the nature of that remit means that the commissioner will focus on our most vulnerable children and young people because they are the ones who are least likely to have the outcomes that children have identified as being critical. Clause 2(5) requires that, in carrying out this function, the commissioner must have particular regard to those who do not have "adequate means" to make their voices heard; namely, many of those groups mentioned by noble Lords today.
Amendments Nos. 34 and 44 were spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. As noble Lords will know, they are about making sure that the views and interests of children and young people who are, or have been, looked after are taken into account. Of course, by themselves these amendments would not include care leavers aged 18 or more. Amendment No. 42 raises the issue of whether such care leavers should be covered in this part of the Bill. I shall return to that shortly. I am grateful to the noble Earl for once again reminding us of the particular vulnerability of children who are, or have been, looked after by local authorities. Noble

1253
Lords made the connection between those who are looked after and the potential for their lives to be, at best, in disarray and, at worst, to lead them to prison, or worse. We are very aware of that. For far too long, as noble Lords have heard me say before, these children and young people have experienced poorer outcomes in many of the areas recorded in the Bill.
The vast majority of children who are in care are there because their parents cannot or will not look after them. They are not in care because they have "done" anything. It is because they have not had, for one reason or another, the kind of supportive, loving environments that would enable them to thrive. With the Quality Protects programme we have attempted to improve services for those children. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to what has happened after the Children (Leaving Care) Act. We are very pleased with the positive outcomes but, rather than take the Committee's time now, I shall write to him more fully on the impact, which is very positive and with which we are pleased. There is a long way to go, but we are pleased. I shall put a copy of my letter in the Library of the House in order to ensure that I have covered that point effectively.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Thornton and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who I am pleased to see back from his trip to China, which I trust was successful. I am very nervous about putting lists in this legislation. That is not to say that I do not accept the value and importance of these groups of children and the passion with which noble Lords have talked of them. I share their sentiments. However, I am very conscious of what lists do. Lists either mean that people focus on the list and not on the rest, as noble Lords have indicated, or they produce silo services. As the Minister responsible for children with special needs and disabilities, I feel that, in the process of identifying them, we sometimes put children in a corner. We identify them in a way that says that they have certain needs and we do not see that for many children there is a progression of need that is often a gradual slope. Our objective is to get to the bottom of the slope and to identify those needs without always feeling a need to put a label on an individual group to identify it. Unless we think of our institutions, such as schools and children's services, as having a responsibility as regards all children and to identify the needs of all children, that is the risk that we take.
My view as a Minister has been that it is the responsibility of all services to look at children with special needs and disabilities, not just services designed for children with special needs and disabilities. That is where I draw my line and I want to ensure that this legislation reflects that aim. So there will be a Children's Commissioner for all children. All of the groups identified by noble Lords are critical, but there are others that have not been identified. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, talked about young carers. We have discussed this many times in the Chamber. The average age for a young carer is about 11. There are also the siblings of children who are very ill and children who are bereaved. I met representatives of the Bereaved
1254
Children's Trust recently and children who are bereaved are a particular group with additional problems. There are also children who are witnesses or victims of domestic violence. We know that there are many children who, for a variety of reasons, do not get the kind of outcomes that children and young people themselves have identified as important and we are enshrining that in this legislation. I agree with the sentiment 100 per cent but that means that I believe that the best way of doing this is to identify all children. We are in conversation with the Disability Rights Commission and the Council for Disabled Children, which I meet regularly, in order to ensure that we recognise the need to include those children in all our work.
Baroness Byford: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have looked at the wording in the Bill and it might be a help to all noble Lords if the word "all" were in it. It is not. It just says "children". I wonder whether that is something that the Minister might consider. I shall come back on the other matters at a later stage.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that we debated the question of "all" on Tuesday and we are looking at it. As noble Lords know, when the Bill says "children" it means "all children" but we have taken that away, as noble Lords will remember. I agree with that.
I have already mentioned the fact that, as Minister for special needs and disability within the department. I take a particular view of ensuring that all services reflect that aim. Indeed, Removing Barriers to Achievement—our document which, in a sense, sets out the next step—is a critical part of it. Inclusion for children is not about the setting: it is about the experience; it is about what happens to children. That is why it is absolutely critical, both in education and in every other service that we provide for them, that children should be included in the broadest sense, whether it be in play and recreation, services provided by other statutory bodies or voluntary organisations. Again, that covers all children.
Although I could, I will not go on at length about the strategy. It is designed to deliver the improvements that we all wish. I mention it partly because developing such a strategy is the Government's role. Although that should certainly involve the commissioner, I do not want our responsibilities in any way to be shuffled off to the commissioner and the commissioner's office. This is about everyone playing their part. The commissioner exercises the strategic overview role by ensuring that the system works. The commissioner is the voice of children and, as I said on Tuesday, gets his power from children. Disabled children are part of the remit under Clause 2(5) because of the particular need to make their views known. I therefore hope that those amendments will not be pressed.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, reminded us, Amendment No. 30 is about the need to promote equality of opportunity for disabled children and refers also to issues of race, religion and belief. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, rightly raised issues of

1255
cultural understanding that concern some of our ethnic minority children. Perhaps I may offer one small anecdote concerning the understanding of some of our most recently arrived families about such matters as the education system. I came across one family who believed that children went into the French system when they were moved up an academic year. As children were not moved up in the educational system in the part of Africa from which they came, and because of language difficulties, they were not aware that their child was falling steadily and substantially behind. They quite properly assumed that children were not moved up unless those educational standards had already been reached. This small anecdote demonstrates the critical need to understand some of the cultural issues and the desire of all parents to do the best by their children. Work on the issue is under way, as I have previously mentioned in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, also raised issues concerning Afro-Caribbean boys such as exclusions and the fact that, although they do comparatively reasonably well at key stage 2, we begin to see difficulties at key stage 3. That is a critical part of the work done by my colleague Stephen Twigg and of our strategy to focus work particularly on the secondary schools with the highest number of Afro-Caribbean boys. We are working closely with colleagues in Ofsted to learn and understand those issues. Again, I completely accept that that is our responsibility and that we need to take it seriously.
I wholeheartedly affirm our commitment to equality of opportunity. That includes looking at the outcomes for boys and girls, an issue previously raised in your Lordships' House. This is about outcomes for all children. The commissioner will determine his priorities based on what he hears from children. As I say, that is intended to focus the commissioner very firmly on listening to children. I believe that that is the way to approach it. I do not think that it is necessary to write that on the face of the Bill.
Returning to Amendment No. 42, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that I have the good fortune, through the all-party group, to be in discussion with the Children's Rights Director about work with the commissioner. I believe that Roger Morgan is very keen to ensure that the relationship works. I think that it will be a very dynamic one. It is critical that the commissioner works closely with the Children's Rights Director and other colleagues. I think it will be a particularly important and special relationship.
I am very sympathetic to the concerns of the noble Earl, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and others including the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about young offender issues. As regards the Bill, we regard those over 18 who are in custody as adults. We believe that some of the issues the noble Earl raised need to be addressed through the work the Government do with the services for those young people. We will be discussing issues such as training and the work being done more fully in later amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. We have to be very clear about the commissioner's role and about the children
1256
and young people with whom the commissioner is working. Perhaps I may be so bold as to say that we should not expand and extend that role on the assumption that that is a solution. Some critical issues regarding these young people need to be taken up, but I do not believe that the Bill is the appropriate place to do that.
Amendment No. 42 deals with the position of care leavers over 18. We have considered that issue in the Bill. As young adults, care leavers are in receipt of specific services arising directly from their experiences as children, which is the point that the noble Earl makes. The co-operation duty in Clause 6 covers arrangements that relate to them. It also covers young people with learning difficulties who are in a comparable position in service provision. We took a different approach because the commissioner's functions do not lend themselves so easily to extension beyond 18 as they are about the views and interests of children rather than specific services. None the less, I am ready to consider how we can positively and constructively address that issue and ensure that the noble Earl's concerns about care leavers are met.
With that reassurance, and in the hope that I have addressed most of the concerns raised in this group of amendments, I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not to press their amendments in the group.
1.45 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the Minister for her helpful and full response. I am very gladdened to hear that she will look at the situation of care leavers over the age of 18. I thank too all noble Lords who spoke in favour of the amendment. Perhaps I may make it clear that I am in no way critical of those who provide care to these young people. They do an outstanding job in the circumstances. It is simply that they have not been adequately equipped to do the job that is needed.
Perhaps I may also make one quick point about the prison system and young offenders. Anne Owers addressed a recent meeting sponsored by the Howard League for Penal Reform and pointed out how greatly 18 to 20 year-olds had benefited from the changes. Since 16 and 17 year-olds had been in the same institutions, the culture had begun to change as people became more sensitive to the immaturity of the elder group of children; they were old in years but young in development. Although she applauded the fact that children were being taken out of these settings, that had worked to the detriment of the 18 to 20 year-olds. The commissioner might have a very useful role in such strategic thinking.
Those young people are cared for by prison officers who have had only nine weeks of training. The Chief Inspector of Prisons toured the Continent and said that practice in this country is at the bottom range of that on the Continent. The practice in Germany far exceeds ours. Two years of training are required in order to work in such settings in Norway. The commissioner could play a crucial role in such strategic

1257
issues. I am grateful to all who have spoken and for the Minister's helpful response, but I may return to the issue at the next stage.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: There has been a great deal of passion and real feeling about these issues and we must thank the Minister for her comments. However, I have to make one comment. Although I back the equal opportunities point which is the basis of our amendment, and although I have considerable sympathy with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and not least with his phrasing that greatest attention should be paid to those in greatest need, I must remind your Lordships that, based on past experience, we will achieve change through legislation such as the Race Relations Acts and—from my own experience—the equal opportunities legislation which sets out that people should be treated equally. With one lot of change you get a leap-frogging effect as far as the others are concerned.
So we will think again with that in mind. We may or may not raise some of these issues again at a later stage. For now, however, I am pleased to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.49 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before ten minutes to three.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Business
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, as there has been a revised list of speakers for the Unstarred Question, Back-Bench speeches should now be limited to six, rather than eight, minutes.

Nuclear Power
1.50 p.m.
Lord Tombsrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what practical measures are required to keep the nuclear power option open, in accordance with declared government policy.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a tacit recognition by Government that we may need to maintain the nuclear option in order to meet our commitments on climate change. Others, including me, while convinced that nuclear power will be
1258
essential for that purpose, regard the security of future energy supplies as even more pressing and the proposed reliance on imported gas as imprudent. But, whatever their protestations, the Government have come perilously close to closing the nuclear option. That has occurred through a combination of disjointed government policy decisions and unvoiced procrastination, both of which continue today.
We have enjoyed the benefits of civil nuclear power in this country for almost 50 years, during which time nuclear stations have generated almost 2,000 terrawatt hours of electricity, so avoiding the emission of around 2 billion tonnes of CO2, if that electricity had been generated from coal. That is roughly four times our annual CO2 emissions. The safety record of the industry has been impeccable. The events at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have not been replicated here, for which we must be grateful to the designers, constructors, operators and safety regulators.
In spite of those achievements, the industry is becalmed in a fog of government indecision, in contrast to the situation abroad. British Energy was saddled with impositions which can only be described as perverse, including local rates much higher than that for any other form of electricity, high fuel reprocessing costs and climate change levy—for an industry which generates no CO2. As though that were not enough to hamstring the company there came the introduction by DTI and Ofgem of the new trading arrangements, NETA, which produced a reduction in the wholesale price of electricity of 40 per cent. The effect of those disconnected impositions was to bring about the financial collapse of British Energy; and the report by the National Audit Office well illustrates the casual approach of DTI in that unhappy development.
The financial problems of British Energy are sometimes used by opponents of nuclear power to suggest that the industry is uneconomic. No form of generation could be operated profitably under such a regime. We are left with an industry of which we should be proud, which has been "rescued" from a government-created crisis and which is now effectively operating on a care and maintenance basis at a time when its contribution to the country's future prosperity and security has never been so sorely needed.
The privatisation of electricity supply removed any sense of strategy from the fragmented industry; and that responsibility now lies uneasily between Ofgem, with its devotion to short-term pricing, and a mixture of departments which includes DTI, Defra, ODPM and the Treasury—a combination which is rich in advisory committees and short on action. DTI nominally occupies the lead role but patently fails to exercise it. This simply will not do. Secure energy supply, particularly electricity, lies at the heart of the country's economic life and requires a better informed and more purposeful approach.
But let us turn from the present situation to the practicalities of, to quote the Government's hope, "preserving the nuclear option". The first need is to see that future investment in generating plant is enabled through the market. At present this is not the case, with the notable exception of wind power, where a

1259
complex system of subsidies has been introduced to induce investment which would not otherwise take place. Here, vast numbers of wind generators are to be constructed offshore, with the aim of reducing CO2 emissions to meet our international commitments and ambitions. In his helpful response to my question in the House yesterday, the Minister indicated that the Government estimate of the total extra cost to electricity consumers by 2020 will be around £30 billion. That represents more than twice the total construction costs of around 10 gigawatts of modern nuclear power stations, with the advantage of continuous supply and sufficient to replace our present ageing nuclear stations. I suspect that many people would be disappointed and dissatisfied with a choice made on their behalf to place all the chips on wind rather than nuclear power.
The tariff structure has to be changed to attract future investment, perhaps by reverting to the earlier practice of basing tariffs on long-run, not short-run, marginal costs. But even success in this field would require a declared strategy, perhaps based on government consents to construction or other means. The industry is now so fragmented that all strategic matters find their way to inter-departmental government committees with their inevitable discontinuity of transient Ministers and civil servants and their patent lack of technical knowledge. The electricity consumer and the country deserve a better fate. This is a highly complex industry, not a table-top game for politicians and economists.
Some serious thought has to be given by Government and Opposition to this decision vacuum and an unquestioning reliance on market forces, which will not suffice, as is evidenced by the present government interventions. The Government could try to get their act together by reverting to an energy department, providing leadership and, it is to be hoped, coherence. I hope that they will do that. By such means, the idiosyncrasies of multiple Ministers and departments could be subordinated to a well considered strategy and would restore a welcome accountability.
The question of nuclear waste disposal has been the subject of determined procrastination by the Government for more than five years since a Select Committee inquiry, of which I had the honour to be chairman, reported. Since then other, more determined countries have proceeded vigorously and it is time that we followed suit. The problems are well understood and soluble; all that is needed is government action. It should be noted that a programme to replace our present nuclear capacity would increase the waste disposal volume by only 10 per cent over half a century of operation and would not affect the need for action today on a present problem which has to be tackled. To delay decisions on new nuclear capacity because of the waste disposal issue is irrational.
An important matter which is critical to any new nuclear programme is that of licensing, where safety is quite properly the dominant concern. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has an enviable record in that field and has served the nation well, but it suffers, as does the rest of the industry, from a shortage of skilled and experienced manpower which would delay
1260
implementation of a new programme. There is an urgent need to strengthen the NII's capabilities in order to start work on the presently competing modern reactors—the Westinghouse APR 1000, the General Electric simplified boiling water reactor and the Canadian Advanced CANDU, the last of which bears a strong resemblance to the SGHWR adopted by this country in the late 1970s and abandoned when the Government changed.
The United States Department of Energy has encouraged the formation of two consortia to develop the designs and safety cases of those reactors, with active support from the administration. We should watch this development closely and seek to take part, if only as observers. We must constantly bear in mind that through the BNFL acquisition of Westinghouse we occupy an important and potentially valuable position in the nuclear field and should seek to strengthen that in every possible way.
I have tried in this brief introduction to be objective and constructive in my examination of this important subject and I hope that the Minister will find it possible to reply in a similar vein. The practicalities of maintaining the nuclear option rest with government. There is a pressing need to establish a competence and leadership in energy matters within government and nowhere is this more urgent than in the nuclear field. Without determined action the nuclear option will steadily weaken. That would be a disastrous outcome to which the Government seem indifferent but which the nation cannot afford.
2 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, the House is extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for giving us another opportunity to talk about this matter. As always, he has made an extremely strong case. As this is a short debate, I shall be even briefer than I intended. I gather that there is not a new list; the Government have simply revised their arithmetic on how much time each speaker has. It is treating the House rather shabbily to allocate each speaker six minutes instead of eight.
Yesterday at Question Time I was struck by the following remark of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury:
"I am beginning to realise what fun I have missed by not taking part in the Energy Bill".—[Official Report, 5/4/04; col. 1101.]
I am not sure that "fun" was the right word, but we certainly regretted not having a DTI Minister on that DTI Bill.
I seek to make only two points in this short debate. A solution to the long-term waste problem must be at least in sight before embarking on new nuclear build. The Government's chosen advisers in this field, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), was originally scheduled to report in 2005. However, I was startled to hear the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, say on Report that,
"the committee is due to report in 2006".—[Official Report, 18/3/04; col. 418.]

1261
I tabled a Question for Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who was then in charge of the Bill, asking:
"Why it is expected that the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management will not now report until 2006, when it had previously been announced that the Committee would report before the end of 2005".
The noble Lord replied:
"CoRWM is scheduled to deliver its work programme proposals by the end of March 2004".—[Official Report, 31/3/04; col. WA 173.]
I then wrote to the noble Lord to ask what was the problem. I have not yet received a reply. I rang his private office this morning to ask when I would get a reply. My letter was dated 6 April, today is 6 May, and I have still not had a reply. I find that rather shabby treatment. This morning I asked the Library to search the web again. Shortly after 11.30 a.m. I got a response: in CoRWM's 36-page Programme of Work 2004—2006, at page 11 the final schedule states that the fifth key output is "reporting and closure", and that the target date for the final output of "recommendations to Ministers" is 2006. That will have been nearly 10 years since the failure of the NIREX planning application in 1997. I share the indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. It simply is not good enough. Far too much time has been wasted in
shilly-shallying.
Perhaps there is hope that it need not go as far as that. This morning there arrived on my desk the Nuclear Industry Association newsletter Industry Link, which states:
"With waste being seen as one of the primary obstacles to new nuclear build, CoRWM's recommendations could profoundly influence the future of the industry. Time is of the essence".
It further states that CoRWM,
"want to extend the completion date from the end of 2005 to the end of 2006, but if the Government refuses, they will have to revise their strategy".
I must ask the Minister: are Ministers really going to accept yet a further year's delay? When will the decision on that be announced?
My second point relates to the nuclear option. A week or two ago we had the annual report on the energy White Paper. On Report, in discussing a new clause, we referred to, among other things, the need to report on what was being done to keep the nuclear option open to avoid dependence on foreign skills and technology. In response, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said:
"My Lords, in the Sustainable Energy Act there is a requirement for an annual report which should cover everything raised in the Energy White Paper…That includes…keeping the nuclear option open. Therefore, we are already required to detail most of the issues—in practice, probably all the issues—included in the prescription".—[Official Report, 18/3/04; col 408.]
By "prescription", he meant in the amendment. So what do we see in the White Paper? Absolutely nothing new. The paragraph in the annual report more or less repeats word for word what was in the White Paper. There has been no progress and no details. It is as if no steps were taken in 2003–04 to discharge that White Paper commitment.
1262
I am being driven to conclude that, so long as the present Secretaries of State of the DTI and Defra remain in office, nothing will be done. They are not prepared to do or say anything that could presage new nuclear build. That is what we are up against. I find this a matter of profound anxiety.
2.6 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, by stressing the fact that it is a duty of government strategically to plan certain facilities, such as ports, water supply, energy and airports. At last they have come off the fence on airports; however, nothing is happening in the other areas, which are all extremely long-term industries. I am afraid that the cycle of doing things is right outside the electoral cycle and completely outside the five-yearly pricing reviews, if indeed they last five years, of industry regulators. Courageous government action is needed. It is amazing that a government with a majority the size of this one's shy away from taking tough decisions.
There is considerable doubt about renewables, and concern about the investment subsidies needed to support them. There is also doubt about the net benefit in CO2 reduction from certain renewables, apart from wind farms, such as biomass. How definite are the Government about the security of our energy supplies anyway? How secure is the base load? It seems that we are getting increasingly nearer the margin. Before long, we will go over that margin, and there will he only one body at fault—Her Majesty's Government.
Sweden, which has eschewed nuclear power, has also faced up to the problem of decommissioning. I believe that it has not decommissioned anything because there is no secure substitute but nuclear power. How dependent are we on imported gas from inherently unstable regimes? Before long, terrorists of one sort or another will blow up supplies on which we are basing our future. How much is being done about fuel economy and combined heat and power? Precious little, judging from the answers that we get in this House. So far as concerns our nuclear capability, I am anxious to know how we can staff it, whether designs are available for which the Government have any preference or whether they are so far away from making a decision that they have not even made up their mind on that. How long would it take from deciding to go ahead to actually commissioning a new nuclear power station? I assume that new nuclear power stations can be built adjacent to existing stations, so at least we do not have to go on to a greenfield site and face all the resulting problems.
Like both previous speakers, we are extremely concerned about nuclear waste disposal. The decision seems to be ever postponed, when others are getting on and taking it. I shall be very brief, because the Minister owes the House a proper reply and plenty of time in which to give it. We need a strategy. It is absolutely dishonest to say that the French will build nuclear power stations and we shall rely on them, because it is not an issue that a government can shuffle off on to anybody else; they must make decisions themselves. I

1263
repeat that the matter must be taken beyond the electoral cycle. I seek some sort of cross-party consensus on how we should go ahead.
2.10 p.m.
Lord Oxburgh: My Lords, what has to be done to keep a particular technical specialist capability alive is a matter of experience and judgment. I suppose, almost inevitably, the relevant experience and judgment is not to be found within government, and must be looked for elsewhere. I suppose it is therefore subject to claims that it may represent vested interests. For what it is worth, I am neither pro-nuclear nor antinuclear. I believe passionately that the nuclear option must be kept open, because the problems that may have to be tackled by keeping it open are so important to us.
Looking at the state of the nuclear industry today, and the effort that goes into research, I see no chance of the nuclear option genuinely staying open. There is very little opportunity even to remain an intelligent customer for other people's technology, if that is what is at the back of the Government's mind. One must retain that capability at the very least, and there really is no sign that we can do it. The reason is that capability depends on people, and if one looks round the nuclear industry today—with the greatest respect to those in it—one cannot avoid the very clear impression that technical capability is very long in the tooth. As an academic discipline in this country, nuclear engineering is virtually dead. The fact that it is not totally dead is due to the support given to particular university departments by BNFL. But it is a close thing.
To build an academic department that can start a research programme and producing students will take five to seven years, even if one imports talent from outside. It will be 10 years before the first students can emerge from it. This is all part of what is needed to keep the nuclear option open. If we look at expenditure on research relevant to the nuclear industry in this country, it is a minute fraction of one per cent of that spent in other countries that run nuclear reactors. It is incredibly low. I do not see how the Government can conceivably justify this.
I hope that the Government have taken note of, and will pay attention to, the extremely careful report that was produced—admittedly with the support of BNFL—by an independent committee of experts with irreproachable credentials. That committee, which I think published its widely available report nine months ago, looked at what was necessary to keep a nuclear capability open. It said that, at a minimum, we needed an expenditure of around £20 million a year, about half of which could come from existing resources. So they were talking about an additional £10 million a year. That is not a large sum in the light of this country's current expenditure on research and development. I would put it to the Minister that if we seriously wish to keep this option open, rather than paying lip service, we must make at least that contribution from public funds to keep the research effort at that level.
2.14 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for raising this issue in an Unstarred Question for at least three reasons. First, he brings to this House enormous experience and expertise. Secondly, he gives those of us who have been seriously worried about the ambivalent view of this Government, and indeed other governments, towards nuclear power an opportunity to smoke out—or try to prise open with a pin—the Government's true feeling, if not policy, about nuclear power. Thirdly, by speaking on the Floor of this House, instead of in Grand Committee, more of our colleagues will be alerted to the apparent lack of urgency displayed about the future supply of electricity generation capacity in this country.
Linked to this last point, it is becoming apparent to me that the Grand Committee process is greatly diminishing the knowledge base of many of our fellow peers. People do not attend Grand Committee meetings, the proceedings do not appear on the monitors, and although the speeches in the debates on the amendments are recorded in Hansard, they are tucked away at the back of the Official Report, and I doubt that readership is high. I fear that we are in danger of reducing the effectiveness of the House by this process. This is not a debate in which to raise this issue, but where else can we do so?
Now that I have eroded yet more of the time we have, I will make a short yet, I hope, cogent speech on the subject of this debate.
Keeping the nuclear power option open is essential if we are not to have blackouts, brownouts or power "outages" in the not too distant future. An over-reliance on imported electricity is fraught with political, economic and logistical danger. The Government's reluctance to be brave—and I use that word advisedly—in not talking openly about the prospects for new nuclear power facilities has very damaging effects. Why would bright young scientists, physicists or engineers opt for a career in a nuclear power industry which has such minimal and half-hearted support from Government and, indeed, lacks endorsement or appreciation by Government? I am utterly convinced that we shall have to proceed with new nuclear build in the longer term. Where will we have the skills to effect that programme?
The Government have made the decision to support the retention and retraining of a core of nuclear experts, but quite frankly this is pathetic. A sum of a miserly £5 million has been set aside over four years. If my mathematics is correct, that amounts to 0.0000001 per cent of GDP, in order to "safeguard our future electricity supply". Even if I am a couple of noughts adrift—and I do not think that I am—it would be utterly hilarious if it were not so serious. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, said in Grand Committee that,
"my honourable friend in the other place is aware of the representations that have been made about this figure, and he is looking at it again".—[Official Report, 22/1/04; col. GC 379.]
May I ask the Minister if his honourable friend has looked at it again, and if he has come to the conclusion that it should be multiplied many, many times?

1265
We are currently one of the major players in the world in the nuclear industry. We have built up a huge expertise, and it is being utilised overseas. If we let this level of knowledge and experience fall off, we shall lose our place at the international table. Other countries are powering forward with plans of a practical nature. I ask the Minister, where is the UK in all of this? And, as a supplementary, does he really care?
Does any politician care? The nuclear industry is one with an unusually long lead time where, even if decisions were taken this year to build and commission a new generation plant, the commencement of commercial operations would probably not take place until the tenure of the fourth or fifth government from now. Herein lies a problem, and it is not one to which we are unaccustomed; namely, the short-term attitude of governments, and their inability to look much beyond the next general election. This is where this House scores, and where we should continue to do so.
In the course of a debate in Grand Committee on the Energy Bill, the Government boasted about the UK's participation in research though the European Union's framework programme for research and development:
"UK participations totalled 266 and these received 21.6 million euros".—[Official Report, 22/1/04; col. GC 380.]
Not exactly a huge sum. That boast will not stand up when the lights go out.
There is a most important point that seems to be disregarded by the Government, and it would be very practical to rectify this problem; namely, that nuclear is a renewable method of producing electricity. We could and would easily meet our emission targets if there were an increase in electricity generated by nuclear power. Conversely, if we allow our current nuclear capacity to close down without replacement, we shall never meet any of the emission targets.
I was one of the 2.8 million viewers of the BBC2 drama-documentary, "If…the lights go out", broadcast on 10 March. That programme cannot be shrugged off as scaremongering; UK audiences are more intelligent than that. It served a useful purpose in highlighting the problems. The website asked viewers whether Britain should keep nuclear power, and 76 per cent said, "Yes". That means that another practical measure would be to undertake a knowledge and information exercise to inform the country of the benefits of nuclear power. Safety has increased immeasurably, and, in other countries, that is recognised. It would be a practical measure to ensure that it is recognised here.
It has been an interesting but brief debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, stressed the importance of confidence and leadership. I would add joined-up government to that list. The noble Lord has done a great service in bringing the matter before the House. I thank him.
2.20 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, as has already been said, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for asking what practical measures are required to keep the nuclear option open. We debate against the background of the fact that nuclear energy now supplies 23 per cent of UK electricity. However, in 20 years' time, all but one—Sizewell B—will close. It will contribute only 2 per cent of UK electricity, so it is proper to ask how that gap is to be filled.
The Question does not ask us to discuss what other measures might be introduced but to consider what could be the future role for nuclear energy. If the nuclear option is effectively to be kept open, several steps must be taken. There are four that I consider to be of prime importance.
The first is a reduction in the capital cost of nuclear reactors. At present, a nuclear reactor produces electricity at two to three times the cost of a gas-fired station. As the noble Lords, Lord Tombs and Lord Oxburgh, and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw said, a good deal of work is going on new nuclear reactors. How soon can they be operational and reliable? I have been in the business long enough to remember the example of Dungeness B in the 1970s. It was an AGR reactor and encountered substantial delays and a massive cost overrun. If new nuclear reactors are to be introduced, we must be satisfied that they are reliable.
The second issue is radioactive waste management, to which the noble Lords, Lord Tombs and Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred. It is sad to reflect that the Select Committee on nuclear waste, presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, reported in 1999 on a perfectly feasible solution—deep geological depositories—but, now five years later, we are still debating the issue. The committee on radioactive waste management may not report until the end of 2006. Noble Lords, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, referred with great concern to that delay. It is an issue of prime importance, and things should be speeded up. Until it is resolved, we cannot keep the option open for nuclear power.
Thirdly, there is security. A new dimension to security is terrorism. How secure are existing and new stations likely to be? Obviously, details cannot be revealed. None the less, the public must be reassured that there will not be serious risk. I would like to hear what the Minister can say about that.
The fourth point has been referred to by several noble Lords: the preservation of the nuclear skills base. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, indicated the extent to which there had been a reduction in the number of people being trained in nuclear skills. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, also referred to it. It is of vital importance, if the option is to be kept option, that the skills should be maintained. Those skills will be required, in particular, in advice on the licensing of new designs for nuclear reactors.
I conclude by indicating that the aim of these and other measures must be to gain acceptance by the market and the public of new nuclear power construction. That can be

1267
achieved only by having the choice of reliable, lower-cost nuclear stations with a high level of safety and lower waste production.
2.25 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, for asking the Question. I agree with the whole thrust of his contribution. This is not the first time that he has raised the issue, but it is a matter of great import.
First, however, I must say that, immediately before the debate, the Government Whip, the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, announced a 25 per cent reduction in speaking time. I do not think that noble Lords are best pleased. Furthermore, the speakers' list, which was issued by the Government Whips' Office, was not in the Peers' Lobby at seven minutes to eleven o'clock. The Government Whips' Office and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, might like to have a look at that.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding talked about the delays in the management of nuclear waste, as did many other noble Lords. I agree with everything that he said. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, started by identifying the general lack of progress on strategic issues and said, "Nothing happens". It is no wonder that there is increasing disillusionment among the electorate. Unusually, the noble Lord said nothing that I took issue with. The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, claimed to be neutral, but he wants to keep the nuclear option genuinely open. He talked about the increasing weaknesses in the knowledge of nuclear science and engineering and warned that we might not even be able to be an intelligent customer for new build. He also talked about funding for research and quoted some figures. However, those figures are negligible, compared with the expenditure on current decommissioning.
My noble friend Lady O'Cathain mentioned, en passant, the difficulties with Grand Committee procedure. I am not a fan of that procedure either. My noble friend also made important points about the UK's nuclear science base and said that the Government would have to be brave. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, talked about the need for courageous action. There seems to be a common theme.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, made an interesting and valuable contribution. He talked about construction and programme risks. He is right. That is why new nuclear power must be placed on a strictly commercial basis, with all the decommissioning costs provided for. The role of government is to provide the right environment. Noble Lords are not convinced that the Government are doing that.
We need not make a decision on the matter today or even this year. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, is asking for one. However, many noble Lords have identified the lack of security for future energy supplies. There is also the problem of emissions. The public will not accept new build until the problem of nuclear waste is resolved. Many outside the Chamber portray the nuclear waste issue as an insoluble problem. There are two sources of waste:
1268
first, there is legacy waste and the waste from current nuclear operations; and, secondly, there is future waste arising from new build, if there should be any. But, of course, we know that that is only 10 per cent of our existing waste liabilities.
I do not think that the public are worried about nuclear safety, which was a point touched on by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. The evidence of safety is too compelling. Yes, there have been disasters, but we know what caused them and there does not seem to be a problem. However, new build would not be acceptable by the public unless they can be absolutely convinced that there is a robust solution to the waste problem.
Unfortunately, most of the public have not read the report on the management of nuclear waste by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. The anti-nuclear lobby is aware of that and they take full advantage of it. The Government have set up CoRWN to examine all the options, which was told. on no account, to report before the end of 2005. The committee has already excelled itself. I understand that it does not intend to report back before 2006, which was a point made by my noble friend Lord Jenkin. The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, referred to "determined procrastination" on the part of the Government.
I have only one question for the Minister. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, this question several times, but I have never received an answer. Perhaps the Minister, as Minister with responsibility for science, may be better placed to answer the question, which I am sure that he has anticipated. What disposal option for nuclear waste is remotely viable other than a deep geological depository? I should be very interested to hear his answer.
2.31 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. Two subjects have been covered, which need to be kept slightly separate. The first question is whether we should consider nuclear as part of the future plans for energy. The position of the Government is clear. We think that nuclear may well play a large part, for many of the reasons given in this House during the debate, including environmental issues and security of supply. But that is one issue, and that is why we believe that we must keep our option open.
The second question, which is the subject of this debate, is the actions that we should or should not take in the light of that. So I shall address the nature of the debate, which is to keep the nuclear option open. There is no disagreement on the other issue. However, I think that some noble Lords have the idea that there is a simple, cheap source of nuclear energy at hand, which, if only the Government would seize this opportunity, would solve our problems. That is not based on factual evidence. There is not an easy solution. If there were, the generators would be coming forward with proposals or pushing for proposals, but we are not seeing that at the moment.

1269
Perhaps I may turn to what I think is the question in this debate; namely, whether or not we are keeping the option open as we very clearly said we would in the White Paper. By way of background, it is not right to say that this is mired in indecision. Very clear decisions were made in the White Paper about our priorities. That was set out. It may not be that everyone agrees, but those decisions were quite clear.
I now turn to the question of keeping the nuclear option open. The White Paper includes a commitment to quicker, more effective planning inquiries for major energy infrastructure projects, a commitment to the introduction of the European Emission Trading Scheme and measures to secure nuclear skills for the future. Those measures will ensure that we have the necessary pool of skills and expertise, if it becomes the right decision to have new build in the future, and should make the commissioning process easier.
The noble Lord, Lord Tombs, asked what practical measures are required to keep the nuclear option open. There are two key measures, which are skills and research initiatives aimed at ensuring that the UK maintains sufficient expertise to address the possible future challenge of new nuclear build. The White Paper also describes the government initiatives to address the issue of management of legacy nuclear waste, which impacts strongly on the public perception of nuclear power.
As I think we have said on a number of occasions in this House, we have put measures in place to support and develop nuclear skills. The Cogent Sector Skills Council was licensed on 2 March 2004. It will take a strategic view of the nuclear sector to ensure that the education and training base can meet the nuclear employers' current and future needs.
Cogent also represents the chemical manufacturing and oil and gas sectors and there are many synergies with the nuclear sector. It will operate through a mix of the Sector Skills Development Agency and industry funding. There are mechanisms in place to ensure that Cogent fulfils its role of meeting the skills needs of the industry.
The Nuclear Skills Group report and the prospect of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority have already spurred other skills initiatives funded by a number of authorities and with which Cogent have been engaged. Examples include the North West Development Agency, which is funding a nuclear skills project to support the siting of the NDA in the north-west. There is an initiative from Manchester University—UMIST—to forge collaboration amongst higher education institutes to deliver nuclear education and research. Energy Foresight is working to develop educational material and teacher training aids. The University of the Highlands and Islands and UKAEA have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the French Nuclear Energy Agency and the University of Grenoble to collaborate on nuclear skills issues.
As regards research, new opportunities for fission research have been announced as part of the research council's "Towards a Sustainable Energy Economy"
1270
initiative. As has been said already, £5 million is being made available over four years. I agree that that is a small sum of money in this context, but this is where, in the new spending review, we will have to look at the extent to which we can start ramping up this amount of money.
In doing that, the research councils consulted broadly in developing the programme. That included Defra, the DTI, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, NNC, UKAEA, Rolls-Royce, the MoD, Nirex and BNFL. The scope covers research under three key themes, which are the maintenance of current generation capacity, fission as a part of a sustainable energy economy and future fission power.
This also needs to be seen in the context of the new UK Energy Research Centre, which is currently being established. It is to be hoped that it will provide leadership in energy research and assist in giving coherence to the UK energy research agenda. It will have responsibility for establishing and co-ordinating a network across the broad spectrum of the energy research community of environmental, engineering, economic and social scientists. It will act as the hub of the National Energy Research Network, which will link to other centres of excellence, research institutes and so forth, and also offer a focus for wider international engagement.
Fission is seen by most people as a well developed applied technology. Any new nuclear power stations built in the shorter term are likely to deploy existing reactor designs. The UK currently keeps in touch with developments in reactor technology through industry involvement in international collaborations like the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor and international initiatives, including EURATOM, IAEA and the Generation IV International Forum.
Noble Lords will recall that the Generation IV International Forum aims to develop a framework for collaborative R&D on Generation IV reactor systems that could be deployed from around 2030. The initiative will allow nuclear technology and regulatory experience to be shared internationally and contribute to safer, more proliferation resistant, sustainable and economic future nuclear systems. The UK has played an active role in its development, without commitment to building a Generation IV design in the UK. There will be opportunities for UK participation through EURATOM. DTI funding for wider participation remains to be decided in the next government spending round.
However, I take very seriously the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. He addressed the key decision of whether we have the resources to be intelligent customers in this. Other than more money to be spent on research, he did not specify what that would consist of, but if he will write to me setting out where he believes there are gaps that would prevent us from being intelligent customers and which we need to fill, I shall be happy to look at that along with the committee of Sir David King, which is considering the subject.
I turn briefly to some of the points made by noble Lords. I shall repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Tombs. I do not think that there is a problem

1271
about the organisation of government. A clear responsibility rests with the Department of Trade and Industry on this issue. I strongly disagree with the noble Lord in that I do not think that we can dismiss the issue of the disposal of nuclear waste simply as something that can be dealt with in the future. It needs to be tackled as a part of moving forward in this area.
It should also be said that there is no point in having experts come to conclusions on this matter unless we can reach consensus among a reasonable proportion of the population that the direction in which we are moving is right. That is why we have to take time with CoRWM to take the right decisions and reach consensus there.
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked about security of supply. We do not disagree that we have to look at nuclear energy as a part of the strategy. However, people are grossly over-exaggerating the dangers surrounding our future gas supplies. Of course there are issues of terrorism, but that is why we are diversifying our supply base.
I want to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, on the idea that the lights are suddenly going to go out. There may be issues about planning, but we are talking about the long-term situation which will unfold as nuclear generation declines. Whatever people may say, we have some time available in order to take decisions. The lights are not going to go out during the next couple of years simply because we have not yet taken the decision on nuclear energy.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, knows well that, at this time, there is no alternative to deep geological deposits for high-level nuclear waste, although a range of options is available for the disposal of low-level waste. The primary issue is more the question of where such action is taken. However, I believe that a whole range of other options is being looked at to see whether they present any further opportunities.
The Government continue to believe that the ambitious programme on renewables and energy efficiency is achievable. However, what is clear within energy policy is that it is very difficult to predict the future, in particular where the three objectives of security of supply, cost and the environment must be met. It is not easy to predict the best combination of those factors for the future. Therefore we have stated clearly that we will consider new nuclear build as one of the options for the future.
I hope that, in the short time we have had to debate these matters, I have illustrated the fact that we have taken action to make it possible to keep the nuclear option open as we move into the period where we will start to close down nuclear power stations. We cannot predict the future exactly, but the steps the Government are taking form a sensible response in order to reverse the situation we had when we came to power, which was one where the whole area of nuclear research had been closed down. We have been turning that around so that if a decision on new nuclear build comes through, we shall be able to seize that opportunity.
1272
As I have said, while we cannot predict the future exactly, we are confident that our plans are fit for purpose, although we shall continue to keep them under review so that we continue to be able to exercise the option.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, can the Minister answer the very specific question I put to him? When will the Government announce their decision on the timetable which has been put to Ministers by CoRWM?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government have stated the timing of their response. I shall go back and examine the position, and write to the noble Lord.

Business of the House: Adjournment
2.44 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am in the invidious position of having to move an adjournment of the House because we are not due to start our next business until ten minutes to three o'clock. I am aware of the fact that there has been some error in my office with regard to the timing of the speeches in this debate. I have not had time to investigate the matter, but I will look into it. However, if a mistake has been made and noble Lords have been misled about the length of time they had for their speeches, I shall certainly see that it is examined closely to ensure that it does not happen again.
Noble Lords will recognise that the Whips' Office provides a service to the whole House. It is rare for us to make a mistake of this kind, but it looks as though one has been made here. I shall repeat the apologies which preceded the debate and, I repeat, will ensure that it does not happen again. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for mentioning this point during the course of his remarks.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I think that the Minister ought to be made aware that the speakers' list is frequently late.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there may be reasons for that. I shall look into the position closely, but on this occasion not only was the list late, but the information provided was not accurate. That has caused everyone some considerable inconvenience. Nevertheless, given the cogency with which views were expressed in the debate, I do not think that its quality was lessened in any way, shape or form. However, I regret the errors that have been made.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, if the noble Lord is making inquiries in the Whips' Office, it would be immensely helpful if he could look into another matter. When I came down to the Peers' Entrance five minutes before we were due to start Question Time, the amendment groupings list was not ready because it was still being run off the press in the Whips' Office. If

1273
the Minister is going to look into the matter raised by my noble friend, I should be grateful if he could also examine my point. Noble Lords taking part in consideration of the Children Bill had to go back upstairs to make sure that the sequence in which amendments were to be taken had not been changed. However, some had been altered.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that point is at least as serious as the first matter I addressed. I shall certainly undertake to look into it. Once again, I apologise to the House. If noble Lords will forgive me, I feel obliged to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 2.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 2.47 to 2.50 p.m.]

Children Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 2, line 17, at end insert—
"() ensure that the content of any material issued by the Commissioner or his staff, whether printed or in electronic or other form, which is intended to be used by children, takes account, so far as practicable, of the means of communication, level of understanding and usual language of the intended recipients."
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 31 and to speak to Amendment No. 45, which is included in this group of amendments.
The wording of Amendment No. 31 refers to all children, and we have already had several debates on the matter. The Children's Commissioner must be required to have a robust policy on accessible information. We are concerned that it should include, for example, a website which fully complies with the Web Accessibility Initiative guidelines and which has been rigorously user-tested by children, including disabled children. For example, children with visual impairments, learning difficulties, and physical impairment should be involved in the testing. A recent formal investigation by the Disability Rights Commission into web access, covered by Part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act, revealed that 80 per cent of public websites are impossible for disabled people to use. It is therefore vitally important that any new website set up by the commissioner for the use of children should not fall down in that way.
It should also provide for information in the full range of accessible formats, such as large print, audio, Braille, disk, easy-read, pictorial format, and VSL video—for disabled children. These should be available at the same time as the original print version. It will not be good enough to produce them several weeks or months later.
It is also important that information in all formats in the community languages is produced, to prevent exclusion of children from black and ethnic minority communities and those brought up with Welsh or Gaelic as their first language.
It is also important that information takes into account the different ages and levels of understanding of children. I am reminded of an exercise I was made to do during my teacher training, in which I was given a number of paragraphs from different newspapers to analyse, according to a formula that detected what was the average reading age of somebody who would be able to understand fully the meaning of such a paragraph.
Having gone through school and university and then had teacher training, and having on the whole mixed with people from the same sort of background, it was a great surprise to me to realise that, when teaching children, I would have to use a more restricted vocabulary, a much simpler sentence structure without a lot of subordinate clauses, and to be very careful about contorted sentence structure. It is therefore vitally important that the adults who produce such websites follow the example of organisations such as the NSPCC—in which I express an interest—which involve children in the production of their websites. We must make quite sure that it is understandable to the age of children at whom it is targeted.
The commissioner would also need to ensure that appropriate communication and other support are available to children participating in consultation events with the commissioner, including independent advocacy where that is needed. It may be necessary to make particular arrangements for access for disabled children; perhaps for signers; for Braille, for notes that are passed round; and possibly even for interpreters. It is very important that all those things are taken into account, and I hope that Amendment No. 31 would make that quite clear on the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 45 is supported by Liberty. It is quite difficult to speak about it here because it is a consequence of Amendment Nos. 50 and 51, should they be passed by the Committee. Those amendments would place the responsibility for drawing up and disseminating guidance about information-sharing with the Children's Commissioner. The commissioner would discharge this responsibility in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Information Commissioner.
The Children's Commissioner would be best placed to make judgments about the balance between the need for privacy and child protection, not least because his or her first interest is the well-being of children. The commissioner would also have the power to review and update guidance, and thereby ensure that best practice was upheld.
Amendment Nos. 50 and 51 give this power to the commissioner. Amendment No. 45 requires the commissioner to report annually on information sharing. There is an argument that the commissioner should report on information sharing anyway, as it is so critical to the well-being of children. I therefore hope that this group of amendments will be accepted by the Government.
I also support Amendment Nos. 47, 48 and 49 in this group to which I have attached my name. They are tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.

1275
However, I will not steal his thunder by saying any more, except that he has my wholehearted support for his amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I should like to speak in particular to Amendments Nos. 47, 48 and 49 in this group, which relate to the annual report of the commissioner.
The Bill proposes that the commissioner should report to the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of State should then lay the report before Parliament. Only when this has happened will it be legally permissible for the report to be published. I am not happy about that, because it seems to me to be yet another manifestation of the commissioner's lack of freedom and independence from Ministers.
Concerns have been expressed to me by a large number of outside bodies—including Barnado's, the Children's Society, NSPCC, UNICEF, and a whole host of other eminent organisations—that a government Minister should not have the power to delay publication of the commissioner's annual report. To the noble Baroness it may seem a preposterous suggestion that any of her colleagues would want to delay publication; but, if that is so, why not take this provision out of the Bill? It is unnecessary and its presence only arouses unpleasant suspicions.
It seems to me, however, that there is an even more fundamental point here. Allowing the commissioner to report to Parliament ensures that it is Parliament and not the government of the day to whom he is accountable in an important sense. The Secretary of State would of course be able to lead an annual debate on the commissioner's work and recommendations, and that is as it should be, but it would be for the commissioner himself to determine the content and timing of his report. I would personally favour having the commissioner present his report to a Select Committee of the other place. The other three UK Commissioners report directly to their respective legislative bodies, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman can make annual and other reports direct to Parliament.
There are therefore clear precedents for reporting arrangements to be structured in this way—and for good reasons. The point of wanting to have a commissioner who is independent is not only that this accords with the letter and the spirit of the recommendations issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child; it is also because if children ask, "Who is this person acting for us?", the most off-putting answer they could receive would be, "This is a Children's Commissioner who is appointed by government Ministers, reports to government Ministers, and may not publish his reports until government Ministers tell him that he can". Children need to feel that they have their own champion battling for them, not some offshoot of government.
I am also proposing, following on from Amendment No. 31, that the commissioner's annual report should be produced in a format which is readily understandable to children over the age of 12 years. If we really want children to feel that this is their commissioner, the
1276
commissioner needs to be able to communicate with them in language that they can comprehend. It is a simple point, but I think it is an important one. I beg to move.
3 p.m.
Lord Rix: The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has made an argument for not delaying the report. Until last week, I served on the Joint Committee considering the draft Disability Discrimination Bill. We have delayed our report to both Houses of Parliament—that is the choice of the committee—because we wish it to be available in all accessible formats before it is laid before Parliament.
Baroness Andrews: Although it is usually the task of an office of this House, which is by nature unpopular—the Whips' Office—I take this opportunity of saying something that is not popular before I start. We had some excellent debates this morning, but we are lagging behind on our timetable slightly. I will try to set a good example, as other noble Lords have done, by speaking to the amendment fairly swiftly. I hope that we can make faster progress this afternoon, otherwise it will be a long time before we reach some of the Bill's very interesting and difficult aspects.
The amendments all relate to the publication of the commissioner's annual report, apart from Amendment No. 31, which relates more generally to the material. Of course we see the annual report as a highly significant public document. It is an opportunity for the commissioner to record in a formal document, laid before Parliament, what he has done and what he has found out in the course of his work, the issues he has prioritised, the actions he has taken to improve outcomes and the responses he has had to those actions. It will be an extremely important document; we want it to be read as widely as possible and to inform public debate and public policy. We have the example of how the Welsh commissioner, on the evidence of the Minister for Health and Social Services, has already, in his very robust fashion, made such an impact.
The case made by the noble Baroness. Lady Walmsley, on Amendment No. 31 is completely accepted and understood. There is no doubt that we want the commissioner's report to be read by young people, whatever their situation and capabilities. That is the purpose of creating the office of the commissioner in the first place. They will have informed his work; they will inform the way in which he presents the argument. I am absolutely sure that if he is going to take any evidence on how best he should produce the report on the Internet and put it on the website, the greatest experts in the world will be 12 year-olds. They will tell him exactly how to do it—how to make the links, do the graphics, get the sound, and so on.
We are intent on involving children and making sure that disabled children, who, in many cases, have a particular facility for hand-held technologies, will be able to access the report as much as possible.
Over the past few years, we have made real progress in how best to reach children, how to consult and listen to them, and how to articulate and amplify their voice.

1277
We issued 30,000 copies of the children's version of Every Child Matters and received 3,000 responses from children, so we have had good practice and good examples of how to do this. Your Lordships will ensure that we do not miss the point and I am sure that any commissioner worth his or her salt will do the same.
We would be wise to see it as an absolute priority that the commissioner should do that but not put it on the face of the Bill. We do not want to prescribe what the commissioner will do; we have confidence in him or her meeting the point with enthusiasm and ingenuity. We would expect the commissioner to produce at least one version for children or young people.
The problem of prescription is illustrated by Amendment No. 48, which is quite prescriptive in seeking to produce a version for children aged 12 and above. We have to ask: why 12? We could all produce a 12 year-old who is very different from every other 12 year-old. Some will have a reading age of seven, while others will have a reading age of 27. It is quite difficult pitching the age right. We could argue that what is needed is a report which would be available to those with the youngest reading age. I am thinking especially of looked-after children, for whom the reading facility is not always there.
I think we have to leave it to the commissioner's discretion and judgment to decide exactly what he needs to produce to get the key points of his actions and concerns over to children. I restate my conviction that he will do this.
The noble Baroness's point about minority languages is extremely important. I dispute the assertion that Welsh is a minority language—it is, of course, the language of heaven, so we have to be very careful how we describe it.
To be frank, we did not expect Amendment No. 45 to be linked to Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. As we will be having a very long debate on information sharing, I hope that the noble Baroness will not mind if we postpone that debate for now and refer to this amendment when we come to the later ones.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 49, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would provide that the commissioner report directly to Parliament, bypassing the Secretary of State. I believe that the noble Earl is the least sinister person in the House; I am sure that he does not mean me to interpret the amendments in any sinister fashion. I can assure him that we have no intention of compromising the independence of the commissioner. It is normal parliamentary procedure and applies to other annual reports which are a record of work programmes and work achieved. It does not amount to a means of censorship. Indeed, we will measure the report's independence by its robustness. Again, I refer to the Welsh commissioner, who has produced some very robust reports.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Baroness is being very complimentary about the Welsh commissioner, but the Minister for Children, Margaret Hodge, was not so
1278
earlier this week, when she appeared before the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. According to a report in the Western Mail, Mrs Hodge said it was disappointing that Mr Clarke, the commissioner, had produced only one report in three years. She furthermore confirmed that she would not extend Mr Clarke's powers to represent the rights of Welsh children on non-devolved issues. Again, that somewhat contradicts what we heard in this House in an earlier debate.
Baroness Andrews: I believe that the commissioner's report was very robust. The Minister for Health and Social Services, Jane Hutt, says quite explicitly in her evidence that he has helped to inform public policy in Wales and is doing the job he is there to do in representing Welsh children. I will not reopen the debate we had on Wales at this point, if the noble Lord will forgive me. We will have opportunities to return to that later.
The fact that the commissioner's annual report goes to the Secretary of State is a matter of courtesy and practice. It is not an opportunity for alteration and delay. I am sure we would all agree that a Secretary of State would not dream of delaying or interfering with the nature of the Ofsted report, for example.
This annual report is a different animal from the others that the commissioner will be making available and putting on the website. Noble Lords have expressed a concern that the Secretary of State may sit on or delay a report. I do not believe that that would happen, and he certainly cannot change its contents, but there is nothing in the Bill to say that he must lay it before each House within any set period.
Clause 3(4) requires the commissioner to publish his report in general as soon as possible after the report is laid before Parliament. It is not unreasonable to accept a similar condition on the Secretary of State's duty under Clause 3(3)(b). If the Committee will permit, I will return with wording to that effect on Report. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her response. By withdrawing Amendment No. 31, I have to accept for the moment that the Government will not put the issue of appropriate material on the face of the Bill. However, I hope that they will undertake at least to include in the job description for the Children's Commissioner that information should be provided to the children in all accessible formats.
I accept the common sense of debating Amendment No. 45 later on. I will leave to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the task of deciding what to do with the other two amendments. However, it may be all right for the Minister to promise on behalf of her Government that there is no sinister intent and that there would be no deliberate delay in publishing the commissioner's report. Certainly, when the Liberal Democrats come to power, I will make a similar promise on behalf of my own party. I will leave it to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to say what he would do were the Conservatives ever to gain power again. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 2, line 19, after "children" insert ", including in particular disabled children,"
The noble Baroness said: We debated this amendment earlier, and I want to thank noble Lords who spoke to it. I have a suggestion for the Minister. I thank her for her acceptance that all children will be included in all relevant stages in the Bill. I accept the reservations made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, with regard to identifying each group, although I do not necessarily agree with him. The Minister told the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that she would consider young people between the ages of 18 and 21 in relation to the amendments that he moved. That is equally relevant to disabled children between those ages, who would rather be called disabled young people.
I hope that this is a helpful suggestion. We tried to include "disabled" in subsection (3)(e). If the Minister cannot accept that, she may be willing to consider between now and the next stage including a new paragraph (f) reading "equality and opportunity", which would cover all of the discussions we had earlier on. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am always grateful for suggestions and I will of course go away and consider the noble Baroness's point. The specific point that I made to the noble Earl related to the relationship between the commissioner and young people in care in the context of young people who are learning disabled.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister because there are young disabled people in care and they have concerns that need to be addressed. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
3.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): I remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 35 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 36 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote Baroness Howe of Idlicote moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of these amendments, which are supported by the vast majority of children's organisations, is to give the commissioner power, albeit within very strict limits and criteria, to conduct formal investigations were the commissioner and not the Secretary of State—as the Bill currently states—to decide that that is the logical and required route. Again, the commissioner rather than the Secretary of State would have the power to decide when reports of formal investigations should not be published—in exceptional circumstances, for example, when the identification of individual vulnerable children would not be in the best interests of those children.
The clause also places a requirement on the Secretary of State to lay copies of investigation reports before Parliament as soon as reasonably possible. As currently worded, Clause 4(1) allows the Secretary of State to direct the commissioner to undertake an inquiry into the case of an individual child. Thus, in both instances the essential independence of action that the commissioner's role requires—and, as we all know, the Government themselves want—is immediately undermined. Those supporting these amendments believe that the English commissioner must be able independently—not just at the behest of the Secretary of State—to undertake such investigations and be equipped with the necessary tools such as the right of access to documents, the power to enter institutions and meet children in private and summon witnesses. Currently, the Secretary of State not the commissioner decides, apparently unilaterally, when, how and if such a report should be published.
Nobody is suggesting that the commissioner's role should be almost exclusively dealing with individual complaints or conducting formal inquiries. Indeed, the restrictions on the circumstances in which such inquiries could be conducted are made very clear in the Bill. However, for the commissioner to be the independent champion for children that the Government have repeatedly stated that they want, these changes, which strengthen that vital independent role, are surely essential.
It has never been satisfactorily explained to me why these strengthened powers, which seem to be an integral part of the commissioner's role in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are not considered relevant to the English commissioner's responsibilities. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us about what lies behind that. The amendments set out clear criteria for the exceptional occasions when the commissioner can use his or her formal powers. It is worth remembering, as I pointed out in my speech at Second Reading, that budget considerations will also be a major influence on the extent to which the commissioner uses his or her power. I hope that the Minister and, indeed, the Government will feel able to accept these important and essentially reasonable amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 36, which would alter the word "may" to "must". I accept that these amendments would ensure that the commissioner "could" order an investigation into an individual child, which we believe is right. Although I accept that that would normally go through the Director of Children's Services, it seems unfair that children in England will be denied the same rights as children in the devolved administrations. The question was raised at Second Reading when the Minister did not explain—and has not since, as far as I am aware, explained—why England will be dealt with in a different manner. Is it right that we should be approving a two-class system? Why are the Government making such a proposal? I urge the Minister to re-examine this important error. Do we really want to create a first and second class citizen for those only making the mistake to live in the wrong part of the UK? My noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Lucas, Lord Hanningfield and others have all referred to this.

1281
In its submission to me, the Disability Rights Commission said that Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 would ensure that the commissioner could conduct an investigation of the case of an individual child. It also says:
"We consider this to be a basic aspect of an effective commissioner and we note that other children's commissioners have used such powers to good effect without letting any individual casework detract from their more strategic activities. In any case, individual cases can often lead to strategic and broader change long-term".
It is an important issue and I hope the Minister will be able to respond to it formally today. As I said earlier, although the numbers in England are obviously larger than in the devolved administrations, it does seem odd to us.
I move now to Amendments Nos. 69 and 70. It seems curious that a Bill which sets up the office of the Children's Commissioner does not confer on him the power to go to court in the interests of children, nor to be heard in court or tribunal hearings—the outcome of which may,—inter alia, affect the interests of children generally. In other words, I am slightly surprised at having to move this amendment.
If children are to have a champion—and that champion is to be tasked with placing them and their needs centre-stage—he must, we believe, have access to the courts. The very fact he has the right to bring proceedings or to intervene may ensure he never has to do so. If he is not given that right, almost certainly it will prove to have been an oversight.
With regard to Amendment No. 70, I have no legal training and am, therefore, not qualified to pontificate on the shortcomings of the law in relation to actions brought by children. However, I do know that it is possible that there are aspects of the law—particularly inheritance law in parts of the UK—which seem to act against the best interests of the child. A children's champion must be able to enter the lists in defence of his duty and to take up cudgels on the child's behalf where there is none other fit or willing to do so.
The Commissioner Campaign Co-ordinating Group has sent a strong lobby about the issue of the Children's Commissioner. I stress again, only in exceptional circumstances would they see the commissioner being asked to take on this particular role. The commissioner's overall purpose can be summarised as working with children to get things changed—I think we all agree with that. Achieving this will mostly rely on the commissioner being effective and an authoritative advocate and mediator, which we talked about earlier.
However, there will be some occasions when the circumstances of an individual child or group of children can only be improved through the commissioner making legal intervention. An example of that would be the child who has been on the local children protection register for more than a year without the allocated social worker. Pursuing a remedy through the courts would assist the individual child as well as others in similar circumstances—exactly the kind of strategic role I believe the Government envisaged. Courts and tribunals have a unique and essential function in reviewing the
1282
safeguarding of children's human rights. It is an absurd prospect to have a commissioner charged with improving children's rights who sometimes cannot use the legal proceedings to achieve that aim.
Baroness Whitaker: I would like briefly to support these amendments because of the experience of the Joint Committee on Human Rights when we visited the children's commissioners in Australia and New Zealand. They would not have achieved their very significant improvements without powers of this kind. That is all I need to say about that, other than to urge my noble friend again to look at the report on the Children's Commissioner by the Joint Committee.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I should like—
Baroness David: I shall speak to Amendment No. 66, to which my name is put, in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. I support this new clause because children must have—as they have been promised—a strong and independent commissioner. The independence of the commissioner has been stressed all through this Committee stage, as I think we all want a really independent commissioner. This means that the commissioner must have the power on his or her own initiative to undertake a formal investigation with appropriate powers when it seems necessary to do so.
I believe we are all in agreement that we do not want the commissioner to undertake a lot of time-consuming formal investigations. Subsection (1) of the new clause provides criteria to limit strictly the decision to undertake a formal investigation. This decision must be the commissioner's and not that of a Minister. It is not possible to reconcile the concept of an independent commissioner with the current provision in the Bill, which only allows the commissioner strong investigative powers when directed by the Secretary of State.
We appreciate the commissioner will be able to carry out general investigations into anything that comes within his or her general functions. However, under the current Part 1 of the Bill, in doing so the commissioner will have no more powers than a voluntary organisation, a journalist or an individual Peer. It does not help for Ministers of this Government to say that, of course, there will be consultation with the commissioner before a direction. That misses the point.
We all hope that the commissioner and the relevant Secretary of State will develop close and respectful relationships; that can only be in the children's interests. There is no room for ministerial direction in this relationship. We are establishing the commissioner not just to work with this Government but with other future governments who may not have the same concern for children's interests. It needs emphasising, perhaps, that the commissioner, as an unelected body, has no powers to overturn the decisions of elected government.
The commissioner's powers are those of review, investigation and reporting. In general, they are powers to influence, and influence comes with authority. That is why—if this new office is to be taken seriously and enabled to act as a powerful champion

1283
for children—the commissioner must have the right to use, on his or her own initiative, formal investigative powers.
I hope for some acknowledgement from the Government today that Part 1 of this welcome Bill needs looking at again to ensure that the commissioner is—and will be seen to be—independent, and that we are establishing something with sufficient powers to add value to the organisations working for children.
In its foreign policy and in international development, the UK has been prominent in promoting to other countries the need for strong, independent human rights institutions. Now we need to create one for England's children. The Government are to be warmly congratulated on initiating the creation of commissioners across the UK. However, it is our task here to ensure that Part 1 of the Bill leaves this House fulfilling the expectations of children and of all those, including myself, who have campaigned for so long for an independent children's champion.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I add my voice to those who have regretted the inclusion of subsection 2(6) prohibiting the commissioner from conducting an investigation into the case of an individual child. Perhaps the first point to note is that the Welsh commissioner does have this right, both under primary legislation and secondary regulations passed by the National Assembly. However, as I indicated earlier, judging by the Minister for Children, Margaret Hodge's remarks to the Welsh Affairs Committee on Monday, she does not think much of this right, or the Welsh commissioner's use of it. Again, I refer to this report in the Western Mail, where it states:
"Minister for Children Margaret Hodge yesterday launched an extraordinary attack on the work of the Wales' champion for the young Peter Clarke. The Minister accused Mr Clarke's office of getting 'bogged down' in individual cases and 'losing sight' of the 'bigger picture' on child welfare in Wales".
Towards the end of the report came the remarks that I quoted in my intervention, when she deplored the fact that Mr Clarke had produced only one report in three years and confirmed that she would not extend his powers to represent the rights of Welsh children on non-devolved issues. Again, I stress that that is somewhat different from what we have heard in this House.
We all know the danger of getting bogged down in individual casework. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, referred to precisely that the other day. However, there are some now notorious cases with which we wish to heaven that someone outside the formal network had got to grips before those situations developed. We shall probably be told that it is not intended to be a function of the commissioner to look into the Victoria Climbié or Toni-Ann Byfield type of case, unless such cases give rise to a general issue, or the Secretary of State directs under Clause 4(1). I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that it deprives the commissioner of independence of action if he can act only when directed by the Secretary of State.
1284
I should have thought that the commissioner was best placed to judge whether he should look into an individual case.
Such cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, has told us, usually do have general implications. That was pointed out in a letter in Monday's edition of the Times. Elizabeth Ewart-James, the author of the letter, deserves to be quoted. She has frontline experience and is familiar with the realities of child care. She wrote:
"One of the causes of tragedies such as that of Toni-Anne Byfield, the little girl shot dead while in the care of Birmingham social services … is lack of staff. Local authorities should keep childcare teams fully staffed, even if managers and those in the plethora of peripheral posts have to stand in for limited periods.
"This would keep them in touch with what is happening on the front line, where I have been working for the most part. Freezing childcare posts to save money should not be permitted.
"There are highly paid managers spending their time promoting better communication, as was recommended after the Victoria Climbié inquiry, although there are dangerously few workers in the field.
"Society clearly wants vulnerable children protected and few people want to do this difficult and stressful job. Surely salaries should also go up".
Perhaps that last part is a bit of special pleading. However, the thing that I noted about that letter, which is worth noting, is the contrast between lack of staff in social services and the "plethora of peripheral posts", with highly paid managers concerned with communication and,
"dangerously few workers in the field".
That is the reality, even after the horrors revealed by successive inquiries, from Waterhouse onwards. It was the Waterhouse inquiry that shocked me, because I had been a Minister in the Welsh Office—although I am glad to say that I was not the responsible Minister over the relevant period examined by Sir Ronald Waterhouse. But I am still deeply shocked to this day that few people knew what was going on.
The Children's Commissioner cannot really be worthy of his title if he cannot dip his toe into the morass that we know exists, which he can do only by examining individual cases. I suspect that the purpose of the subsection is to stress where responsibility lies; namely, with the local authorities that provide social services, schooling, healthcare and the police, if they are called in, as well as the various inspectorates. I understand the Government's viewpoint, and that is all very well, provided that authorities are adequately staffed, trained and resourced, which they seldom are, as most of us know—including those on the Front Bench opposite.
We may well ask some very awkward questions about the Bill, and its entire purpose, if the subsection stands unchanged. Is it simply to provide a public relations facade—a "plethora of peripheral posts", as Elizabeth Ewart-James described them? If there is a grain of truth in that suggestion, the Bill is seriously missing the point. It cannot meet the real needs of the situation if the Children's Commissioner cannot gain direct experience of them. That would be a very harsh judgment on the Bill, but some highly respected

1285
children's organisations have made comments that tend towards that conclusion, although they are too gentlemanly or ladylike to say so pointedly.
The Bill's real target should be the prevention of the horrible tragedies that we have read about and which have horrified the public. To aim at anything short of that is really to miss the point. To prohibit the commissioner from examining individual cases in the blanket fashion in which the subsection does it makes him a tangential figure in tackling one of the major issues of our times. We must either eliminate the prohibition in this subsection or amend it in line with Amendment No. 36, which would allow the commissioner to examine the individual case if necessary.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I have listened to the debate with something of a sinking heart. The concerns that I have had throughout about the appointment of commissioners in general relate to the way in which we project on to them all the solutions to the ills that we have in social care.
I have been a director and assistant director of social services in some of the most difficult areas in London. I have been the chief executive of Childline and have therefore listened to thousands of children talking about the issues that are causing them difficulty. Now I am the deputy chair of CAFCASS.
The issues are very much the same year in and year out. There is, as the noble Lord said, a real shortage of social workers. It is a long historical position that we lost many social workers in many difficult years when social services were cut back significantly. I am a Cross-Bencher and have no political view on the matter, but in those difficult years we lost the professional impetus that gave people the understanding of how to deal with the issues. The commissioner can in no way put those things right unless he takes the overview, looks at local authorities across the board and, with the inspectorates such as the Commission for Social Care Inspection, raises his voice about where the difficulties are. He must identify the local authorities with no stars and where authorities are pushing ahead on behalf of children.
I have had the unfortunate experience of being subject to four child death inquiries, on the receiving end. People could say that that was something to do with my work but, if one chooses to work in really high-risk areas and is prepared to put one's shoulder to those ploughs, children do die. It is sometimes the responsibility of the workers; it is most often not. I wish that noble Lords would wait to hear the outcome of inquiries before making judgments about what happened. Sometimes we have to remind ourselves that parents, not the workers, kill children. That does not mean that I do not think we should hold workers to account. I myself have been held to account for things that I did not do so I know what that is like.
If the Minister accedes to some of these issues, I should like to be absolutely assured that the boundaries between the work of the commissioner and that of other bodies are clear. If there were to be an inquiry, what would the conflict be as regards the
1286
area child protection committees—to be called safeguarding boards—and a Part 8 review if that was proposed? Would the commissioner be dragged totally into child protection when my hope is that he or she will look at children across the board as we develop a much more pro-active, preventive role for him or her?
If the commissioner is to go to court, what would be the conflict between guardians and reporting officers? I am pleased to say that CAFCASS is improving daily and more children are being properly represented. We have to be very clear about such issues of detail. If we have experience from the devolved authorities, could we know what it is? Have they undertaken investigations? If they have, what was the outcome? I ask that even though I am not necessarily clear that that would translate to England. As I have said often enough in this debate, our situation is very different from those in the devolved authorities. I have run an organisation, and now work in an organisation, that works in all the countries within the UK and therefore I have some understanding of that.
Baroness Thornton: That was an extremely pertinent interjection. However, does the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, agree that it is really important to compare the boundaries? Where the devolved authorities' children's commissioners have carried out investigations—I am ignorant of that—what were the boundaries and how did they define them? Surely we need to know that before we can make a judgment. Does the noble Baroness agree that that is the case?
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: It is one of the issues. Those boundaries constitute the difficult areas in which we would find ourselves should the commissioner undertake the kind of investigation that we are discussing.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Laming: I am grateful for the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. The one thing on which I believe we in this Chamber would all agree is that we would like the post of children's commissioner to be successful. The debate that we had on earlier amendments revealed the extent of the range of issues that we hoped that the children's commissioner would be sensitive to and would be willing to pursue. They constitute an enormous range of issues.
Unlike many other countries that have children's commissioners, in this country there are in excess of 11 million children and young people. When the Committee considers the range of situations that we highlighted in our earlier discussions, let alone the ones that we did not have time to discuss, it is clear that the person who occupies the post of Children's Commissioner, if he or she is to be a champion for all children and young people, will have to take a very wide view of their role and their responsibilities.
I hope that there will never be another Victoria Climbié inquiry, partly because I hope that no child will suffer as Victoria did, but also because I hope that we can find other ways of discovering what went wrong in such cases. But if we are to do that, the

1287
responsibility of the Children's Commissioner to investigate matters of that kind, and to have the power to which the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, referred, needs to be used with a great deal of discretion and care.
When I was the chief inspector of social services I was constantly requested by individuals to look into their grievances resulting from the decisions of courts, social workers, police officers, schools or whatever. Since I retired as chief inspector I have continued to receive those requests.
My fear is that we shall overwhelm the post of Children's Commissioner but, more than that, that we shall drag it back into a narrow role of being concerned with second-guessing the issues of other decision-making bodies. There is the mechanism in each of those bodies to review decisions that have been made. I believe that we could drag the post back into a narrow confine concerned with matters of child protection. Matters of child protection are, of course, immensely important but if we are to have a Children's Commissioner who will promote the well-being of all children and young people in our society, we must keep that vision before us and not allow ourselves to be dragged back into what is a very limited role for such a post. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the hope with this Bill is that the role of the Children's Commissioner will be broad-based and that he or she will be responsible for promoting the wellbeing of all children and young people whatever their needs may be.
Baroness Walmsley: I should like to associate noble Lords on these Benches with Amendments Nos. 35, 36, 66, 69 and 70 to which I have also put my name. They seek to ensure that we have a commissioner who is both independent of government and equal with the existing commissioners in the other jurisdictions. It will cause enormous difficulty, not least in terms of the interaction between the new commissioner and the existing commissioners, if the new commissioner does not have the same level of powers.
I believe in listening to people who have done the job. I always listen with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. I have also recently listened to the commissioners themselves who are already in post. They were very critical about the lack of power to enter premises, to conduct individual investigations, to conduct wider investigations without the say-so of the Secretary of State and so on and on. It is quite clear that they believe that the power to conduct inquiries into individual cases is absolutely necessary, as they put it, as a last resort. They do not expect to be the first port of call in an individual case, but they consider that it is necessary for them to have that power as a last resort. Why are the Government so reluctant to give the new commissioner the same powers as the existing commissioners?
In my opinion this matter comes back to what I said on Second Reading; namely, that the Government are not prepared to give enough resources to the new commissioner. The Government have talked about the large number of children in England. I pointed out that
1288
if you look at the resources that are proposed for the new commissioner, each child would have only something like one-twelfth or one-fifteenth of the resource per child compared with the resource that is given to the commissioners in the other parts of the UK to deal with their children.
The difficulties of size could be addressed first of all by adequate resources being given in terms of financial support and in terms of staff, some of whom could act as assistant regional commissioners or assistant London commissioner, as we shall debate later in connection with amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
One way of addressing the matter of avoiding overwhelming the commissioner with work, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, mentioned, is to take away the responsibility of the new commissioner for anything to do with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The commissioners in those countries are coping extremely well at the moment. The Scottish commissioner has not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate what she can do but certainly the Welsh and Northern Irish commissioners are doing very well indeed and want to be allowed to continue to get on with their job in their own jurisdictions in their own way. So there are ways of addressing the issue of size for the new English commissioner, as I like to think of the post, as opposed to UK commissioner. I do not accept the Government's claim that because England is so different and so much bigger they cannot give the same level of powers and independence to the new commissioner. The Minister is one of the most listening Ministers in this Government and we thank her for the response that she has already given at this very early stage in the Bill. I hope that she will be able to go back and use her considerable powers of persuasion with the powers that be above her pay grade to see what she can do to improve this part of the Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I rise to add my support to Amendment No. 35. The experience in Wales shows that the commissioner is involved in listening and signposting but that he needs accurate intelligence to detect whether something is the tip of an iceberg or a one-off situation that warrants inquiry. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether, as the England/UK commissioner cannot undertake an inquiry, he will be obliged to call for an inquiry from another body if an issue appears suspect and warrants further investigation? Can she explain which body might then be enlisted and how it would be financed? How will work for children in Wales, who are primarily under non-devolved authorities, be affected by having two commissioners, one with an ability to investigate and one without? Will that restrict the ability of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to investigate within his current powers? He is independent of the Assembly and has undertaken an independent role.
Lord Elton: The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, has shone a spotlight on a very difficult situation, legal and social, that can develop if unlimited powers of Inquiry are unleashed. This makes me reflect on what we mean

1289
by inquiry. In respect of understanding what is going on and of being seen to be a person and not an organisation, I think that the commissioner needs an ability to talk to individuals and to discover individual situations. That does not need the death of a child or a court case. He should have the power to find out how little Johnny came to miss school for three weeks because it will illustrate and provide a sharpening up of his general inquiry into the condition of children going to school. Without that, his inquiries are going to be statistical, not personal, and he will be seen as an apparatus, not as a person.
I am glad to see the noble Baroness nodding—not that noble Baroness but the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. I shall not attempt to describe for the benefit of readers of Hansard the gesture that the other noble Baroness on the Front Bench has just made; it was entirely supportive, but it was not easy to interpret.
The point that I am trying to make is that the commissioner must know what goes on in individual cases if the statistics about what goes on in all cases are to be correctly interpreted. I hope that, at a later stage, some formulation will be discovered to do that without wheeling out the commissioner to act as some sort of quasi-judicial body.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have not spoken previously in the debates on the Bill and I do so now only as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We have been looking at the Children Bill, and particularly at the powers of the Children's Commissioner and the powers that might apply to the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. Our report on that subject was published yesterday. It repays careful attention because we touch upon a number of issues that will arise on this amendment and others about, for example, the danger of swamping a commission with too many individual cases, rather than having a strategic look, the importance of independence and of powers, the kind of powers and so on. I would mark the document and urge those who are present and those beyond this Committee to study it very carefully because it is the fruits of our evidence.
We have not yet published our report on the Children Bill and the Children's Commissioner so what I am now saying, I am saying in an entirely personal capacity. However, I think it is true that, in the evidence that we took from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, we were all struck by the lack of equal powers to be given to the English commissioner. That seemed to all of us to be unacceptable. I shall perhaps touch on that in some of the later amendments. We were also very troubled about the questions of independence that will arise in some later amendments.
The particular issue about individual complaints that has just been mentioned by my noble friend is quite difficult. I agree with her and with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that plainly the individual child must be able to be taken into account in the general strategic work being done by the Children's Commissioner. If the
1290
prohibition into investigating an individual child is literally intended to rule out considering the cases of individual children, it would be deplorable. On the other, if what is meant—although it is not in any way expressed in the Bill—is that the commissioner is to concentrate strategically on issues of general importance to children and young people and should not be saddled with a vast caseload of individual complaints, then the report that we published yesterday on the more general issue of the Equality and Human Rights Commission bears reading upon that subject.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley was not present to hear this, but the Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish commissioners gave evidence to us and one or two members of the committee asked whether England is different because of the size of the population and whether therefore there might be a case for a slightly different view. To my surprise they seemed to recognise that "one solution fits all" might not make perfect sense so far as complaints are concerned and that perhaps one would need to have some adjustment. I say that only because it is important that the Committee should know that that is the way in which the matter is being looked at. That is not to say that I do not entirely agree with what my noble friend has said; it is simply that the evidence has been taken by that committee and this report deals with one of the issues that has arisen.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has been a very important debate and I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have given the Committee the benefit of their expertise and knowledge in examining these issues around the role of the commissioner. There is clearly a very strong measure of agreement that we want a powerful independent role representing the views and interests of all children and young people and an agreement in substance that children and young people should be able to seek redress effectively.
The Government's approach is that an investigatory or casework role would be unmanageable for the reasons that I gave in my Second Reading speech. We are a country of 11.7 million children and we believe that the proper role for the commissioner is to ensure that complaints procedures that already exist are accessible and effective in handling individual cases concerning children and young people. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for referring to the report published yesterday, which I have not yet had a chance to study. The comments that he made about commissions being swamped are important and I shall study the report.
In my Second Reading speech I said very clearly—I say it again to the noble Lord, Lord Lester—that the commissioner can talk to anybody or to any service provider. There are no constraints on who he talks to. Indeed, we would expect the commissioner to talk to individuals, organisations and representatives of organisations in the course of his work. But fundamentally our judgment is that the role of the commissioner is to complement existing children's services and not to replace them. We believe that investigations are often best carried out by local social

1291
services or other such bodies, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, eloquently said. I shall not attempt to repeat their points, but I agree with them completely. It is important that we do not second guess the work of other agencies but that we give the commissioner the strategic role that we believe is so very important.
Amendments Nos. 35, 36 and 66 would allow the commissioner to investigate individual cases. We believe that that fundamentally changes the nature of the commissioner that we have set up and that to adopt this approach in England would run a risk of the commissioner being caught up in a large number of individual cases. We do not believe that that would enable the commissioner to fulfil the powerful strategic and influencing role that we wish him to play. As I said, that is by no means to dispute the need for satisfactory handling of individual cases.
As noble Lords indicated, different arrangements are in place in other parts of the United Kingdom. When the commissioners addressed the all-party group at which I was present, the Welsh commissioner said that he currently had 500 cases before him. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that I value and recognise the excellent work that the Welsh commissioner and his colleagues do. I was not there when my right honourable friend participated nor have I yet seen a transcript of what was said. However, I can say, because I have just checked, that she did not criticise the work of the Welsh commissioner for the quality of the report. I think it is important to say that in this place.
This is not about creating, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, described, a two-class system. We have a different approach. That is not to devalue or undervalue the work of any other commissioner; it is simply to say that we judge an alternative as more suited to our circumstances. I would wish that to be clear and to send my good wishes to the other commissions with which we are working.
4 p.m.
Baroness Byford: I am grateful to the Minister for her comments. I know that we all want to achieve the ultimate goal of ensuring that all children are well represented and looked after by an independent commissioner. However, perhaps I may remind her that our amendment says that the commissioner "may" investigate, not that he or she has to investigate everything. It just provides them with the facility to do so. Current systems would deal with the sort of complaints that she thinks might be referred to the commissioner on an individual rather than strategic basis. But is that not true also in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? What is different in the devolved administrations? I cannot see the logic of that argument.
I can see the logic in saying that there are more children in England; I have no difficulty with that. Later in our consideration of the Bill, perhaps we will consider the possibility of having more than one commissioner for England, as the noble Baroness,
1292
Lady Walmsley, was perhaps hinting. However, I leave that point for now. The immediate problem is that the Minister seems to be asking for a completely different system for England without a justification for the request other than numbers. The systems available to England are the same as those in Wales and Northern Ireland. That is why I raise the issue now.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that issue, which I hope to address later in my comments. I say immediately, however, that the number of children dealt with is an issue; I would not for one second pretend that it is not. This is also about a different approach. As I say, that is not to devalue or undervalue other approaches. Our approach is to say that it is critically important that we have a commissioner who is focused on all children; who looks at the outcomes that children themselves have identified as of great importance, and continues to refine and re-examine those; and who takes a strategic overview, looking at systemic failure.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, in raising not only the specific case of Toni-Ann Byfield but also the more general issue, described what he believes may be more systemic failure. The commissioner would unquestionably consider that. However, in our case, for a number of reasons, that would not entail looking at the individual cases. The first reason is the sheer volume, an issue to which I will return. Secondly, we believe that that is best done by looking at the way in which our current procedures and practices deal with individual cases. That is our approach. That is not to negate other approaches or to say that one approach is better than another. We have adopted and stand by that approach. We are absolutely clear that we believe in it.
I was taken with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on Second Reading, when he said:
"We must hold on to the belief that the main task of the commissioner is to be an advocate for all children … The post should not be used to second guess the decisions of the authorities, not only because there are well established mechanisms in place for that but also because the commissioner post will be worthwhile only if it brings a new dimension to the well-being of millions of children and young people".—[Official Report, 30/3/04; col. 1224.]
I agree wholeheartedly with those comments.
It is vital that those who provide services to children are listening to children and young people and taking action. As I have said several times already to the Committee, I do not believe that investing more than is appropriate in this individual and office will help to develop the commissioner role in the most appropriate manner. The commissioner is not a substitute for everything else. It is not a substitute for government or processes and procedures that are already in place. It enhances and adds to the value of what we can do. I am categorically clear that our approach to England will work well.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Of course the Children's Commissioner can consider the case of individual children at the discretion of the Secretary of State, but he cannot do it at his own discretion. Would it not be

1293
an indication of his independence of stature and his quality if he were allowed that discretion which is now reserved to the Secretary of State?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This is where the noble Lord and I disagree. I may be a listening Minister, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, says, but I am absolutely clear about this. The role of the commissioner is as I have defined it; it is to enhance and to take the overview. We believe that there may be occasions when the Children's Commissioner is the most appropriate body to look at individual cases. The noble Lord, Lord Laming, did so well on behalf of all of us in investigating an individual case and not least in seeing what it told us about what needed to be done. This legislation is in part a result of that. We are very clear that there may be such circumstances. However, we are also clear that, as we have defined it, that is not the commissioner's key role and purpose.
Baroness Walmsley: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I do so for the purposes of clarity. Will she confirm that, under Clause 2(6), the Children's Commissioner cannot,
"conduct an investigation of the case of an individual child",
even with the say-so of the Secretary of State? I think that the Secretary of State's say-so is to do with general inquiries. Am I not correct about that?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: What we have been clear about, and we shall debate the matter later, is that in the powers under Clause 5 the Secretary of State invests in the commissioner the ability to look at inquiries. That is important and we believe that that is an appropriate way to take the matter forward. It is completely understandable that noble Lords may take a different view, but the Government are clear where we want the commissioner to focus his attention and what we want him to do. As I have said, the situation is different from his colleagues in other parts of the United Kingdom and other parts of the world, but it is appropriate and is the right way forward. We are clear about that. I hope that I might continue on the basis that this is where the Government believe it is the most appropriate way forward. Bearing in mind the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments and to reflect further on the matter.
Amendment No. 37 makes a different proposal, which is that the commissioner could only pursue individual cases as part of a wider investigation. There is a fine distinction to be made here. For reasons that I have already given, we do not believe that it is appropriate for the commissioner to take up individual cases, but we do expect the commissioner to investigate issues that come to his attention as a result of approaches from individual children and to want to talk to children about their experiences in pursuing such issues. The commissioner will be able to advise the Secretary of State regarding cases that he or she believes warrant an inquiry. These are all options that
1294
will be open to the commissioner. They are distinct in nature from investigating individual cases, but I hope that they illustrate the wide-ranging discretion that the commissioner should have.
Amendment No. 38, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes related proposals that would enable the commissioner to be involved in legal action on behalf of a child when he considers that such action is needed to establish a point in law. I have already explained that the main focus of the commissioner's work is on influencing the way that our system works to achieve better outcomes for children and young people. As part of this, the commissioner should be able to look into complaints and advocacy systems, as well as the legal system, to ensure they are child friendly and work effectively for children.
However, it should remain the responsibility of existing bodies such as the Official Solicitor and CAFCASS to act on behalf of children. The commissioner will, of course—and this is important in addressing some of the concerns raised—participate as a witness in any court proceedings if called upon to do so. Again, both amendments could tie the commissioner up in casework to the detriment of the strategic role that we believe is most appropriate for us to set up. I therefore invite noble Lords to withdraw the amendments.
Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 also cover the commissioner's possible involvement in legal proceedings—in the case of Amendment No. 69, a power to bring or intervene in legal proceedings and in the case of Amendment No. 70, a power to provide assistance in relation to legal proceedings. Again, the question arises whether, in giving the commissioner such powers, we would cut across the avenues already open to children in need of legal representation. Representation and assistance for children seeking legal redress is already available through a next friend, a guardian ad litem or a "litigation friend". Alternatively, a child may itself instruct a solicitor if it is mature enough and this will be accepted by the court. In certain cases, such as applications for care and supervision orders, the court shall appoint a CAFCASS officer for the child. Giving a similar function to the commissioner would lead to duplication and confusion and, therefore, is not supported by the Government.
The commissioner may, of course, make children aware of the existence of these arrangements and comment on their effectiveness in meeting children's needs, if appropriate. It is important that the legal system works to support children. But, we believe that the systems are in place. The commissioner's role is to check that the systems do work and to advise government. That is the right role for the commissioner, rather than to take on the role in person.
Our approach is based on our judgment as to how the commissioner can be most effective in supporting children. We believe that these amendments would detract from that effectiveness. So, with those explanations of our intentions and with the over-arching view of all noble

1295
Lords that we want the commissioner to be effective in supporting children, I call upon noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: Before the Minister sits down I have a brief question for clarification. She is persuasive in what she said about not having the power to investigate individual cases, but the noble Baroness talked about "systematic failure". Is it within the remit of the commissioner that he can investigate systematic failure? What counts as systematic failure? I will use an example from another field: a systematic failure might involve a hospital where there is an undue number of child deaths, or another hospital where issues of consent in relation to retained organs arise. Can the Minister give us an example or two of what might count as a systematic failure that would be within the remit of the commissioner to investigate?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I will try to give the right reverend Prelate some examples and perhaps follow that up in writing and place a copy of the correspondence in the Library of the House, because it is important that we understand the distinctions.
A commissioner, when he comes across incidents in children's lives, will have the power to look at anything that he wishes to, and talk to anybody he wants. To take an earlier example, the commissioner may see advertising that he believes tries to get children to do particular things, or may believe that we need to look at aspects of advertising. If, when looking at child healthcare issues, he is concerned that some children cannot get the advocacy that they need, or about whether particular aspects of healthcare are appropriate and relevant to children, he can investigate the matter, if he so wishes.
If the Secretary of State believes that an individual case should be investigated, he has the power to direct the commissioner to do so. To take the obvious example, had there been a Children's Commissioner at the time of the Victoria Climbié case, the Secretary of State would have directed the commissioner to investigate it. That perhaps gives Members of the Committee some examples of the differences between the different powers.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I understand perfectly why an individual child's case might not be suitable for the work of the Children's Commissioner if there are effective alternative remedies. However, I do not understand why it is necessary under Clause 4(1), which we shall discuss later, for the Secretary of State to direct the Children's Commissioner to hold an inquiry into the case of an individual child where it raises issues of relevance to other children. If we are to have a Children's Commissioner worthy of the name, I do not understand why that matter should not be within the complete discretion of the commissioner. That seems to be completely unnecessary state censorship.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is certainly not state censorship. If the law provides that the Children's Commissioner shall not deal with individual cases, we cannot then say that he can, if he so wishes, at his own discretion. We are clear that the role of the commissioner is strategic overview. He has an overarching role to look at what happens systemically in support for children and to investigate, in conversations with children—taking his power from children—the issues that concern children and young people. He must look across a range of areas of public and other life to ensure that children are well cared for and that the systems respond. Where it is clear to him from his correspondence and elsewhere that that is not happening, his role is to carry out an investigation. That is absolutely clear.
We recognise that there will be exceptional circumstances, such as the appalling tragedy of Victoria Climbié, where it is appropriate for an investigation to take place at the highest possible level to establish the lessons that must be learnt, not just from the individual tragedy, but for the whole system. Much that we had to learn from the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, is invested in the legislation and, more importantly, in the Green Paper Every Child Matters. We have set up the opportunity, where it is clear that that will happen, for it to happen. To make that work in law, it is important that there he a direction from the Secretary of State. The Bill cannot provide that the commissioner may not look at individual cases but can do so sometimes.
We have made clear the reality of the relationship. I have no doubt that, if the Children's Commissioner felt that certain cases needed to be investigated, he would be in dialogue with the Secretary of State about that. Regardless of the concerns of Members of the Committee that one Secretary of State might be receptive and another might not, these are matters of huge public interest that do not simply rest on the deaths of Secretaries of State. The Victoria Climbié case did not rest on such a factor; it shocked many noble Lords and much of the population. There was a response to that. There must be clarity about where the power comes from, but we would expect the Secretary of State and the commissioner to be in dialogue.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am sorry to ask the same question in a slightly different way, but I am still not clear. I understand perfectly the argument and sympathise with it. However, I do not understand why one could not amend the law so that, instead of absolute prohibition of investigations of individual cases, it gave that as the starting point and provided the exception in Clause 4(1)—but instead of leaving the Whitehall official to decide, it would be up to the Children's Commissioner. The amendment would say,
"except where in the case of an individual child there are issues of relevance to other children which, in the opinion of the Children's Commissioner, warrant investigation".

1297
I do not understand why we must control the Children's Commissioner in that respect, if we are to have one that is worth having at all. Why would the Minister be a better judge of such matters than the Children's Commissioner?
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I wish to ask about the residence of the power. One of the things that concern me greatly about commissioners generally is accountability. When there is a decision to have an inquiry of the standing that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was involved in, I have heard from him often that it ground him to a halt on everything else for a year. I assume that we would not want a commissioner to be personally undertaking the kind of investigation that took him out for a year. That kind of investigation takes place after much deliberation, not just by one person—the Secretary of State—but by a whole number of people taking advice. Who would decide with the commissioner how they would take this work forward if they are going to have these kinds of powers? I am simply probing where the boundaries are. I think it is absolutely unacceptable that any individual would have total power to decide to investigate something of the significance of the Climbié inquiry, without being accountable somewhere else in the system. I am totally unclear as to where that accountability is, certainly in the Welsh system—I am not as familiar with the others—and I would need to be clear if that were so in the English system. Otherwise it is power without accountability.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I agree with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, has said, and the accountability in this case rests with the Secretary of State. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, is trying to do and he is probing very well in determining the independence and the importance of the commissioner. We are clear that we do not wish to see a commissioner who becomes the court of last resort for every case, the place that everybody goes to because they have the discretion, instead of making sure that the system is working effectively. It is absolutely clear to us that the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government and accountable to Parliament, must be that place of last resort in working with the commissioner. It is critical for this new role that there is clarity about what it is and that we set this position up in a way that is appropriate to the role that the commissioner will be undertaking on behalf of children.
Lord Elton: I have a neutral and administrative question to ask. In this and other debates, the noble Baroness has promised to write to individual Members of the Committee and place copies in the Library. It would be immensely helpful if they could actually be copied direct to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate as well.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall be delighted to do that. I am very happy to send copies of all letters to all Peers who have taken part in the debate.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I have not intervened before in the general discussion because I was not
1298
entirely certain that I was entitled to do so. I have listened to everything that has been said and there clearly are differences of views. I want to end on two points. First, the whole aim of our amendment was to remove the powers, exclusive to Secretaries of State, to direct either a form of investigation or undertake an individual investigation, and transfer them to the commissioner, as we believe is the case with the other commissioners. The reason for that was to strengthen the independence of the English commissioner, and to have parity between all of the commissioners.
Secondly, it appears that 11 million children are going to have fewer rights than children in the other groupings. I find that very hard to understand. Earlier today we discussed rights and the Minister gave an undertaking that she would look at the whole process of whether rights could be written more firmly on the face of the Bill.
In conclusion, because I know we are short of time, I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage, but there is a great deal to think about between now and Report in terms of deciding whether one would wish to return to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 2, line 25, leave out "may" and insert "must"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 40 to 44 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Annual report of Commissioner]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Baroness Howe of Idlicote Baroness Howe of Idlicote moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert "and an account of the steps taken by him to promote equality of opportunity"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment relates closely to Amendment No. 30, which would have ensured that the equal opportunity route was followed, as is required of other children's commissioners. Regardless of whether that amendment was accepted or not, there should still be a duty on the commissioner to report on equal opportunities issues that have come to his or her attention or on which he or she has taken action. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I have put my name to the amendment. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, that, even if, regrettably, the Government resist our proposal to put the promotion of equality of opportunity into the objectives of the Children's Commissioner, the public—minority groups in particular—will want to know, at least, what action the commissioner has taken during the year to promote equality of opportunity. It would not be unreasonable to put such an obligation on the commissioner into the Bill.

1299
Such a provision would be consistent with the positive equality duties set out in Article 2 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and with the Government's avowed commitment to a new, inclusive society. The precedents for such specific cross-cutting equality duties on statutory bodies include the equality duties imposed on the Learning and Skills Council and the Greater London Authority. Future disability legislation will impose duties on all public authorities to exercise their functions in a way that avoids adverse effects on, for example, disabled children and positively promotes disability equality. The same would apply to other minority groups.
Similar duties are already in place for race, but no equivalent duties are planned for gender, sexual orientation or religion. Nor are there to be equivalent duties to promote equality regardless of family status, as would apply, for example, to looked-after children or children from one-parent families. It makes sense to have a broad-based duty on the commissioner to report on what he or she has done, so that the public could know what he or she has done to address issues of multiple discrimination and challenge the systems that create the discrimination that operates against such people.
Baroness Byford: My noble friend Lord Howe's name is attached to this amendment. As I have spoken at length on previous amendments, I shall not go through what I said again. I just wondered whether my suggestion of paragraph (f) might be relevant here. Perhaps the Minister will bear that in mind. I support the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: I thought that I had bagged paragraph (f) on Tuesday just before 10 p.m. I suggested that paragraph (f) would look at the relationship of children with families. Perhaps I may suggest that the noble Baroness's suggestion becomes paragraph (g).
Baroness Massey of Darwen: I should like to explore something in respect of the amendment. I recall the Minister saying previously that she would accept an amendment to Clause 2(7), so that it would read,
"the Children's Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child".
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I already have.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: That is what I am saying. Surely, if,
"the Children's Commissioner must have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child",
reference would have to be made to that convention in any report that he made. Is equality not very much covered in that convention?
Baroness Andrews: Members of the Committee are relentless in their pursuit of paragraphs (f) and (g). What can I say, except that we will look closely at their suggestions? Two issues are raised by this debate. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness: I shall take my cue
1300
from her. I shall not rehearse our commitment to disability and equal opportunities either. We had a very good debate earlier. I shall go straight to the substance.
As regards reporting back on equality of opportunity, because the commissioner is concerned with outcomes and is doing his work within the framework of the UN convention, he will be bound to report on what he has achieved in terms of equality of opportunity. We know that outcomes are not equal for all children. Children's situations, circumstances, attitudes and ability to access information differ. It would be extremely unlikely that the commissioner would not report on how that fundamental objective was being achieved.
The annual report will be an opportunity for the commissioner to tell us what he has achieved, what he has recommended and how those recommendations have been followed through. That will be his most important weapon in the armoury of public—I shall not use the term "shame"—exposure. We expect that to be as robust and clear as possible in terms of his achievements and other people's responses or, indeed, failure to respond.
The commissioner may well decide—we would think that it is very unlikely that he would not decide—to report on equality of opportunity in his annual report and to follow through on all his actions and the responses to them. For the reasons that we are saying consistently, we would not want to prescribe too much in the Bill. With those assurances, I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
"SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER
(1) The Children's Commissioner has, subject to the following provisions of this Part, the following specific functions in respect of the sharing of information—

(a) to draw up and disseminate to the persons and bodies to whom sections 8 and 23 apply guidance as to good practice in sharing information;

(b) to draw up and disseminate to the persons and bodies to whom sections 8 and 23 apply guidance as to the circumstances in which it is appropriate for those persons and bodies to share information;

(c) to maintain under review the guidance set out at paragraphs (a) and (b).

(2) In drawing up the guidance set out at subsection (1)(a) and (b), and in reviewing such guidance under subsection (1)(c), the Children's Commissioner shall consult with—

(a) the Secretary of State;

(b) the Information Commissioner;

(c) such other interested persons and bodies with statutory responsibility for children as the Children's Commissioner sees fit.

1301
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations subject to affirmation by each House of Parliament provide for the guidance referred to in subsection (1).
(4) In this section, "information" has the same meaning as in section 8 and section 23."
The noble Baroness said: I apologise to the Committee that I have been unable to be present so far due to other commitments, but I have been following the debates closely. In a sense, Amendment Nos. 50 and 51 are a precursor to the somewhat more substantial debates that we shall have on the vexed issue of Clause 8. At this point, I do not want to spend a great deal of time on this issue. I imagine that various Members of the Committee will want to talk about Clause 8 at considerable length. The purpose of these amendments is to place primary responsibility for the drawing up and dissemination of guidance on information sharing with the Children's Commissioner. Discussions so far on the many aspects of the post of Children's Commissioner have centred on the extent to which the commissioner will be viewed as the independent voice for children, whose first and last responsibility is for children and who therefore in practice would be best placed to issue guidance on what is perhaps the most difficult element in the whole Bill. Indeed, the sharing of information between professionals is one of the most difficult issues in childcare.
Noble Lords will know that the issue of information sharing between professionals in this area has come up time and again. It is raised every time a review is held into a case where a child has died. Over the past 30 years people have sought a solution to the problem of how to get professionals to talk to each other effectively. The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to this in her speech at Second Reading. Many noble Lords are worried about the provisions in Clause 8 on information sharing, given how starkly they are set out.
I believe that there is the potential for a false assumption to be made; that is, that the debate on information sharing will be conducted by two opposing forces. One force will comprise those of us who may be characterised as information anoraks versus those who care about children. That is a false and harmful distinction. It is to the credit of those whose primary knowledge of and responsibility for data holding and data transfer that they have recognised that the lengthy and no doubt eloquent arguments which will be put by the Minister about the need to ensure that such information sharing as takes place—and we all agree that it should do so—is done only in the best interests of children.
Therefore the provisions of these amendments ensure that the responsibility for issuing guidance about this very difficult and tense operation lies with the Secretary of State and the Children's Commissioner working with the Information Commissioner. By placing responsibility with those people, it will be possible to make the most difficult of balanced judgments about what is in the best interests of children, thus achieving the balance required between the need for privacy and the need to share information that will protect children.
I believe that the amendment also covers a particular matter to which it would be helpful to draw the attention of the Committee. I refer to the power of the Children's Commission to review and update guidance on information sharing. The world of information technology changes a great deal faster than do the workings of legislation. We believe that this would be an important and helpful contribution to what is perhaps one of the most vexed issues in social care. The provision will enable best practice to be continually updated and disseminated to practitioners.
Perhaps this is a slightly premature debate since it is taking place in advance of our consideration of what may happen with Clause 8, but we believe that there is a good case to be made for ensuring that responsibility in this area lies with the Children's Commissioner. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: I rise to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, to which I have added my name. I need not add a great deal to the thinking and purposes that underline the amendment. As the noble Baroness said, the amendment foreshadows our debates on Clause 8 that we shall come to later in Committee. The Minister is in no doubt about the considerable misgivings that I and others have about that proposal in its current form. As I say, we will come to that in due course. For the moment, and given the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I shall focus on only one issue of relevance.
I believe that the critical point here is that a distinction needs to be drawn between the concepts of information-sharing and data-sharing. As I have understood the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the tragedy of Victoria Climbié, there are two different but related problems to be addressed. There is the issue of what sort of mechanisms should be put in place to ensure appropriate recording of information and data about children, partly as a means of highlighting causes for concern at their earliest opportunity but also to ensure that wider, substantive issues in respect of children's interests and welfare are very much to the fore. In fact, the Minister was forceful in emphasising this in respect of an earlier amendment.
In this context, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, advanced recommendation 17 in his report; namely:
"The Government should actively explore the benefit to children of setting up and operating a national children's database on all children under the age of 16. A feasibility study should be a prelude to a pilot study to explore its usefulness in strengthening the safeguards for children".
The Government's response to this is elucidated in Every Child Matters: Next Steps at paragraph 2.37, which states:
"The Children Bill provides the framework for the establishment of information of information sharing systems to ensure that practitioners are able to provide children and their families with the help and support they need at the earliest opportunity".
Indeed, this is endorsed by the Minister in her letter of 29th April, where she states:
"The information databases we are proposing under Clause 8 represent an important tool to facilitate information sharing".

1303
In effect, this is a practical or technological problem, to which Clause 8 is the Government's proposed solution. However, there is the no less demanding problem of how to ensure that the sharing of information—of actually talking and communicating—is to be established among the various bodies, agencies and persons concerned with children's welfare.
In turn, this is a cultural problem. The BMA observed in the tragic case of Victoria Climbié:
"It was not that the professionals involved were unable to exchange information; it was that they didn't".
It is salutary to reflect that very many of the recommendations in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, allude to this with varying degrees of emphasis. Indeed, in a speech in January of last year he observed:
"I make clear in the report why I conclude that the wellbeing and safety of children cannot be achieved by one agency acting alone, but will continue to depend upon each of the key agencies fulfilling their distinctive and separate duties. More exhortation that services should work better together manifestly is not enough. Actual change is required".
Although in the main the Bill is curiously silent on the point, the Government are equally aware of the requirement to address this, having stated in Every Child Matters:
"We want to value the specific skills that people from different professional backgrounds bring, and we also want to break down the professional barriers that inhibit joint working".
The amendment seeks to address the point. In giving the commissioner an overarching statutory duty to issue guidance as to best practice in respect of information-sharing, all those involved in the welfare of our children will be under no illusions as to the necessity of communicating with each other and talking amongst themselves as an essential component of their duties to offer children protection.
I acknowledge that, up to a point, the Government are seeking to attend to this via the expedient of the statutory guidance on co-operation under Clause 6 and other parts of the Bill. None the less, it strikes me that, without this amendment or something like it, there is a very real risk that any data generated by Clause 8 may not be worth very much. If the issue of how to change the current culture of an apparent absence of information-sharing is not addressed—and we should bear in mind that the tragedies of Soham and Toni-Ann Byfield seem to have been afflicted with the same sort of malaise—it will be more certain that we have to endure further tragedies. The mere existence of the database proposed in Clause 8—the Government have identified it correctly as a "framework"—does not address the dilemma.
It is perhaps a little presumptuous, but I conclude by suggesting that the amendment has the best chance of satisfying an earnestly felt desire expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who said:
"I hope that never again will any senior manager or member be able to say, 'But I did not know. Nobody told me".
4.45 p.m.
Lord Laming: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for this very thoughtful amendment. A great deal of thought has gone into the argument in favour of Amendments Nos. 50 and 51.
There is just one point of concern that I would like to raise. It is very important that a Children's Commissioner is seen as an advocate for children and young people and is able to make strong representations on all issues that affect their lives. Clearly, the exchange of information is a very important part of that. I hope that a Children's Commissioner will take a great deal of interest in this because, as has been said, all services for children in future will continue to depend upon inter-agency co-operation and the free exchange of information across the agencies.
My concern is the danger of implicating the commissioner in line accountability. It is very important that the commissioner's role as an advocate is strengthened as far as possible and is not compromised in any way by taking on a line accountability. It is very important that we have clarity of line accountability in these important matters. Therefore, the role of the Secretary of State in particular and the Government in general in making sure that the guidance applies consistently across all legislation should be followed with clear accountability to the Government. That is the only concern I want to express.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As noble Lords have indicated, this, in part, pre-empts a discussion that I know we will have on Clause 8, when I will be in extremist listening mode for all the reasons I have discussed with noble Lords outside the Chamber. I am looking forward to that debate because of the contributions that your Lordships will be making to it. So I would describe this not as a vexed issue, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, did, but an important issue.
I agree with practically everything that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, said so eloquently about the differences between the tools to facilitate the pen-and-paper opportunity that new technology can give us and the cultural changes. Much of the cultural change will take place beyond and outside the legislation. The noble Earl is right about the duty to co-operate being a fundamental part of that, but training, workforce issues, the development of people's skills and talents and ensuring the accountability framework rest, in many ways, beyond and outside the legislation. I would not want any noble Lord to feel that those were not critical issues, as the noble Earl indicated, for indeed they are. However, perhaps they do not all need to be handled within the framework of legislation.
As the noble Baroness and the noble Earl indicated, the purpose behind the amendment is to give the commissioner responsibility for disseminating and drawing up the guidance to be issued around information-sharing.
Of course we need to ensure that there is adequate guidance on information-sharing. The guidance will be going to many of our statutory bodies. We are clear

1305
that guidance to practitioners under Clauses 6 and 7 need to provide more clarity about the circumstances under which information may be shared to promote children's welfare, safety and well-being. There will of course needs to be comprehensive guidance on the operation of the databases which we propose to set up under Clause 8.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the implications that this has for the Children's Commissioner. I will say once more, although I know that noble Lords all agree, that the focus of the commissioner is on children—listening to children, representing children and hearing their views. His power comes from them and his focus must be on them. I, too, would worry about the implications of accountability if the commissioner were issuing guidance to statutory bodies such as the police, the Probation Service and social services. I do not believe that that is an appropriate role.
As I said earlier, it is critical that we do not move away from the role that the Government and other agencies have to play. We must do our part. The recommendations of the Climbié inquiry and the work of the Children and Young People's unit vested in the Green Paper must be the responsibility of us all. This is the role of government. However, it is also a legitimate interest for the commissioner who well may have views and wish to give advice on the drawing up and dissemination of guidance, which he is permitted to do under Clause 2. Indeed, the Government may well consult the commissioner, especially about the preparation of guidance and its distribution.
We have not yet appointed the commissioner, who may bring extremely valuable expertise and be able to assist us. There is nothing to stop the commissioner taking part in that discussion. I would expect that we would wish to discuss that with the commissioner, whose views will be welcome. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to specify such a duty in legislation. On that basis, I hope that Committee Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments and I look forward to discussions about Clause 8.
Baroness Barker: That has been a useful debate, not least because it has clarified for some of us the extent to which the commissioner can be involved in the process of determining how and what information is shared. The stark framework that is Clause 8 has set up any number of potential fears among those who have read it. Some of us feared that, as a result of Clause 8, professional shall speak unto professional and that the interests of children would not be properly taken into account. That was the rationale for trying to weave the commissioner more closely into the workings of the clause.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, says about accountability. I have followed the rest of the Committee's discussions on the 101 things for which the commissioner should be responsible. No doubt, when the commissioner is appointed, the exact extent to which he is involved in the setting of strategic guidance on a whole number of fronts will be a matter
1306
of urgency. This is one of the most important areas in which his or her involvement will be needed. Who but someone who will spend his entire time listening to the concerns of children would be better placed to know how children feel about professionals having information about them and how systems should therefore be drawn up and operated?
These amendments have received as much support from the Government as I thought they would. None the less, this has been a useful and instructive discussion and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Inquiries held by Commissioner]:
Baroness Byford:Baroness Byford: moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
"() Where the Children's Commissioner considers that a matter raises issues of general relevance to children, he may hold an enquiry into that matter."
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas, who unfortunately cannot be with us this afternoon, and to speak also to Amendment No. 53.
In Amendment No. 52, my noble friend is asking the Government whether the Children's Commissioner who considers the matter and raises issues of general guidance to children may hold an inquiry into that matter. However, as we have sat through rather prolonged debates already, I suspect that the answer is "no" unless he is directed by the Government. The Minister may tell me differently: I live in hope.
Amendment No. 53 would leave out "direct" and insert "request". As currently worded, Clause 4(1), permits the Secretary of State to direct the commissioner to undertake an enquiry into the case of an individual child. This is a fundamental violation of independence—as we have said earlier, and I have argued it until I am blue. I am wearing blue, so I shall still keep arguing.
The commissioner must have the power to undertake formal investigations in exceptional circumstances. I repeat what I said earlier: this is not something we expect to happen on a daily basis, it will be exceptional. However, we believe—as has just been said in the previous amendments—that the independence of that commissioner is a key consideration. This is where the Government and ourselves, along with and other noble Lords around the Chamber, disagree.
The commissioner should have these powers in exceptional circumstances. He or she should be equipped with the necessary tools, and also the right of access to documents, the power to enter institutions and to meet children in private, as well as the right to summon witnesses. The Bill currently gives the commissioner such powers only when she or he is carrying out an inquiry directed by the Secretary of State. It will be the Secretary of State and not the commissioner who determines the terms of reference for such an investigation. It will be the Secretary of State—again, not the commissioner—who determines if, when and how the report from such an inquiry will be published.
Ministers have stated categorically that the commissioner will be an independent champion for children. I do not think I have repeated myself so much as I have today, but those of us who disagree with the Minister still do not think that he or she is an independent champion as the Bill currently stands. We believe it is difficult to reconcile the Government's stated aims for the commissioner with the reality of the Bill. We whole-heartedly agree that the commissioner must not he swamped with individual complaints. In my earlier amendment, I said I foresee everything going to the director locally, and not coming straight to the commissioner. Only in exceptional circumstances would it come to the commissioner because we do not want him to be swamped. We are all agreed on that.
England's population of children is, as we have said, 11 million—significantly higher than other countries within the UK. Without safeguards, the potential is indeed here for the commissioner to lose her or his strategic role. These safeguards must be written into legislation. rather than handing over the decision-making powers to the Minister. The current provisions suggest that the Government do not believe the commissioner will act in the best interests of children without close ministerial supervision. The noble Baroness may say, "I am not sure", but she will have a chance to follow me. It is clear to those of us who have read the Bill that that is how we see it being interpreted and why we have had such a long late-morning and afternoon session on these very important issues.
I understand that the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland said, in evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 20 April, that she would not be able to maintain her position were she subject to such restrictions. That is actually quite a statement and I urge the Minister to consider it.
Also, before I formally move these amendments, what contact has the Minister had with the Children's Rights Alliance? Has that organisation raised some of the concerns that I have raised this afternoon with her directly? If it has, and the matter has been taken further than I understand, then the Minister may be able to bring me up to date regarding pur original conversations.
I cannot stress strongly enough our belief that the Children's Commissioner for England should be independent—though, clearly as the Minister stated earlier, I accept that he or she will only be used in exceptional circumstances. I beg to move.
5 p.m,
Baroness Walmsley: I added my name to this amendment and shall just say a few brief words because I know my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill wants also to contribute. I absolutely concur with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has said in moving this amendment, but I would add this question: What if the Children's Commissioner, when directed by the Secretary of State to conduct an inquiry, does not think that the issue is as important as the Secretary of State thinks it is? Perhaps because of other inquiries that the commissioner has made, he
1308
may take that view—or perhaps, given the enormous amount of time that such inquiries take, he or she may feel that he or she does not have the time or resources adequately to carry out such an inquiry. He or she may believe that the Secretary of State's reasons for directing him or her to conduct an inquiry were political or electoral in their nature, rather than in the best interests of children. Far be it from me to suggest that any Secretary of State of this Government might do any such thing, but we cannot say what might happen in future—and we are laying down legislation for the long term.
I ask those questions of the Minister, and perhaps she will consider them when she responds.
Baroness Whitaker: In speaking to this group of amendments, I support Amendment No. 52 very warmly, as it is fundamental to the independence of the Children's Commissioner. It is in fact echoed by Amendment No. 17, which I moved earlier. I was reassured when, at col. 1059 of Tuesday'sHansard, my noble friend the Minister said:
"As regards Amendment No. 17…the commissioner will have the ability to review any issue that relates to the views and interests of children".—[Official Report, 4/5/04; col. 1059.]
If the commissioner can review any issue of his own volition, surely by the same token he must be able to hold an inquiry into that matter.
However, as regards Amendment No. 53, I believe that the Bill has got it right. It is quite normal in statutes that set up commissioners for the Secretary of State to have the power to direct. In a way, it is the counterpart of the commissioner having the independence to follow his own inquiry for the Secretary of State, who is the representative of the elected government, also to be able to direct the commissioner. There may be occasions when the commissioner's priorities need adjustment, and it would be right for the Government to retain the power to direct as long as the commissioner also has the right to conduct his own independent inquiry.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is just 30 years ago, almost to the day, since I left the Bar to work for a Labour Government in creating the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. I am delighted to say what I am about to say in the presence of the first—and for my money the best—deputy chair of the EOC, the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote.
I do not understand why the Government have got themselves into such a mess in this Bill, as I shall briefly explain in relation to Clause 4. When we set up the two commissions—the EOC and the CRE—we empowered each of them to carry out two kinds of inquiry. The first was a coercive inquiry that we called a "belief investigation", which meant that when the commission believed that a body had acted unlawfully, it could inquire into that and do nasty things by way of enforcement. We gave the commissions subpoena powers—the power to have access to information and to summon witnesses, all subject to judicial control and supervision. But we also empowered the commissions

1309
to carry out what were called "general investigations" into matters of public interest within the objects of the commissions—equal opportunity and the elimination of discrimination. For that purpose, we did not give them subpoena powers unless the Secretary of State intervened to allow them to do so, because we were troubled about creating star chambers that could use their powers coercively.
What we did not do was to hobble the two commissions as Clause 4 does. I simply do not understand why we are to have the weakest commissioner in the United Kingdom serving the children and young people of England. That baffles description. As we have debated already, Clause 4 places the commissioner entirely under the control of the Secretary of State in deciding whether he can carry out one of these inquiries at all. That seems wholly inappropriate and saps the independence of the commissioner.
Secondly, the way in which the reports are handled—to which we shall come later—are, again, under the firm control of the Secretary of State. Thirdly, there is no free-standing power—the point of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with which I wholly agree—to carry out what I would call a general investigation not into anything under the sun, but a matter raising issues of general relevance to children. In carrying out that inquiry, please note that the way in which the Bill—this wretched Bill, I am sorry to say, in respect of its drafting—is drafted, it creates such a powerless and quasi-independent commissioner, weaker, as I said, than any of the others, that the only access to information is via the Local Government Act 1972, which again places the matter entirely under the Secretary of State's control.
I have no particular objection to being careful about subpoena powers—I understand the need for that. But I cannot understand why the Children's Commissioner will not even—unless the Minister accepts the amendment, or something like it, as I hope she will—have the power to carry out a general investigation without any coercive powers or enforcement into matters of public interest affecting children. If the commissioner cannot even have that power, are we not disappointing all the expectations raised by the White Paper and the build-up to the Bill? So I hope that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, so powerfully moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will be acceptable to the Minister.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, because I have already—much less effectively, I may say, than the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—gone through the matter, but also because the whole situation has been so brilliantly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who I thank for his kind comments. However, this takes me back to another power that we had at the EOC. The great point is that the provision gave the commission, not the Secretary of State, power to back an individual case if it raised issues of relevance to the wider concerns of children.
1310
That point is not quite the same as that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, although I may be wrong. That was achieved by giving whatever support we could and, hopefully, getting others such as the TUC financially to back the case that we were pursuing. So I still consider the whole issue to be of enormous importance to independence and to the rights of children throughout the UK.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, this group of amendments raises questions that we have already had some opportunity to debate. I am mindful of the fact that noble Baroness is wearing blue and feels that she is talking blue; I notice that we on the Front Benches are all in blue; I also notice who is in the deepest blue, who may feel that she has said many things many times, but there we are. It is the nature of Front Benchers that we end up in the same costumes, in one guise or another.
I agree with the compliments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, but because we disagree does not mean that the Bill is a mess or wretched in any way—it means that we disagree. Although the noble Lord may feel that it is a mess from his perspective, from my perspective it is absolutely clear and the distinctions are clear. I want to make that point because at the end, we all agree that we will appoint a children's commissioner and the descriptions that we give to that individual in our deliberations matter, because the individual must at some point take office with our wholehearted support. I read in the newspapers what we have already described the role as, and it is important that I make that point—on a personal level, I hasten to add.
We have already discussed some of these arguments concerning the issues of individual cases. I have tried to be clear about the context that we want for the commissioner and the strategic role that we want him to play with the function of inquiry and associated powers only for those cases of wider import where the Secretary of State thinks that an inquiry is appropriate and looks to the commissioner to carry it out.
As I have already said, there is an issue regarding the number of demands placed on the commissioner, and the focus that we have for him of listening to the views of children, being informed by what children say, and making sure that all services across a broad spectrum respond to children, looking at where they do not, and in those cases which in our view require the commissioner to look in greater detail at individual cases, having all the associated powers to do so. That is where the Government stand on this issue.
However, there is a need for me to make that as clear as possible. I am always aware that when one stands at the Dispatch Box clarity sometimes may not be as great as it might otherwise be. I shall write formally to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, as he quite rightly indicated from his great experience the differences between different commissions. We have time between now and other stages of the Bill to set out precisely Clause 2 and Clause 4 powers to inform our deliberations. If I do

1311
that, I am not saying that there will be an opportunity to bridge the disagreements but at least to be absolutely clear that we understand exactly our own positions.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I would be very grateful to the Minister if she did that and copied the letter to everyone who has taken part in the debate. However, I ask respectfully if she would reflect on the following point. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we are now discussing does not in any way suggest that the commissioner should be diverted into individual case work. Quite rightly in my view it refers to issues of general relevance to children, not individual cases at all. I should be very grateful for an answer to the following question. What is the issue of public policy in the Government's mind that makes it undesirable for this Children's Commissioner that we are setting up— who I entirely agree must be a person not put off by dismal propaganda beforehand—to take certain action? What is it that makes the Government fearful of the idea that the commissioner, with no coercive or enforcement powers at all, would be empowered to consider that,
"a matter raises issues of general relevance to children",
and to hold an inquiry into that matter? That is what I cannot understand.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I hope that that will be made clear in my correspondence. I shall be as clear as I can now. Under Clause 2, we have said that the commissioner can consider anything. The difference—I think this is the point that the noble Lord makes—is that the powers that we have indicated under Clause 4 are in place because we believe that those powers are essential to carry out individual investigations, or the kind of investigations that we believe are triggered by the Secretary of State. We make that distinction not through fear. We are not fearful of the commissioner; quite the contrary. We are trying to establish how we develop a commissioner's post that is focused on the outcomes identified by children, that is able to consider different systems and where he can talk to anyone and so on. That is a general area, if I may describe it as such.
However, as regards specific investigations that might be undertaken—we have already indicated that the Victoria Climbié inquiry might well have been such an inquiry—further powers would be needed. The noble Lord may disagree with that distinction but I hope that it is clear in terms of what we are trying to do.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Is the noble Baroness saying that the amendment is unnecessary because what has been put down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is in fact covered by Clause 2?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is not for me to say whether the amendment is unnecessary. However, I believe that it creates a distinction that is different from the distinction that is in the Bill. I shall ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who I am pleased to see is present. I refer to the different distinction in the amendment. I shall try to explain that a little further.
1312
As I said, we seek to ensure that the way in which the commissioner operates adds value and is additional to all of the other systems and processes that we have in place and does not second-guess or become part of the process as opposed to being distinct from it. Under Clause 2 powers the commissioner can look across all the issues that we have described. When he becomes aware, from what he hears from children, for example, that a particular issue is of concern he can look into that issue. Clause 2(2)(d) specifically empowers him to,
"consider or research any other matter relating to the interests of children".
He can report on that either in the annual report or on an ad hoc basis, as he wishes. We believe that that is an effective function that flows from what the commissioner learns from discussions with children and young people. He can then look at it and report on it. We think that that is the right way to approach it. Because of the changes that Amendment No. 52 would make, we ask that it be withdrawn.
Amendment No. 53 is a good opportunity for me to explain why Clause 4 gives the power to hold an inquiry when the Secretary of State directs. We expect that the commissioner will gain invaluable experience and expertise in talking to children and in gathering their views, which will be very important. If an inquiry is to he made into a matter affecting children, it is vital that the experience and expertise of the commissioner is brought to bear in the most appropriate way for the best possible resolution of that inquiry. That will not always mean that the commissioner undertakes the inquiry himself. There may sadly be a need for more inquiries than the commissioner could reasonably be expected to handle. Others undertaking inquiries on behalf of the Secretary of State might well call the commissioner to give evidence, based on what he has learnt through the exercise of his function. When the Secretary of State believes that the commissioner is the right person to undertake an inquiry, we believe that the Secretary of State should have the power to direct the commissioner so to do. In our earlier discussions I have indicated that we would provide the funding for such an inquiry. Of course, it would be appropriate that the Secretary of State must take into account other pressures on the commissioner. That is the rationale behind that. On that basis, I trust that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 53.
Lord Lucas: If I may rise now, I really must try not being here to move my amendments more often. Clearly, it has been advocated with great force by my noble friend Lady Byford who has quite rightly received compliments from all sides of the Committee. I look forward to reading the letter with great interest. I remain unconvinced, but the letter has it so far as I am concerned.
Baroness Byford: I think that I shall be out of order again if I do not rise to speak right now. I am trying to be in order. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Whitaker, for their contributions. I remember sitting through the debate on Amendment No. 17 on Tuesday. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for

1313
speaking on this important amendment. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, whose authority I could not start to achieve but which I respect enormously.
I should like to ask four questions before my noble friend decides whether to withdraw the amendment. I asked the Minister to comment on the meeting of the Joint Committee on Human Rights at which the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland said in evidence that she would not be able to maintain her position were she subject to such restrictions. It is important that this point is not lost. Have I missed it?
Baroness Andrews: I feel that the noble Baroness has had the opportunity to make such points in her speech. To come back with detailed points may not be in order. I beg the noble Baroness's pardon. I am advised that it is Committee stage and that in fact the noble Baroness is in order.
Baroness Byford: That is why I rose to speak rather quickly because I think that earlier on I was out of order and I am becoming more terrified as the minutes pass. The noble Baronesses on the other side of the Chamber are very nice but it is off-putting when one thinks one is in order and then one is told that one is not.
I therefore ask the Minister for a reply to that comment, which was made in all sincerity, and to answer my question about what contact she has had with the Children's Rights Alliance and what response she has had to that. I also draw the Minister's attention to her response to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on Clause 2(2)(d). She seemed to imply that that referred also to an inquiry. The provision refers to the consideration or research of,
"any other matter relating to the interests of children".
It does not refer to an inquiry at all. I should be grateful for clarification as the point is not clear.
I have tried to be very non-party political as I think that that is in the interests of all of us. The Children Bill is hugely important. However, I must say to the Minister, for whom I have great respect, that I feel very disappointed. If we cannot achieve consensus as the Bill progresses, it will be yet another example of a Government who say that we should devolve matters down, as has happened in local government, and yet want to hold on to control at the centre. This is another very clear example of that.
The Bill has raised huge hopes outside; people are looking to it to achieve an awful lot. Yet, in the first instance, it has been another example of Labour raising your hopes but letting you down.
Baroness Walmsley: Before the Minister responds, will she also reflect on my comments on this group of amendments and tell us how the Government would respond should the Secretary of State direct such an inquiry, but should the commissioner feel that he or she did not have either the time or resources to carry it out?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I will.
1314
I was very supportive of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, standing up to correct me because I had not answered her questions, but I rather lost enthusiasm as her comments developed. It is never my intention to let anyone down. If she is disappointed that I am not able to take on her comments, she should see it from my end of the telescope. I am quite clear about what we are trying to achieve. I know that noble Lords' comments are always made within the framework of seeking the most appropriate way of delivering a children's commissioner. I put our disagreements in that context. However, it is never my intention as a Minister or as a proud member of the Labour Party to disappoint anyone.
The noble Baroness asked me about the comments of the Scottish commissioner. I had the privilege of meeting her just before she started her role. I have not read her submission but I will of course do so. She is inevitably very new in that role, which she looks at from a very clear perspective. I found her contribution to the all-party group extremely enlightening and very interesting. I am not sure whether I will agree with her comments, but I take nothing away from her abilities, which have been demonstrated to me. I wish her every success in her new role. I am not sure that she is able now to say what will eventually evolve for her. However, I will look at the comments and write to the noble Baroness if I can elucidate further.
I have met the Children's Rights Alliance with my right honourable friend Margaret Hodge on at least one occasion. I have met many different organisations during the course of the Bill. I am not sure that I met the alliance per se but I have certainly met many organisations that are a part of the alliance. Those very important organisations have at heart good wishes for children and the desire to support them. Our discussions are therefore extremely positive. It is not that we do not admire and respect those organisations; it is just that we sometimes do not agree with their conclusions. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree with that.
On paragraph (b), the difference is a general inquiry. The wording implies, and it is correct, that the commissioner could hold a general inquiry. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will not disagree that the difference is that the inquiry under Clause 4 brings with it particular powers that are not invested in Clause 2. However, to inquire across systems and about the issues which children raise is absolutely within Clause 2. I hope to establish that clarification properly in correspondence. It is an important distinction.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rightly said that I had not answered her question. It is for the Secretary of State to provide the resources to the commissioner for the inquiry. There is no question about that.
I am not sure that it would reach the point of disagreement, because although the relationship needs to be robust between the independent commissioner and the Government, it must also be the case that the commissioner and the Secretary of State have such a relationship that they would discuss the inquiry. My view is that when such inquiries arise—as the noble

1315
Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Laming, said—they should be a process of looking at what more needs to be done. Big inquiries are not undertaken lightly or unless it is absolutely clear that that is the most appropriate way to go forward to achieve the best possible results in order to support children now and in the future. I imagine that the dialogue on this issue will continue, but I will reflect on what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert—
"() The Secretary of State shall, if he gives such a direction, provide the Children's Commissioner with sufficient additional resources to complete the enquiry."
The noble Lord said: I have already had an answer to my concerns on this matter, but I move the amendment for the sake of the rest of the group. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 64 and 131 in this group.
There are two purposes to Amendment No. 64, which is a probing amendment. The first is to give the Minister an opportunity to confirm that, under the current wording in the Bill, local government will pay for the cost of inquiries, rather than, as my amendment suggests, the Children's Commissioner and the Secretary of State. The second purpose is to find out whether the Minister envisages more inquires. Currently there are one or two major inquiries a year into child deaths and child abuse. The remit in Clause 4(1) is wider. Inquiries can be held when an individual case raises issues of relevance to other children.
So, does the Minister expect more inquiries to be held across a much wider range of subjects? For example, could an inquiry be held into the reasons for the exclusion of a pupil or a group of pupils from school? The Independent newspaper estimated in an editorial last Thursday, 29 April, that there have been no fewer than 70 public inquiries into child deaths since the end of the Second World War. There are concerns about the mounting costs of inquiries. Clearly, no one is expecting something on the scale of the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Inquiries should be short, specific and achieve results in order to affect practice in as short a time as possible. Can the Minister enlighten us a little about, for example, the scope? An inquiry could be called if issues about an individual child raised issues of relevance to other children. Is it likely that inquiries will fall outside the relatively discrete area of inquiries into child deaths in care, which has been the main reason for such inquiries until now?
What about frequency? How many inquiries each year does the Minister envisage? What does the Minister think that they will cost? Does the Minister envisage that local government will pay for such
1316
inquiries? If the costs fall significantly on a single local authority, even though the issues relate to children all over the country, will the Secretary of State meet part of the cost?
Amendment No. 131 has appeared in the wrong place in the Marshalled List and relates not to Clause 7, but to paragraph 7 of Schedule I. It should really have been debated when we debated Schedule 1, because noble Lords will see that it is part of the debate that we had the other day when I was promoting the idea that the Children's Commissioner should be appointed not by the Secretary of State, but by Her Majesty the Queen, on the recommendation of Parliament. The amendment falls perfectly in line with that suggestion. If Parliament is to appoint the commissioner, the payment should also come from it.
If the Minister was puzzled by the mistaken thought that I wished to delete Clause 7 entirely, I hope that I have clarified the situation. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment in the light of that explanation. It would add to the independence of the Children's Commissioner from the executive, which I advocated a few days ago. In the light of our debate on Tuesday, I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 131, which also stands in my name. I commend to the Committee the 11th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights,Commission for Equality and Human Rights: Structure, Functions and Powers, which was published yesterday. It deals in some detail with independence and accountability, starting at paragraph 108. The Joint Committee looked first at the traditional non-departmental public body model and alternative models. I shall not bore the Committee by going through that. It then looked at the need for independence, including independent funding, of the proposed new commission.
One of my concerns is the possibility that the Children Bill would become a precedent for what would happen with the much wider and more powerful commission for equality and human rights. That relates as much to independence of funding as to anything else. The White Paper on the new commission is due out next month. I do not suggest that the Minister will know anything about it at this stage. At paragraph 126 of its 11th report the Joint Committee highlighted the need for a system of funding independent of direct ministerial control. It then suggested the relationship with Parliament. Paragraph 130, which deals with the commission not the commissioner, recommends:
"The commission should be funded by moneys voted by the House of Commons directly, not through the voted expenditure of a ministerial department. The adequate funding of the commission, having regard to the need for efficiency, economy and effectiveness in the use of its resources, will of course be essential to guarantee its independence. It will require more funding than the combined budgets of the existing commissions".

1317
That is part of an important general section on the points raised by my noble friend Lady Walmsley—the appointment and accountability of the commissioner. The funding is part and parcel of all of that in Schedule 1.
Our amendment, which was tabled before the report was published, would achieve a system of funding that would enhance the independence of the commissioner by making it a matter for the House of Commons rather than for the Secretary of State.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As Members of the Committee have made clear, the amendment is about resources. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his comments. The answer to his question is "Yes", which is probably the speediest and most helpful response that I have given today.
The Government intend to meet the cost of inquiries undertaken by the commissioner under Clause 4. We recognise that the cost of some inquiries could be substantial, therefore we would want to ensure that we fund them in addition to providing core funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked whether I thought that there would be more inquiries, how many there would be, and at what cost. The great tragedy is that we hold inquiries when things go terribly wrong. It is our ambition, through the Bill and much of the work of the Green Paper, that the kind of inquiries that we have seen over the past 30 or more years will become unnecessary because children will no longer be in such circumstances. I cannot predict the future. I hope that the kind of inquiries that we find ourselves conducting under Clause 4 will be of great import but will not be based around tragedy for children. So I cannot give the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, an indication of what costs there would be. I do not expect she is surprised. These inquiries can be incredibly important, not only in getting to the bottom of the individual issues, but also in terms of learning the lessons. We would want to ensure those were taken on board where that was important.
Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 of the Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to make payments, and this would include paying for inquiries as well as routine grant payment, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would expect. Earlier in this debate, questions were raised about some of the wording in Paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, and I did agree to consider the points raised in that part of the debate. However the precise wording emerges, our commitment to the principle of meeting the cost of inquiries will stand.
I am grateful for the clarification of Amendment No. 131. Indeed, the note that I have simply says that it would mean that payments were made by Parliament rather than the Secretary of State. So it stands on its own perfectly well in that context. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said. I sense that my weekend reading has arrived in the shape of the report, which, with the Higher Education Bill next week, is a pity. I think my weekend may have just disappeared.
1318
I will reflect on what is said in the report, and draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, quite rightly indicates, there is a need to look very carefully at what is being suggested.
I have already undertaken to look at the issues of funding. I will look at what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has very kindly drawn to my attention. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert—
"() A report made under subsection (3) shall set out—

(a) the findings and conclusions of the Children's Commissioner; and

(b) any recommendations made by the Children's Commissioner."

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58, which also stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Walmsley.
I can deal with Amendment No. 55 very quickly, because it is banal. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me it is wholly unnecessary because it falls within the general powers of the Children's Commissioner in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which tells us that the commissioner,
"may do anything which appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with. the exercise of his functions".
That is the general, incidental power which one finds in all statutes. All that Amendment No. 55 seeks to do, for the avoidance of doubt, is to mirror Clause 13(3)b of the Children's Commissioner for Wales regulations, empowering the Children's Commissioner to set out her or his findings, conclusions and recommendations in the report. I would be surprised if that did not fall within the general powers, and we would seek assurance in that respect. If it does not, express words will be needed.
While talking about express words, may I become an old fogey and say that I hope that, before the Bill leaves this House, the grammar might be improved. In Clause 2, for example, I did not know that there was a verb called "to research" in the way that it is used there; namely, "to consider or research". I thought it was "to conduct research", but I may be wrong.
Amendment No. 58 is more substantial. If the Secretary of State directs the commissioner to hold any inquiry, then a report of that inquiry must be sent to the Secretary of State and laid before Parliament. In the Bill, it is proposed that the Secretary of State may then edit the report to conceal the identities of children or withhold it from publication. The relevant provisions are in Clause 4(3) to (6). That is at odds with the position of the Children's Commissioners for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, who are

1319
treated as grown-ups capable of censoring their own reports. The responsibility rests with those commissioners. Exactly the same is true of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality, which are under a statutory obligation only to publish reports—the nasty, coercive ones or the general ones—subject to questions of, among other things, personal privacy.
Everyone agrees that we need safeguards for personal privacy, especially where children are concerned. Amendment No. 58 would change the position by inserting a new subsection (5) that would remove the power from the Secretary of State and place it with the Children's Commissioner. That is a read-across from Clause 13 of the Commissioner for Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2003. Essentially, I want to know why the English commissioner should not have the same power and the same responsibility as the Scottish commissioner. It seems heavy-handed to say not only that the Secretary of State should direct that there be an inquiry but that, when the report is made, the Secretary of State will have responsibility for censorship of the report—the word "censorship" is correctly used here—instead of leaving it to the commissioner.
Somebody asked about safeguards. Obviously, the Children's Commissioner, if given the responsibility, would have to be careful to respect personal privacy. The Children's Commissioner will be subject to, for example, the Human Rights Act 1998, as a public authority. The commissioner will have to have regard to a child's right to respect for private life. We now know that the commissioner must have regard to the children's rights convention. There will need to be a lawyer at the shoulder of the Children's Commissioner, if the amendment is made, just as there will need to be a lawyer at the shoulder of the Secretary of State, if the power of censorship rests with the Secretary of State. Just like the Secretary of State, the commissioner would have to make sure that the power was not abused.
Given that the Local Government Act controls what I call "subpoena powers"—that is, all under the Secretary of State and, ultimately, the courts—and given that there will be adequate safeguards if the Children's Commissioner gets it wrong, I do not see why we cannot give the Children's Commissioner for England the same responsibility as we give those in the other parts of the United Kingdom. That is another aspect of unnecessary central government control over an independent commissioner. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I have a clutch of amendments in the group. Amendment No. 56 would insert the word "promptly". I think that the objective of that amendment is clear.
Amendment No. 57 would leave out the words,
"in such a manner as he thinks fit".
The Secretary of State might, for instance, place a report in the Library of the House without telling anybody. That has been done before. There should be a duty to publish properly. Perhaps it is implicit, but I would he grateful for some comfort on that.
Amendment No. 59 addresses one of the subjects touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I share his discomfort that it should be the Secretary of State who censors these things. It is not proper that the Secretary of State should be able to say that he will not publish a report because a certain paragraph mentions an individual child's name or because something might be inferred from it about an individual child. I really think that it has got to be someone else, particularly since it might be a report that is critical of the Secretary of State, his officials or other members of the Government. To give the Secretary of State carte blanche to censor in an unrestricted way, which is the way the Bill runs at the moment, I find uncomfortable. I have suggested the High Court. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I share his views that it should be the commissioner who has to make sure that children are properly protected by the contents of the report.
Amendment No. 60 is a corollary of that. If the Secretary of State is to censor the report, it has to be clear that, in doing so, he is restricted to the minimum necessary in order to protect the identity of a child. This very much looks at the sort of procedure that is supposed to come in under the Freedom of Information Act, and so forth. Again, if this was the duty of the commissioner rather than the duty of the Secretary of State, I would feel much less strongly about it. Amendment No. 61 just follows on from Amendment No. 59.
Perhaps I may add an apology that I shall depart at six o'clock. I have two further amendments. If the Minister chooses to reply to them in their grouping, I may not move them when I come to them in their place. I think that I am fairly safe in saying that we shall not reach Amendment No. 247A today. It may be that Amendment No. 109A drops, but there we are. I leave them at the disposal of the Committee. But the noble Baroness does not need to feel that she should not reply to them just because I am not there. That may save her time later.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Byford: I shall speak to Amendment No. 57 in support of my noble friend Lord Lucas who, clearly, has explained his discomfort at this wording being in the Bill, and to Amendment No. 62. This Bill, as do so many others over the past five years, gives enormous unsupervised power to the Secretary of State to act through regulation and guidance. The report to which this section refers will be prepared by the commissioner. Giving the duty of publication to the Secretary of State may perhaps be regarded as courtesy. Such publication should be full and complete and not subject to further secretarial discretion.
As technology moves on, it may be that publication involves more than publication in a hard or soft-back booklet. But whatever the medium in vogue, the report should be made available to everyone who wishes to access it. I think that that is something that my noble friend has spelt out clearly.

1321
Amendment No. 62 would protect the commissioner in his ability to do his work properly. The Children's Commissioner, given an investigation by the Secretary of State, will be required to gather information, collate it, analyse it and, from his analysis, draw conclusions on what happened and why. It is wholly possible and quite likely that in some, if not all, of his reports, he may have to criticise people—for example, services providers, professionals, parents, family and other friends—as my noble friend has just described. It could be a whole variety of people or organisations.
In many cases, this criticism will be couched in terms that reveal the identity of those involved, whether directly or indirectly. It may be that they will consider the criticism is harsh or even unjust. Others may use the criticism to remove or downgrade individuals from their position. It would surely be wrong in such circumstances for there to be any way in which such an individual could go to the court in pursuit of reparation.
By putting this simple amendment in the Bill, we hope to ensure that the Children's Commissioner can carry out his duties free of the possibility, however remote, that he may have to expend precious time defending himself against a law suit. I think that this is an important addition to the Bill.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This is an interesting group of amendments covering a range of issues about the publication of reports of inquiries held under the terms of Clause 4. Our approach here is very straightforward. The Secretary of State would direct the commissioner to conduct an inquiry; the commissioner would hold the inquiry and write the report—its contents are for the commissioner and no one else to decide; and the Secretary of State may make a decision on one significant point; that is, whether a child's identity needs to be protected. The Secretary of State would then publish the report unless it is impossible to do so without disclosing the child's identity and the Secretary of State thinks that that would not be in the best interests of the child.
There is no unrestricted power of censorship. The Bill does not give a power to the Secretary of State to censor a formal inquiry report. He can amend it only in the circumstances that I have indicated. That is an important point to bear in mind.
Amendment No. 55, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, specifies certain points that should be contained within any report made under this clause. I have no problem with the principle behind this amendment. One would expect the report of an inquiry, other than in exceptional circumstances, to contain conclusions and recommendations. The noble Lord went on to ask why this was not a reflection of what happened with the Welsh commissioner. I cannot answer that question at this moment, but I shall write to the noble Lord. We think that the provisions are necessary because it is what we would expect to happen in any event. So this is not in any way an attempt not to reflect what was said about the Welsh commissioner; it
1322
is simply that we assumed that that would be a part and parcel of the provision. While what I have said may be sufficient, I shall look at it again.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated that Amendment No. 56 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish "promptly" any inquiry report produced by the commissioner. We envisage that the Secretary of State would respond in a prompt manner to any report produced by the commissioner. There has never been any intention to allow the Secretary of State to delay publication, especially for a political reason.
However, there may be sound reasons for minor delays that I want to outline for noble Lords. The Secretary of State will have to consider whether there are grounds to exercise his powers under subsection (5) to protect a child's identity. He may wish to take advice, not least from the child or the family, on that question. Alternatively, the Secretary of State may feel that where a report alleges criminal activity by a named person or persons, it would be necessary to liaise with the police or other authorities to check whether the alleged offender is working with children, to prevent the person absconding or to protect that person from reprisals.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that those are valid reasons not to publish the report immediately, all of which would be discussed with the commissioner. But I agree completely that the Secretary of State should not delay the publication of a report because he disagreed with its conclusions. I am sure that the Secretary of State would be called to account by Parliament in another place and, I am sure, noble Lords would ask questions in this House. I hope that those reassurances are sufficient, but I understand the sentiments that lie behind the amendment. I shall take advice and see whether anything more can be done in the spirit of my remarks. I recognise what noble Lords are looking for here. Without commitment at this point, I will look at the matter again.
I turn to Amendment No. 57, also moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I welcome the opportunity this amendment provides for me to explain a little further our thinking here. The wording of this clause was designed to confirm the flexibility afforded the Secretary of State in exactly how to publish a report. It could be in the form of a book available from the Stationery Office, a government publication on-line or a combination of those. It would allow flexibility on the issue of whether and how to produce a version aimed at children and young people. That is why the subsection has been worded in this way. It has not been written with the intention of allowing the Secretary of State to publish a report in an obscure fashion so that it could be hidden. Moreover, obviously there is no intention that it should be edited other than within the powers exercised under this subsection.
I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Lord will feel that the amendment is unnecessary and I invite him to withdraw it. However, again I understand the implications behind the proposal and I shall see whether we can say something firmer on this matter.

1323
That may not necessarily be a form of words on the face of the Bill, but I may return with words that will reassure the noble Lord more clearly than I am able in my contribution this afternoon.
Amendment No. 58 would have two main effects, the first of which is the transfer of responsibility from the Secretary of State to the Commissioner for decisions about the disclosure of the identity of a child or children.
I think that we are all agreed that this is a significant consideration in the publication of a report. It is our view that it is the Secretary of State who should make that decision. Based on the general approach that we have taken to this clause, it is the Secretary of State who orders the inquiry and publishes the report. It is therefore right that the Secretary of State should take the decision. We would expect the Secretary of State to take advice, including from the commissioner, before making such a decision.
I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said about "a lawyer at their shoulder". I reiterate what I have said about the focus of the commissioner being on children, on the interests of children and on talking to children and representing their views. I would rather that the Secretary of State, who already has a lawyer at their shoulder, has that role in this context.
We have also said that the commissioner may publish other reports: an annual report and other ad hoc reports. In those circumstances, the question of individual identity does not arise.
The second effect of the amendment would be to set out when the commissioner may or may not disclose information that he has obtained through a formal investigation. We do not believe that these restrictions are necessary. As presently conceived, the only power of formal investigation is set out in Clause 4. We therefore do not believe that is an issue which will arise. However, I recognise the complexity of some of the issues raised. I will reflect appropriately on that and return to your Lordship's House, either in writing or, if I feel that there is something further to be done, by amendment.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the Minister goes on to the other amendments, could I ask whether she would reflect further on Amendment No. 58?
Part of it comes from the Northern Ireland model and part of it comes from the Scottish model. Am I right in saying that the Children's Commissioner is a public authority which must respect personal privacy regardless of the Secretary of State, as well as natural justice; that the Children's Commissioner will need to take legal advice, just as much as the Secretary of State will; and that, in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, the Commissioners are given that responsibility to protect personal privacy without the Secretary of State having to do so? The safeguards that we have built in are there precisely to comply with human rights: to make absolutely sure that the coercive powers of the commissioner will not be abused.
1324
What we would he asking on Report, if possible in writing beforehand, is exactly why it is not possible, with all these safeguards from Scotland and Northern Ireland, to give that responsibility to the Children's Commissioner. I think that is what we are searching for.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I can certainly reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said. However, we are back in the territory of the differences in the way in which we perceive the commissioner and the commissioner's role—Clauses 2 and 4 in terms of their responsibilities.
I will reflect, however, on what the noble Lord has said regarding human rights and on ensuring personal privacy. I have indicated that, because we anticipate that the issue of personal privacy, ensuring that names are not revealed and so on, are very much part of the Clause 4 inquiry, it would rest with the Secretary of State and the legal advice.
The noble Lord is asking me to do two things: to reflect on that in itself, which I would say is not something we would wish to change, and also the broader question regarding the role of the commissioner and the matter of human rights. I will certainly ensure that we reflect on that, because it is important. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendments Nos. 59 and 61. These would transfer from the Secretary of State to the High Court the power to make decisions about whether a child's identity should be disclosed.
In a sense, we are rehearsing part of an argument that we have already had. We believe that it is in keeping with the rest of what we are trying to do. This role should fall to the Secretary of State, as the person ordering the inquiry and publishing the inquiry, in dialogue and conversation with a number of those involved, not least the commissioner—from whom we would expect the Secretary of State to take advice.
In extreme cases, those who felt it appropriate to seek judicial review would have the right to do so if they thought the Secretary of State was acting unreasonably, either by disclosure or by non-disclosure, by withholding the report. As I said, I would also expect Parliament to seek an understanding from the Secretary of State if a report was withheld, for it would surely be known that an investigation had been undertaken by the commissioner.
Amendment No. 60 specifies that the Secretary of State can amend a report only in so far as it is necessary to do so in order to protect the identity of the child. I am happy to clarify that the commissioner's report would be independent. It is not the Government's intention that the Secretary of State should alter or amend any of the commissioner's reports except to protect the identity of a child.
My advice is that the amendment is not necessary. As subsection (5)(a) is subordinate to subsection (5) itself, there is a clear inference, we believe, that this is the only way in which the Secretary of State may amend a report. I hope that with that reassurance, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.

1325
Finally, Amendment No. 62 would protect the commissioner from legal action under the law of defamation. This is an important point: we expect the commissioner to produce fair and accurate reports and to be mindful of the need not to include statements that could be unjustifiably damaging to an individual or group of individuals. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has indicated, we anticipate that the commissioner will employ or have ready access to a legal adviser to avoid such occurrences. This is all the more important, given the strong emotions that are aroused by children's welfare, especially if actual or suspected abuse is involved.
The Government consider that the commissioner must be free to carry out his duties and help to protect children without being constrained by a constant fear of litigation. I will be happy to review whether legislation is needed to give the commissioner appropriate legal protection. I will consider this in more detail before Report. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.
6 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I am very grateful for what the noble Baroness has said on my amendments. So far as the earlier two are concerned, I will mull over whether I can come back with a constructive amendment and hope that she does better than me in the same endeavour. As far as the next two are concerned, I shall not pursue that line and will take an interest in what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, does about his amendment.
On Amendment No. 61, will the noble Baroness consider tweaking the wording of subsection (5) so that it comes more into line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000? I would expect there to be a duty to amend and publish if possible, which is what the Act provides. If you can, by deleting or amending, make something publishable, that is what you have to do. At the moment, it is not clear; the alternatives are that you can amend it or you cannot publish it. I would like it to be clear that you have to amend if you can, and it is only if you cannot that you cannot publish.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My advice is clear but I will of course look again at that point if the noble Lord feels that still more clarification is needed. I will write to him and pursue this if I think we have not made that clear.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am satisfied with the Minister's answer that Amendment No. 55 is not necessary because the Government accept that what is sought is implied. It is for the Government to decide whether to make that quite clear on the face of the Bill. The Minister has already indicated that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56 to 66 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 67:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"POWERS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION FOR PURPOSES OF FORMAL INVESTIGATION

(1) Where the Children's Commissioner considers it is necessary and expedient to do so for the proper conduct of a formal investigation, he may, at any reasonable time, enter any premises in which—

(a) a child is living or being looked after;

(b) a child is being detained under any statutory provision;

(c) education, health, welfare or other services are provided for children; or

(d) the Commissioner believes a child is, or may be, employed or receiving training.

(2) On entering any premises under this section, the Children's Commissioner may—

(a) make any examination into the state and management of the premises and the treatment of children there which he thinks appropriate;

(b) subject to subsection (3), inspect and take copies of any documents or records which are required by any statutory provision to be kept there;

(c) subject to subsections (4) to (6), interview in private any child present on the premises;

(d) interview in private any other person present on the premises who is employed there (whether the employment is paid or unpaid or under a contract or otherwise).

(3) The Children's Commissioner shall not exercise his power under subsection (2)(b) unless he considers it necessary to do so for the proper conduct of an investigation.

(4) Before exercising the power conferred by subsection (2)(c) in relation to any child, the Children's Commissioner shall inform the parent of the child—

(a) of his intention to interview the child; and

(b) of the parent's right under subsection (6);

and shall supply the parent with sufficient information to enable him to exercise that right.

(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if in the Children's Commissioner's opinion—

(a) it would not be in the interests of the child to inform the parent in accordance with that subsection; or

(b) it would not in the circumstances be practicable to do so.

(6) The parent of the child has the right to be present at any interview conducted under subsection (2)(c) unless—

(a) in the Children's Commissioner's opinion—

(i) it would not be in the interests of the child for his parent to be present; or

(ii) it is in the circumstances not practicable for the parent to be present; or

(b) the child objects to the parent being present and, in the Commissioner's opinion, that objection is reasonable (regard being had in particular to the age and understanding of the child).

(7) Where the Children's Commissioner proposes to exercise the power of entry conferred by this section he shall, if so required, produce some duly authenticated document showing his authority to exercise the power.

(8) Nothing in this section authorises the Children's Commissioner to enter any premises (or any part of any premises) used wholly or mainly as a private dwelling."

The noble Baroness said: First, I thank the Minister for agreeing to take the previous amendment away.
In moving Amendment No. 67, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 68 as well. Both amendments deal with very important issues. The first deals with powers of entry and inspection for the purposes of formal investigation, and the second deals with further action following the report of a formal investigation.
It is hard to think of the Children's Commissioner being refused entry to any place that is not a private dwelling where children are looked after or educated. However, it is the duty of this House to think the unthinkable and to ensure that Bills leave here with as few built-in loopholes as possible. In cases when an institution is being investigated, either on its own or as part of something wider, it is entirely possible that those in charge may wish to delay matters until, for example, the paperwork has been brought up to date. If the Children's Commissioner has no express right of entry—to his timetable—a delay may be inevitable, if only to clear his credentials.
Earlier today, I referred to a meeting that I had with the disabled group yesterday. One issue that was particularly raised was the important one of being able to give evidence or seek advice in privacy. The particular claues that we are dealing with are hugely important. In the case of an establishment that may be employing or training a child, the right of entry must be defined. Many small businesses are run by people with little knowledge of the law and no means of instant access to it. A school, for example, can ring up the legal department at the county or metropolitan county and obtain swift directions. A plumber with four adult staff and an apprentice will rarely have recourse to such a speedy response. If the rule is included in the Bill, it can be demonstrated on the spot and possibly cross-checked very easily through a body such as the Citizens Advice Bureau.
The Children's Commissioner's rights once he is on the premises must be carefully circumscribed, but they should give him reasonable access to the place itself, its management, its record systems, the people who work there and any children who attend there in any capacity. I believe that this amendment satisfies all those conditions. The Disability Rights Commission supports the aim of this amendment to give the commissioner essential powers of entry to an establishment and the ability to interview children and young people in private, on which I touched earlier.
On Amendment No. 68, the main reason for having a Children's Commissioner is to give children their own champion—a person who is on their side, good, bad or ugly enough to ensure that everybody else is also on their side. It is extremely important. There may be difficulties, but such a person will listen to them.
Travelling around the country from time to time as I do, I often listen to Radio 4. Recently, there were a mass of most unlikely but at the same time informative programmes. Through some of them I have become uneasily aware that almost ever since the end of the First World War, authorities of various kinds have acted on behalf of children in ways that, sadly, should
1328
not have happened then and that would not now be tolerated. This clause may never have to be invoked—I sincerely hope that it is not. However, not to include it in the Bill—I will listen to the Minister's response with interest—would run an unacceptable risk that further cover-ups may happen. We do not want that to happen, especially in our dealings with children. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I added my name to both these amendments. Amendment No. 67 is a critical test of the commissioner's independence and of his or her capacity to safeguard the most vulnerable children. For the post to be effective, the commissioner must have the power to initiate contact with children and meet them in private. Without it, authorities would be able to refuse access to institutions and to individual children, perhaps under some of the circumstances referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
While we would expect that most institutions will understand the role of the commissioner—and support it and co-operate with him or her—this power is necessary as a symbol of the commissioner's independence and singular allegiance with children and as a safeguard to protect children from those who would seek to keep them away from the commissioner. The amendments set out the process the commissioner must follow when seeking to interview children in private, clearly stating the need for parental consent and involvement unless it is not in the best interests of the child.
Children's developmental state makes them uniquely vulnerable. They are more susceptible than adults to coercion and intimidation. We know from past enquiries into abuse in residential care that abused and mistreated children can remain silent for months and years because they do not have the knowledge, confidence or opportunity to make contact with someone outside the institution in which they find themselves. The practical barriers preventing children seeking help themselves can be huge and impenetrable, especially for younger children, disabled children and children in custodial settings.
It is under the circumstances where the Children's Commissioner believes that there is an abuse of the system— something going wrong for children in general—that he or she would want to enter institutions where children are held. Some of the lobby groups have asked for even further powers of' entry than are in this amendment. I believe that under the circumstances where the commissioner has reason to believe that immediate intervention is required because an offence may be about to be committed, the commissioner would actually work with the police. Therefore, that sort of power is not necessary. I would certainly anticipate a very close collaboration between the commissioner and the police under those circumstances.
Amendment No. 68 is very important in terms of making sure that the commissioner's work is effective and that something actually happens as a result of what he or she has to say. It is not enough for the Government to claim that an effective commissioner will be able to elicit a response from a relevant body. On the other

1329
hand, it is relying too much on the good will of bodies subject to a formal investigation to expect them always to provide a timely, serious and considered response to the commissioner's recommendations. In difficult circumstances, the pressures on bodies to ignore, stall or dismiss out of hand the commissioner's recommendations will be immense.
If the Government want and expect bodies to respond to recommendations arising from formal investigations undertaken by the commissioner, then this amendment should be in the Bill. Without this provision, from the start the commissioner will have a serious credibility problem, and will be impotent to act if his or her recommendations are met with silence or a half-hearted and derisory response. To refer to mixed metaphors that we used on Tuesday, the commissioner would be a set of ears without any teeth.
We really do need both Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 in order to ensure the commissioner has the powers that he or she will need.
Baroness David: I should like strongly to support the need for the commissioner to have a right of access to any institutional premises where children are. However, the powers should not be limited, as it is in Amendment No. 67, to the context of formal investigations. As I said in the earlier debate on investigations, we are all agreed that formal investigations, which inevitably take a lot of the commissioner's resources, should be rare.
Similarly, we would not expect the commissioner to use this power of entry often, and there could be strict criteria for its use. However, we know the terrible abuse suffered by very many children in all kinds of institutions, and how it has persisted despite a whole range of safeguards, inspectors and so on. We also know that child labour persists despite other safeguards under employment legislation. The commissioner is not there to duplicate other services, but he is there to go in when others seem to failing children. As an independent watchdog for children, the commissioner needs to be seen to have exceptional powers to enter, to see relevant documents and to interview children in private, just as he or she needs the power to take or intervene in legal proceedings.
The commissioner in Northern Ireland has those powers and there is just as much need for it in England. An unannounced visit by the commissioner on the basis of a call from a child who finds that his pleas for help are not being listened to or is threatened with reprisals, or on the basis of a call from a whistle-blowing member of staff, could lead to all sorts of necessary action. The commissioner needs to be able to do that without the rigmarole of establishing a formal investigation.
The proposed new clause in Amendment No. 68, on "Further action following report" is also essential, as it requires relevant bodies to respond to the commissioner's recommendations following an investigation. I emphasise again, as I did earlier, that commissioners cannot constitutionally be given powers to overturn the decisions of Ministers or departments, but there needs to be a
1330
formal requirement to take the commissioner's recommendations seriously and to respond and explain why if they are not being accepted.
I was of course delighted that the Government conceded with such grace on Tuesday that the commissioner must have regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Pursuing the logic of that concession should lead to a revised general function parallel to that of the other commissioners and the addition of these and other powers to give the commissioner the necessary authority and status to promote and defend children's human rights.
The debate so far has suggested universal praise for the Government's introduction of the Children's Commissioner but also very strong support from all sides and corners of the House for full independence and real powers, reflected today in a strong editorial from the Guardian, which I dare say that other Members of the Committee have read as well.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: I rise to support Amendment No. 67. The commissioner really needs those powers to get to the truth. There could be resistance; it is understandable for institutions to protect themselves. The commissioner is not going to be able to get to the bottom of things without powers of entry and powers to seize documents. My strong convictions about the matter stem again from my visits with the Joint Committee on Human Rights to Australia and New Zealand, where we had long conversations with very experienced commissioners. It was their firm view that it was essential for the commissioner to have those powers. Their evidence is laid out clearly in the committee's report, recommending that there ought to be a children's commissioner. The powers are moderate, clearly limited and circumscribed.
I also warmly support what other Members of the Committee have said about interviewing children in private.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: As I have already supported the inclusion of these powers during an earlier debate, I am not going to go into the same detail again. I have been extremely impressed by everything that has been said and would fully back it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, said, the issue about being able to interview children in private is absolutely crucial.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I shall say very briefly, because I do not want to detain the Committee, that very important principles have been laid out in the amendments. The Children's Commissioner for Wales wanted greater powers than were enshrined in the Act passed in 2001. I would ask that any such powers should be also be extended to allow the powers of the Children's Commissioner for Wales to come near

1331
those of the commissioner in Northern Ireland. I have not tabled an amendment to that effect, but I know from the helpful discussions outside the Chamber that we have had with the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, that when we are considering matters relating to England we can consider the implications for Wales.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As noble Lords have indicated in moving and supporting the amendments, these two amendments seek to give the commissioner additional powers with respect to "formal investigations". The Committee will wish to put my remarks in the context of my earlier responses. I believe that I have explained why we are not minded to give the commissioner powers for any formal investigations or inquiries other than the power to conduct an inquiry when directed to do so by the Secretary of State. As the Committee will be aware, Clause 4 as it stands gives the commissioner the powers that he needs for the effective conduct of an inquiry.
Amendment No. 67 would give the commissioner a range of new powers for the conduct of formal investigations, such as the power to enter property and seize documents. It is, of course, right that the commissioner should have the powers required to discharge the duties placed upon him or her, so an amendment of this type would be a natural sequel to any power to conduct formal investigations. However, as I indicated, as the Bill stands, the commissioner does not have that power except under the direction of the Secretary of State in Clause 4. I have indicated the reasons why we are not minded to give the commissioner such a power.
Noble Lords on all sides of the Committee have raised the following point. There is nothing in either the Clause 2 or the Clause 4 powers that prevents the commissioner interviewing children in private with all of the safeguards that Members of the Committee indicated regarding small children, families, permissions and so on. That is entirely appropriate.
We do not think that these additional powers are necessary for the role we envisage under Clause 2 which does not entail casework. However, as I say, we would expect the commissioner to speak to individual children, to talk to children in private and to discuss with anyone relevant—as I have said several times this afternoon— the work that he wishes to undertake. However, we do not believe that he should have the power to seize documents or inspect premises.
We have already provided the appropriate powers in respect of the commissioner's functions under Clause 4, if the commissioner is carrying out a formal inquiry. They include the ability to summon people to attend, give evidence or produce documents and enable him to administer oaths and take evidence under oath. It will be an offence to disobey a summons by refusing to give evidence or to tamper with documents. Under the commissioner's role as envisaged by the Government, we do not think it necessary to give the commissioner powers to enter property or to seize documents.
1332
I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said about the need to involve the police in certain circumstances. I say to my noble friend Lady David, whom, as she knows, I hold in the highest respect, that the circumstances that she described in which the commissioner might enter premises gave me good cause to believe that we should not accept the amendments. If the commissioner were able to enter premises having received a phone call from a child, we would have created a post entirely different from that we have set out to create. It is very important that the inspectorates, the police and all those involved in the provision of services play their part in these matters. I accept that the commissioner might wish to call upon those services if he was concerned about a matter. I am convinced that the commissioner, with the oxygen of publicity that is available to him, would wish to see those services respond. However, the role that my noble friend suggests for the commissioner is different from that envisaged by the Government. We are very clear that the role of the commissioner is to support and enrich the work of developing services for children and to take the overview that I have described. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
I turn to Amendment No. 68. This amendment would give the commissioner powers to ensure that, where he or she makes recommendations for action to be taken following a formal investigation, these are acted upon. It is certainly not the Government's intention that the commissioner's inquiry reports should sink without trace. Under Clause 4, if directed by the Secretary of State to undertake an inquiry, we would wish the commissioner to identify problems and to propose action to be taken and changes to be made. Reports should lead to action, as the Committee would expect, or to explanation of why the commissioner's recommendations have not been accepted or implemented.
We believe that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to look to relevant bodies for responses and agreed action. If the Secretary of State's own department, or another government department were the subject of recommendations, Parliament would expect a response from the Government setting out what was being done to address those recommendations. As ever, the Secretary of State will be accountable to Parliament.
I hope that the Committee will consider that I have answered the questions and responded to the issues within the context of the way in which we have drawn up the commissioner's role. It is important not to underestimate the public profile of the commissioner, the respect in which he will be held within the world of children's services and the ability, therefore, to attract interest and concern regarding the work that he will undertake. In the context of the commissioner who we have set up. we believe that these amendments are unnecessary. On that basis, I hope that they will be withdrawn.
Baroness Byford: I am very grateful to the Minister for her full reflection on our debate and I am even more grateful for the points that have been raised by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee. I fear that I must be getting very tired because I have listened carefully to the Minister's response and I cannot see where the powers that we are asking for are in Clause 4. As I said, I am a little weary so it could be that I am not seeing where it is and I hope the Minister can assist me with that.
Secondly, I understand that the commissioner cannot insist, he can only be guided or directed by the Secretary of State. I do not think that he can insist in his own right but I am not sure about that. With regard to the commissioner having to respond very quickly to a child's call, that is certainly not our intention. I think that the Minister realises that and she is nodding her head, for which I am very grateful. As we said at the beginning of the day, these are seen as unusual cases that might be directed in that way.
The last of the Minister's comments on which I would be grateful if she would come back to me is that she said that the report should lead to action. Yes, it should, but I cannot see that that is applicable as the Bill currently stands. Other noble Lords may also have queries but I would be grateful if the Minister would answer my four queries in response to her response to me.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall endeavour to answer the questions. I have a specific response to the noble Baroness's question on Clause 4. The special powers in Clause 4 are in subsections (7) to (9), which refer to other Acts. I am very happy to explain that in correspondence with the noble Baroness and other noble Lords. My understanding is that it is through the reference to those other Acts that we get the powers. I am very happy to clarify that further if that would help. When the noble Baroness said that the commissioner could only insist, I was not entirely certain precisely to what she was referring. I would be grateful if she would explain.
Baroness Byford: I think that I shall have to read Hansard very carefully tomorrow but from my understanding of what the Minister said, I thought that she was implying that the commissioner could not himself insist on entry.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Does the noble Baroness mean insist on entry to premises? I beg her pardon. The issue is between Clause 2 and Clause 4. Under the powers given in subsections (7) to (9), through these other Acts, it is my understanding that access would be available. I shall clarify that point because the noble Baroness has quite rightly raised it and I shall ensure that it is correct. If that is incorrect, I shall write to the noble Baroness. The differences between Clause 2 and Clause 4 are that Clause 4 is the formal inquiry, if I may describe it as such, instigated by the Secretary of State that brings with it a series of powers given under subsection (7) to (9) by reference to other Acts of Parliament. They enable the commissioner to do a number of things, including
1334
seizing documents and having witnesses, powers that he does not normally have in the day to day function of his job under Clause 2. That is the critical difference. In a sense, it is the line between where the noble Baroness wishes to be and where the Government currently are.
I stand corrected. I have had a note that says that there is no right of access under either Clause 4 or Clause 2. The noble Baroness was absolutely right to pick that up with me. I shall clarify that point further and write to noble Lords about it because I would not wish to mislead the Committee on that.
In terms of action, as the noble Baroness said, the issue with which we are all grappling during this long afternoon is how to ensure that action is taken as a consequence of inquiry reports.
We have positioned the commissioner's work so that the action needs to be taken by the Government. The Secretary of State will have formally wanted the inquiry and published the inquiry's report. The Government, who are responsible to Parliament, will be responsible for ensuring that action is taken. I was also indicating that, in the normal course of the work of the commissioner and special inquiries, the oxygen of publicity will be a critical tool in enabling the commissioner to be clear about where people did not respond and where he is concerned about other issues. I would not underestimate that as an important part of our democratic process. In our proposals, however, the requirement for people to act on the formal inquiry would rest with the Secretary of State.
I hope that that is clear. If it is not, I will be happy to clarify it in further correspondence.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for clarifying those queries and for returning to the one issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 68 to 71A not moved.]
Clause 5 [Relationship with other Commissioners]:
[Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 not moved.]
Baroness Thornton Baroness Thornton moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 4, line 14, at end insert—
"(d) to the extent that such matters relate to children in the Greater London area, take account of the views of and any work undertaken by the Assistant Children's Commissioner for London"
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. It might look like special pleading for London, but it is not. Were we discussing this Bill in two or three years' time, as regional government is rolled out, we could easily be saying the same about Yorkshire or the east Midlands. As a government are already in place in London, we can use it as an example of how the Bill's regional aspects might work out. That is what this amendment is about.
The Bill should be amended to include provision for an Assistant Children's Commissioner for London. That will ensure that there is an appropriate regional mechanism within the national commissioner structure so that proper account can be taken of the diverse needs, rights, views and interests of—in this case—London's children, as well as those of London's governmental structures and policies.
Although there may be a case for a separate London commissioner, I think we would all agree that that model could be confusing to London's children, young people and the wider public. It would assume some knowledge of the different roles and responsibilities of national and regional government. It may be duplicating and lead to potential gaps in service delivery. The preference must therefore be for a model within the national commissioner structure to ensure external clarity and external coherence.
I raised this issue on Second Reading, as did several other noble Lords. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, said that assistant commissioners in the regions would match devolution and be able to respond to local people and local needs. She is completely correct. It is important that the Children's Commissioner's role must extend to monitoring and promoting and protecting children's rights in the development of policy and legislation at Westminster, alongside an appropriate regional structure to ensure that the commissioner can do his job properly.
An Assistant Children's Commissioner for London would be able to operate with an understanding of the complexity of well established regional government—the GLA—and other London-wide structures. This role would ensure that the Children's Commissioner function is apprised of and engaged at local government level in health, social care, education and, crucially, with the role of regional government in planning, community safety, culture and transport policies as they affect children.
Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999—which some noble Lords will remember putting through the House—the Mayor's statutory responsibilities, as I am sure he will recall, include the preparation of strategies, plans and policies for London covering transport, spatial development, planning, culture, ambient noise—I remember that one—air quality, waste management, biodiversity and economic development. In addition, the Mayor has a range of specific powers and duties and a general power to do anything that will promote economic and social development and environmental improvement in London.
As children and young people are major users of the public realm and have expressed strong interest in those areas, they are particularly susceptible to, for example, the effects of environmental degradation, poor air quality and unsafe play areas. Children's opportunities to play in green and open spaces are being addressed in a GLA group by the London Plan and its supplementary and best practice guidance, while children's community safety issues come within
1336
the remit of the Metropolitan Police Authority and Service, Transport for London and the London Child Protection Committee. I am saying this because it amplifies the point about why and how addressing the regional issues would make the job of the Children's Commissioner easier and would address at an appropriate level the sorts of issues that one would wish to have addressed—in this case in London.
An assistant children's commissioner for London would be required to safeguard the interests and rights of London's 1.62 million children and young people and their unique diversity and specific issues. On a population basis alone, London has two-and-a- half times the number of children and young people than Wales, nearly three times the number in Scotland and one-and-a-half times the number in Northern Ireland—which is why, indeed, they have their own commissioners. On numbers alone one could make the same argument about my own home county of Yorkshire and other regions of the country.
This is a probing amendment. We want to have this discussion and it is important that it is addressed in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I have added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. The appointment of a children's commissioner in London would be a good idea and I, too, hope that it would be the first of a set of regional assistant commissioners. Earlier today I addressed the issue of the size of the population of children in the UK—not from the point of view of diluting the powers of the English Children's Commissioner, rather to give more resources and divide them up regionally.
The region is a practical and effective level for developing consultation mechanisms and engagement with children and young people. Consultations by the Office of the Children's Rights Commissioner for London highlighted that children particularly identify with their neighbourhood and their city, when raising quality of life, safety and well-being issues with their representatives. A regional commissioner structure is also needed in London to reflect the diversity of London's children—41 per cent of London's children and young people aged under 18 belong to black, Asian or minority ethnic groups. That figure is even higher in inner-London; namely, 53 per cent. Between them they speak about 300 different languages.
A similar diversity occurs in my region, the northwest, where I hope that sometime in the future we will have regional government. So I support both the detail of the requirement for a London commissioner and the principle that he or she should be the first of a series of assistant commissioners, who together form a commission for England's children.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I rise briefly to support the amendment, simply because I have argued from the drafting of the Bill that it would be useful to have a commission, rather than a commissioner with a body of people outside in the regions. I believe that

1337
then we would have had a very different debate about the Bill, because some of the issues would have been different.
However, Norfolk, Cornwall and Yorkshire are as different as Scotland, Ireland and Wales and in time there will be no alternative but to develop a different structure for the representation of those children. I hope that we then have coherence with the central commissioner so that such issues as we have debated today do not have to be reconsidered every time a region appoints a commissioner.
Earl Howe: I have considerable sympathy with the amendments. They raise the very pertinent question of how the responsibilities exercised by elected regional assemblies in England can best be married up with those exercised by the Children's Commissioner. Without repeating all the extremely well put points about London, I recognise that in London particularly the issues are stark. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, there are acute challenges associated with ethnic diversity, poverty and ill health that need to be addressed. This is a very neat way forward.
Lord Tope: I support the amendments. I declare an interest as a member of the London Assembly and the Greater London Authority; I hope to be so again after 10 June. I am also a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and a London borough councillor.
In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness was careful, and proper, to say that there was no special pleading for London. However, in view of the interests that I have just declared, perhaps I might be forgiven for making a little special pleading for London. The case has been made very well. We have an existing structure of regional government of sorts in London, and we have such aspirations for the rest of the country. I am sure that that will need to be considered when the time comes.
London has a very large population of young people. Not only is it large in number, but, as other Members of the Committee have said, it is very diverse. In inner London more than half the population of young people is from a black or ethnic minority background. The case has been made for particular consideration to be given to London's particular circumstances at present, in the complex structure of governance, the size and, in particular, diversity of the population of young people. We all look forward to the Minister's response.
Baroness Andrews: It is not often that I am called upon to respond to an election address. It went slightly beyond special pleading, but I take the point entirely. The children of London have had some very eloquent advocates speaking on their behalf in the past quarter of an hour. We would not dispute that London is a complex, large, diverse and very challenging community. As the noble Earl said, there are very stark issues involved. The GLA had for three years its own
1338
pilot in London of a Children's Rights Commissioner, whose record of listening to children was very successful. We are obviously very pleased about that.
However, the issues raised in the debate apply beyond London. We must reflect on the fact that other communities across the country, although they may not be as large, are certainly as diverse in the nature of their neighbourhoods and the challenges that they pose. When we talk about London in this context, we must reflect that a model for London takes us into the issue of models for other regions.
The noble Baroness made an eloquent case, not for a commissioner—she was very clear about that—but for an assistant commissioner, and explained why. We must be very careful at this stage in the development of the office of Children's Commissioner in the suggestions that we put or the prescriptions that we make to the potential commissioner and his office.
In particular, rural areas, which are sometimes relatively invisible, are no less complex, particularly as regards what they can or cannot offer young people. A serious attempt should be made to ensure that the interests of young people in rural areas are considered. One such young person said to me recently, "It may look like landscape to you; it actually looks very empty to me, when the only thing around is the bus station or the bus stop where I can meet my friends". We need to take that matter seriously.
While we are looking closely at the emerging office of the commissioner, we are on the threshold of some very dynamic development in regional issues and government in this country. I would suggest to the noble Lords that these first months or years may not be the right time to overload the commissioner with a set of new challenges, until the office itself beds down. Having said that, we have had some debate about what is "all children": the inclusivity of the nature of the challenge that he is faced with. My noble friend Baroness Ashton has made it very clear that "all children" means all children in every part of the country. To that extent, while I think we have to be very careful about over-prescription at this stage, we feel the commissioner has to find his or her own ways of working with, and prioritising, issues as the office emerges and develops, notwithstanding these powerful arguments. There is a danger of prescribing something which could turn out to be over-bureaucratic, and we would suddenly find ourselves with an inappropriately complex structure, something that would hinder, rather than enable, him in discharging his duties.
As regards some of the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, raised, the commissioner has a staff: a non-departmental public body. He is able to delegate the work of his staff, and it may be that he decides some of his staff should look after the interests of children in some of the regions. Whether you call this an office—a commission rather than a commissioner—we may have a debate about. Nevertheless, it will be a non-departmental public body with the capacity to do that. I am keen to make the case that he should have the independence to determine the priorities and how best to use those resources.

1339
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was extremely thorough in Amendment No. 77, having defined the functions of the assistant commissioner in Amendment No. 74, and argued about how to place a duty on the Children's Commissioner with regard to the assistant commissioner's work. If minded to accept her main amendment, we would feel that what she had done in subsequent amendments was perfectly reasonable.
Under the circumstances, however, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment at this stage, because it is inappropriate in terms of the development of the office as we see it, for the reasons I have explained.
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: I am sorry not to have been present for the earlier debate. As the Minister was mentioning "all children", just to be absolutely clear, does that include children either on remand or in custody''
Baroness Andrews: Yes.
Baroness Thornton: I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. I also thank noble Lords for their support, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Tope. As a former chair of the London Labour Party, I am quite used to special pleading on behalf of London, and do not have a problem with doing that.
The problem we face here is that this is going to happen willy-nilly. London's government is not going to wait for the commissioner to take a long time to make their mind up about how to address the needs of London's children. I suspect there will also be debates in other regional assemblies in the making around the country. I accept that one does not want to prescribe how the Children's Commissioner should do his job. However, I would put in a plea that the opportunity to provide the framework in this legislation. allowing there to be co-ordination across the country as regional assemblies exist, should be taken. I would also put a plea in that the department examine whether or not that is possible within this Bill. Even if it is not acceptable to create an assistant commissioner for London at this stage, the position of assistant commissioners—or whatever we call them—to deal with such issues should be addressed.
It is not a competition between the needs of rural children and those of London's children. I am disappointed that we touched on that, because that is not the point. The point is to make sure that children everywhere are properly represented. I suspect that, whatever happens in the elections, the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor will address the problem anyway. We should make sure that it is done without creating confusion for children. I suspect that we will return to the matter, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 75:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
"REQUIREMENT TO REVIEW WORKING OF PART 1 OF THE ACT
(1) The Children's Commissioner shall—

(a) keep under review the working of Part 1 of this Act and in doing so consult with children and representatives of organisations concerned with children's rights and interests;

(b) make reports on it to the Secretary of State in accordance with the following provisions of this section.

(2) The first report under this section shall be made as soon as practicable after the third anniversary of the coming into force of this Part.
(3) A subsequent report under this section shall he made at such time as the Children's Commissioner thinks fit, not being earlier than three years after the making of the last previous report.
(4) A report under this section—

(a) shall include the views of the Children's Commissioner on the adequacy and effectiveness of this Part; and

(b) may contain recommendations as to amendments to this Part which in the opinion of the Children's Commissioner are necessary or desirable.

(5) The Secretary of State shall as soon as is reasonably practicable lay a copy of every report sent to him under this section before each House of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: The creation of a Children's Commissioner for England has been widely welcomed. Although, as the Minister knows, we hope that the role and powers of the commissioner can be amplified and strengthened in certain ways, Part 1 of the Bill is, nevertheless, a decided step forward for children in England, giving them a powerful listening ear and an equally powerful voice.
The independent organisations that have been in touch with me—the Children's Rights Alliance for England, the Children's Society, the National Children's Bureau, the NSPCC and many others—have pointed to the legislative framework for the Northern Ireland commissioner as the model to aspire to. The functions of the Northern Ireland commissioner include the promotion of the rights and best interests of children; advocacy; assisting and intervening in legal proceedings; reviewing whistle blowing and complaints procedures; and investigating complaints. Alongside that, the commissioner has been granted a range of independent powers. However, the Northern Ireland Assembly understood—as did Parliament—that, even within that strong framework, there was a need for a periodic review of the adequacy and effectiveness of the commissioner's powers. In Amendment No. 75, I propose that there should be provision for such a periodic review for the English commissioner.
In launching the Bill, the Government described the creation of a Children's Commissioner as a "historic first"—I think that those were the words—and we all recognise that the creation of a commissioner carries with it huge expectations, as was said a while ago. Something like 130 organisations concerned with children and young people have campaigned for a children's rights champion and watchdog for over

1341
10 years. It is in everyone's interests, not least those of children but also those of the commissioner himself or herself, to make sure, after an appropriate interval, that we have the kind of effective champion that so many have waited for. I suggest that, in reviewing Part 1 of the Act and making recommendations to government, the commissioner should be required to consult children and representatives of children's organisations. I hope that the Minister will see the virtue of the proposal. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I support the noble Earl's amendment. I hope also that, in conducting the review after the specified period, the commissioner could reflect on the powers that he or she has and the consequences of lacking the powers that he or she has not had, in the light of what is done by the commissioners in the other jurisdictions.
We are having heated debates about the powers and independence of the commissioner, and who knows how the Bill will come out at the end? However, I would be surprised if, at the end of the Bill's passage through both Houses, the new commissioner had exactly the same powers as those in the other three jurisdictions, who all have slightly different powers anyway. I would hope that the review would be conducted in the light of what he or she can do and what he or she might like to be able to do.
Lord Elton: I take it that this is a different report from the annual report that one would expect. It is an imaginative addition to the expectation of an annual report that would encourage the commissioner to look at the framework in which he or she is working in a critical and constructive way. That is not always the case when people operate under this sort of arrangement.
I wondered whether a refinement would be to require all the Children's Commissioners to conduct a consultation and a single report at the end of the period, so that they could compare the relative performance under the different legislative requirements that they at present have.
I also cannot resist noticing the regularity that is required of the report. I recall what was said a little earlier today about what had been said in another place about the Welsh commissioner. I think that the regularity will be a reassurance to the Minister. The fact that it is triennial and that the Welsh Children's Commissioner was upbraided, we understand, for producing only one report in three years may cause her some thought. Basically, I think that this is an imaginative idea, which I hope will be taken up.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I, too, support this amendment. I agree that it is an imaginative proposal, which would be very important. If the Minister's proposals go through in their current form, there will be a fair amount of disquiet about the fairly limited powers, which some would call weak, that the commissioner has. To have a specific requirement to
1342
make such a report, rather than to have perhaps an expectation that something might be said in an annual report, would be very helpful and reassuring to those of us who still would wish for something stronger.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I entirely understand the thinking behind the noble Earl's amendment. The Children's Commissioner would be ideally placed to provide independent scrutiny of the legislation in consultation with children and the organisations that work with them. But the Government consider this amendment to be unnecessary. Under the Bill, the commissioner can do this anyway.
In response to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, if the commissioners decide that they want to do something together, it is my understanding that they can do that. There is nothing to stop them.
Lord Elton: I apologise for intervening because it is late. Does the noble Baroness not accept that something that the commissioners publish of their own volonté would have much less weight than something that they had to do because it was required by statute.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: No, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about that. When people do things that they wish to do, in some ways that carries more weight than when they do something that they are required to do. We have had many deliberations today about the question of independence and that the commissioner should determine what the commissioner does. I believe that this is an example where I can honestly say that we are very clear that the commissioner can do this if the commissioner wishes to. That is very important. By formally requesting the commissioner to do that, we would impose a burden that we do not wish to impose on the commissioner.
It is clear, as I have said many times in your Lordships' House, that the focus of the commissioner's work is to talk to children and young people; to look at what they want the commissioner to do; to get their work programme, in a sense, from what children feel is important to children; and to organise the workload of the commissioner as the commissioner sees fit in the light of those deliberations. As an independent children's champion, it must be for the commissioner to determine, in consultation with children, what they are doing, and, in consultation with children and children's organisations, how and when a review of the legislation is relevant and appropriate.
There is nothing to stop the commissioner from doing that. It may well be that the commissioner will wish to do that. The commissioner may wish to do it in consultation or in conjunction with other commissioners. It is entirely up to the commissioner as an independent champion to determine that. On that basis, I hope the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: In the last group of amendments the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, spoke of the need to let the office of the commissioner "bed down". I do not disagree with that, but someone must take a view on how that bedding down process has worked. There is considerable merit in building in a formal provision for such a review to take place.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, said that the commissioner could do what he or she wanted in regard to conducting a review, but I should have thought that was true only within the legislative framework provided for the commissioner. It is interesting to hear the Minister say that the legislative framework does allow for that, but that begs a number of questions in the context of our earlier debates today about the powers of
1344
the commissioner. It also raises questions about the financial provision being made for the commissioner. No review of this kind would be cost free.
In any event, at this hour I shall not pursue the matter further. I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall reflect on what she has said between now and the Report stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes past seven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand committee on the Extradition Bill
(Fifth Day)
Thursday, 26th June 2003.
The Committee met at a quarter before four of the clock.
[The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grenfell) in the Chair.]
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Grenfell): Before we start on our business, I remind the Committee that, if a Division is called in the Chamber, we shall have a short suspension, lasting 10 minutes from the time when the bells are rung, before we resume our business.
Clause 17 [Speciality]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 74:
Page 9, line 7, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 74, which stands in my name, is also supported by the noble Lords. Lord Goodhart and Lord Clinton-Davis. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I remind it at this stage that, when Amendment No. 76 is called, in the fourth group, I will not move it. That was agreed in order to save some time. The leader of the Bill team was able to furnish me with satisfactory information, which means that I need not move that amendment.
Amendment No. 74 probes the Government on the detail in Clause 17, which deals with the complex issue of speciality. Speciality prohibits a person from being prosecuted after his extradition for an offence committed before his extradition. Clause 17 enforces that bar, except in situations in which there are speciality provisions as set out in subsection (3), or where subsection (4) is satisfied.
It is the list of offences in subsection (3) that worries me. Paragraphs (d) and (e) read as follows:
"(d) an offence which is not punishable with imprisonment or another form of detention;
(e) an offence in respect of which the person will not be detained in connection with his trial, sentence or appeal".
Both paragraphs seem to aim at offences that attract financial penalties. My attention was drawn to the potential problem posed by those paragraphs by a briefing from the Law Society, for which I am grateful. The point is that offences that fall within subsection (3) can be charged without the protections contained in the extradition procedures. For example, there is no mechanism or protection to guard against prosecution of those further offences on the extraneous considerations set out in Clause 13.
The community or financial penalty may be extremely burdensome. Indeed, their imposition may be the primary objective of the requesting state and the procedure could thus be open to abuse, especially with regard to the freezing of assets and financial penalties. We are told that that is increasingly likely given the growing emphasis on civil remedies. Such unassociated proceedings may last a considerable time, causing prolonged disruption to the suspect's life and career. It is wrong in principle to allow procedures and proceedings in by the back door, rather than be honest about them and have them addressed as offences that might give rise to a warrant for arrest.
In addition, there is no provision or safeguard to ensure that there is no risk of detention or imprisonment for non-payment of financial penalties. While I was considering how the list of offences under subsection (3) might have come into being, I looked at the framework decision. Paragraphs (d) and (e) appear similar in format to Article 27.3(b), (c) and (d). The last of those is particularly significant: speciality is waived,
"when the person could be liable to a penalty or a measure not involving the deprivation of liberty, in particular a financial penalty or a measure in lieu thereof, even if the penalty or measure may give rise to a restriction of his or her personal liberty".
I find it curious that the framework decision should draw attention to the possibility that a financial penalty might give rise to a restriction of personal liberty, yet it allows speciality to be waived in such circumstances.
It seems to be an odd situation, and the amendment has been tabled to probe the Government on their intent. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I start by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, to the hot seat in this matter in place of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. May she enjoy it.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, said, my name is also on the amendment. I am concerned about the possible abuse of financial penalties to impose what can be serious consequences on people who have been deported to a country. It is not a wholly imaginary or theoretical possibility. Although by no means on all fours, there have been examples of cases in which authoritarian governments—I have in mind Singapore and Malaysia—have found it too difficult to prosecute awkward political opponents and send them to gaol, so they have sought to knock them out of politics by bringing claims for enormous damages for defamation against them. The consequence has been to make the defendants bankrupt.
It is possible that a government who were determined to do something of that kind might choose, rather than using civil actions, to bring people back for a trial in their jurisdiction and try to impose on them a financial penalty that might make them bankrupt. With that in mind, I would prefer to see a more tightly

GC 115
drawn exemption from the speciality rule that would exclude cases in which there were potentially large fines, even if there was no liability to imprisonment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I too welcome my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal to the Committee. I am sure that her arrival will enliven proceedings and speed us along. We certainly need to make some progress. I have drawn the short straw and must respond to the amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for tabling it. It will help us to explain how we see the system operating.
The amendment refers to the area of speciality, as the noble Baroness said. It is important to understand how we see it working. A person's extradition to a Part 1 country is barred by reason of speciality if there are no arrangements for that provision within that country. That is the first point to remember. Speciality provides that an individual cannot be proceeded against once surrendered for offences committed prior to surrender, for which they were not extradited, unless the consent of the requested state is obtained or the person has had the opportunity to leave the country to which they were extradited.
The rule, however, is not absolute, as has been explained this afternoon. The Bill provides that a person extradited from the UK can also be prosecuted, without our consent, for additional offences that do not attract a custodial sentence. Those are, by definition, the most minor of crimes. On a practical level, if we extradite Mr X—or Ms X—to France for bank robbery and it is discovered after his return that he has outstanding parking tickets or fines, the French will be allowed to prosecute him in respect of those. We see no objection to that. I hope that it is common ground between all of us that it is desirable that as many crimes as possible are cleared up and the perpetrator brought to justice. That principle must apply to all crimes, even minor ones.
I accept that, in the grand scheme of things, that, as in the example I gave, a few outstanding parking tickets or fines may not be of the highest importance, but I hope that the Committee will agree that it is more desirable that those offences should be dealt with than that they should not be.
We have a choice. We can leave the Bill as it is—allowing the French authorities to prosecute the person for his parking or other minor misdemeanours in the knowledge that, under the terms of the Bill, those offences cannot result in any loss of liberty for the person concerned—or we could make the amendment. We would then present the French authorities with a choice. They could decide not to pursue the minor offences, even though they knew who was responsible—that goes against the fundamental principles of justice—or they could seek the United Kingdom's consent to prosecute the person for the additional minor offences. That raises questions of proportionality.
The procedures for dealing with post-extradition requests are set out in detail in Clauses 53 and 54. In particular, there must be a full hearing before a district
GC 116
judge, with both parties represented. The judge must consider whether each of the bars to extradition applies. Is that what we want for dealing with minor offences such as parking tickets? I cannot believe that that is what we want to do or that the Committee would deem that to be appropriate in the circumstances.
I repeat that we are talking mostly about genuinely minor offences that do not and cannot attract any form of custodial penalty. Given that the liberty of the person who has been extradited is not at stake, we see no reason why we should not allow for prosecution for such offences without the full rigmarole of a consent hearing. We are allowing for further prosecution only for minor offences. The country concerned must still follow due judicial processes in order to convict the person.
I can see that some noble Lords might have some difficulty with this, but we must take a proportionate view of the issue. The cases concerned will be of a minor and generally inconsequential nature. The arrangements will help to clear up crimes that we would wish to see cleared up, even though they are of a minor nature. I hope that, having probed the issue, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord constructed his entire argument on the fact that the offences were minor ones. Can he answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart? If I understood him correctly, he said that some countries, for reasons that he indicated, used financial penalties for big offences. Can the Minister answer that? That point interested me.
Viscount Bledisloe: Is there not another objection? Let us suppose that someone is extradited for, say, causing death by dangerous driving, an extraditable offence. Let us also suppose that, at the trial, it appears that he should be convicted of careless driving and only fined. Are we not saying that someone cannot be dealt with only for careless driving? That would be careless. We might have a situation—not in a driving case, obviously—in which one offender has been extradited and his partner in crime is local. In that case, a jury would have to be directed that, although they could convict one of them of the lesser offence, they could not convict the other of that offence because it was not in the section.
The example that the Minister gave related to different offences, such as parking. I am concerned with a situation in which the other offence arises from the same facts. The lesser offence may not be an extraditable offence and would not fall within (b).
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to Singapore, of which I have considerable experience. I respectfully suggest that there are two flaws in his analogy. First, he dealt with defamation, which is a civil suit anyhow. Secondly, when the Singapore Government sue somebody for massive damages for defamation, they do so because he is in the country and they want to get rid of him. The last thing that they will

GC 117
want to do with a political opponent is haul him back if they have got rid of him and got him out of the country.
4 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As regards non-custodial penalties, if someone is in France, say, for a minor offence and is fined £2,000 rather than being sent to prison, what happens if he does not have £2,000 on him or immediate access to it? In this country he would be given time to pay. If the French do not wish to give him time to pay and he has not got the money to pay immediately, will he be prevented from coming back to this country and incarcerated until he can pay?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I acknowledge that there may be difficulties in some circumstances. But I return to the central point—we are talking about minor offences. We may need to give further clarification of what those minor offences may be rather than covering them in the generality of Clause 17(3).
The situation envisaged by the noble Viscount is covered in Clause 17(3)(b), which refers to,
"an extradition offence disclosed by the same facts as that offence".
As to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, other countries have their own systems of fine enforcement but all of them allow for money to be sent from abroad. I cannot see a practical difficulty being generated by the situation referred to by the noble Lord.
We do not foresee the circumstances described by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, occurring and creating a difficulty for us. Unless the noble Lord has further argumentation to illustrate how that may work practically, we do not think it falls within the range.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has shown that perhaps further clarification is needed in regard to how one draws up the exemptions from the speciality rule.
I was interested in the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and I shall look carefully at the examples he gave. I do not believe Clause 17 resolves all of the points raised by the noble Viscount and we shall need to look at it again.
The Government state that the offences caught by the clause are, as the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said, "inconsequential in nature". We would argue that in some cases they may not be inconsequential, particularly because of the hidden agenda behind particular cases being brought. I note what the noble Lord said about the importance of producing proper evidence for that argument and I shall speak to the Law Society to ascertain whether it can provide examples to back up the problems it feels; may ensue.
I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that further clarification of the definition of "minor offences" may be of assistance to the Committee. I hope that he will write to me in that
GC 118
regard between now and Report stage. That will help us to decide whether anything further needs to be brought back on Report.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am more than happy to confirm that we will do that. Perhaps I should have used a broader range of examples than parking tickets and so on. It will help the Committee if we provide further clarification of what other offences we see as being relevant. I do not believe that the case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would come about as an effect of this. I want to make sure that that is absolutely the case, and I am quite happy to put it in writing.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am most grateful for that confirmation. Certainly it is the intention of this side of the Committee, too, that minor offences—whether they be parking fines or related matters—should be cleared up. It is not something that one wants to have as a bar to extradition. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Earlier extradition to United Kingdom from category 1 territory]:
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Case where person has been convicted]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 78:
Page 10, line 13, leave out from "retrial" to end of line 14 and insert "and to be present at the judgement"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 78, which stands in my name, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 81, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart; to Amendment No. 82, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davies; and to Amendments Nos. 199 and 202, which stand in my name.
We turn now to the vital matter of the kind of retrial that should take place after the extradition of a person who has already been convicted. I have divided this originally rather large group of amendments into three separate issues in an attempt to allow the debate to flow more easily.
The first group asks what should comprise the elements that make up an appropriate retrial; the second group addresses the question of how a person's absence from the first trial should affect his or her right to a retrial; and the third group looks at the issue of how the interests of justice should be defined in respect of this clause.
I am the first to recognise that the Government have already taken significant steps to introduce safeguards into the clause. However, we feel that at the moment they have not quite rounded off the job. The

GC 119
Government have stated that no one convicted in absentia will be extradited without the guarantee of a retrial. That commitment was given in Committee in another place by the ex-Minister, Mr Ainsworth. He went on to state:
"The Bill unambiguously secures the commitment that … unless a fugitive has a right to a retrial, or a review amounting to a retrial, extradition cannot take place".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 14/1/03; col. 112.]
The Government are not as clear on this point as they maintain and this group of amendments seek to probe the nature of the retrial that is available under the clause as opposed to the kind of retrial that we believe it is vital should be guaranteed. For example, what is the "review amounting to a retrial"? I should be grateful if the Minister—I, too, can now welcome her as this is the first group of amendments to which she will respond—could tell the Committee what the procedures are that would qualify a retrial or a review to be considered so satisfactory that a district judge, when considering the matter, could decide that the extradition would go ahead.
Amendment No. 78 seeks to insert into the Bill the requirement that the extradited person should be present at the retrial. The framework decision does not provide that full guarantee. It merely states at paragraph 5.1 that,
"the returned person will be present at the judgment".
I realise that it may be a matter of translation—a "judgment" may mean exactly the same thing as a retrial—but my interpretation, as a layman, is that a judgment is merely the end of the process of a retrial. We say that the extradited person should have the right to be present throughout the retrial itself.
Amendment No. 81 goes further. It provides a full list of the elements that we believe should be an integral part of the retrial. It requires, first, that the suspect should be present, as does Amendment No. 78; that he or she should be allowed to recall prosecution witnesses where the prosecution is not itself required to call them; that the extradited person should be able to call defence witnesses; and that he or she should have the same right to publicly-funded legal services as would normally be available to defendants in that country.
I am grateful to the Law Society for its briefing. It points out that,
"without these features, we believe it can not be said that any review would satisfy the right to a fair trial as set out in article 6 of the ECHR".
I note that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davies, Amendment No. 82, has a similar objective. I support that amendment as far as it goes, but it fails to include within it the vital requirement that the suspect should be present throughout the retrial, or at least is given the opportunity to be present at the retrial.
Amendments Nos. 199 and 202 simply seek to put the same requirements into Part 2 procedures. I thought that it would be helpful to bring those amendments forward and debate them now to save time later on.
In another place the Minister rejected arguments on the whole issue of safeguards for retrial on the basis that the extradition will not take place unless the district judge is satisfied that there will be a retrial. We believe that it is important for the safeguards to be on the face of the Bill in order that the district judge will consider those requirements when coming to his or her judgment. It gives the security that a person will not be extradited to face a lesser standard of review than that which we believe is right. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Before speaking to the amendment which stands in my name, I should say that I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said: it is very important that the defendant should have a right to be present throughout. I hope my noble friend will say that that will be the case. If not, I should like her to indicate how the omission, as I regard it, is to be cured. I do not think that it is at the moment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, pointed out, the Law Society has expressed considerable misgivings about this omission. It is for that reason that I am bringing forward the amendments standing in my name. In basic terms there is not much between what has already been said and what I have to say.
I am very perturbed that there seems to be some kind of dichotomy between what the Minister said at Second Reading and how the clause stands at present. He stated:
"A retrial is differentiated from a simple appeal by the fact that the process starts again from scratch with a presumption of innocence.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/02; col. 44.]
That is how I understand the position. But, unfortunately, the provision in the Bill is not like that at all. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say about that simple, but serious, omission.
Retrials are different in certain member states. We believe, in essence, that the accused should have a right to be present and to be able to recall witnesses. I do not believe that it is possible to have a retrial as we understand it if those notions are not met.
I hope that my noble friend will be able to satisfy the Committee on that issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is quite right to make the point—as have the Law Society and I shall make it again—that if those features are missing there will not be a fair trial as established in Article 6 of the ECHR. It is not enough—I am anticipating what my noble friend will say—to rely on the provisions of Clause 21, which refers to human rights. I am glad that it does, but that provision should not prevail as far as concerns this issue.
I hope that the Government will avail themselves of the opportunity to take this matter back and look again at the situation.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: When I spoke last time, I omitted to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to the proceedings. However, I am not as masochistic as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and would therefore not dream of suggesting that I hope she will enjoy them. I

GC 121
fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that something on the lines of Amendment No. 81 is desirable to ensure that the retrial is a real retrial. However, I venture to suggest that perhaps her wording is somewhat too nationalistic in talking about prosecution and defence witnesses. In other countries, many witnesses may not be prosecution or defence witnesses. I commend to her the thought that perhaps what she needs is words which state:
"The defendant will have like rights to hear and examine witnesses as he would have done at an original trial".
I think that her words are probably inappropriate to the proceedings in certain member states.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I, too, support the principles behind the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. As I understand it, the purpose of Clause 20 is to state that a person who has been convicted will be extradited provided that he was present at the time of his conviction. As it stands, is not the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, right in saying that there is no reference to the need to be present at a retrial? Surely, the whole justification of returning a person on extradition, if there is to be a retrial, is to meet the necessary condition that he or she should be present when that trial takes place and when convicted and sentenced. I hope that the Minister agrees that something to that effect should be included in the Bill.
Secondly, will the Minister explain what is meant by the words,
"or … to a review amounting to a retrial"?
By the use of those words, it seems that something less than a retrial is indicated and more of a judicial review or something of that nature. That would be unsatisfactory in these circumstances because it would not require the person being extradited to be present at that review.
Lord Goodhart: I added my name to Amendment No. 81. I have little to add to what has already been said. It is important that we should clarify in the Bill what is meant by a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial. All the provisions in Amendment No. 81 are necessary. I hope that it will be possible to incorporate them. From what I have said, it will be apparent that I equally support Amendment No. 202, which applies exactly the same principles to category 2 extraditions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I do not want to be regarded as churlish. I, too, would like to welcome my noble friend. I hope that what I have to say will enable her to reach out and say that she will meet my objectives. If, rather more ignobly, she says that being here today is a necessary step to advance her career, I do not think that she had to do that.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): First, I thank all Members of the Committee for the warmth of my welcome. I heard a hint in what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that he believed that I would not enjoy it, but I should reassure the Committee that having had
GC 122
the delightful experience of sharing the company of virtually all those currently present on a number of Bills, I am confident that it will be a delight.
I hope that I shall be able to round things off for the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, as she so graphically put it. I think that I shall be able to explain why we think the amendments are unnecessary. I listened with great interest to what several Members of the Committee said. Indeed, I agree with what they seek to achieve. The Government argue we achieve that by the Bill as drafted. I hope to explain why.
I assure the Committee that the Government share an equal commitment to ensure that the trial and retrial are fair and consistent with the ECHR rights to which we all adhere.It is for that reason that the Bill contains in both Parts 1 and 2 clauses that specifically require the judge to decide whether extradition would be compatible with the individual's ECHR rights. We shall shortly come to the first of those in Clause 21, to which my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis has already referred.
These particular provisions concerning convictions in absentia also demonstrate our determination to make more explicit the rights of the person whose extradition is sought. Extradition is barred if a person has been convicted in his absence, unless he deliberately absented himself, and he will not be entitled to a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial.
As regards the term "retrial", in our view a retrial must confer the same rights on an individual as a trial. If it does not, it is not a retrial. The right to a fair trial is, of course, guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR. Extradition would be barred under the ECHR provisions where a judge or court is of the opinion that a person would not be afforded these rights, either at a trial or a retrial, on return to the requesting state. It may not then be such a surprise that we see no need for the amendments, but I shall endeavour to satisfy the Committee that there is a good explanation for that view.
Turning first to Amendments Nos. 78 and 199, they would remove the reference to,
"a review amounting to a retrial",
and replace it with a stipulation that the person must be entitled to be present at the judgment. To remove that reference would be counterproductive. As long as a review entitles the person to the same rights as he would get in a retrial, we suggest that it is not for the United Kingdom to dictate how other countries put that into practice and what they wish to call that process. What is most important is that the process and all the appropriate rights are extended to the individual, rather than what label it is given in each country. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said, there are many different terms for things such as prosecution witnesses, and so on. That can be extended further.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank my noble friend for giving way. If some of the countries in the European Union prefer not to abide by the definition of a retrial and, in my view, are in flagrant breach of their obligations, what action, if any, are the Government prepared to take?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is contained in the Bill. The whole point of the applications being made before a district judge is that the district judge will have to satisfy him or herself that the Article 6 rights will be upheld and as to the precise nature of the retrial to take place.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. For the sake of argument, accepting what my noble friend said, what happens if other countries have not carried out their duties under Article 6 of the ECHR by enabling prosecution witnesses to be recalled? As I understand it, in some instances, that is not regarded as necessary.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: All EU countries must have in place systems which comply with the ECHR. Of course, we may do so in different ways, but the essential elements of the provisions of the ECHR must be met. When the district judge comes to decide whether there is to be a valid retrial, he or she has to be satisfied as per substance—not as to the word by which it is described but by what is actually going to happen.
We have made plain that a review must have the same features as a retrial. That includes re-examination of the evidence and the chance to call witnesses. We believe that the Bill provides for that. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to my noble friend that his proper anxiety is not securely based, because the Bill provides for that as he would wish. It is not the label, it is the procedure which is really important.
As the Bill stands, a person would be afforded the rights that I have just described. It is also clear, in accordance with convention rights, that the decision of the court would be explained to him. However, that is not to say that we should not set out in the Bill a hard and fast rule. In this country, on occasion a defendant may be removed from the court if he is particularly disruptive, for example. To include an absolute right to be present throughout the trial or the judgment itself might therefore jeopardise extradition on a technicality.
Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 202 would introduce a specific description of what a retrial or review must include. They direct the judge to disregard any proceedings which do not include provision for the extradited person to have specified rights. A retrial, whatever form it takes, must comply with the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the ECHR. The amendments are therefore unnecessary. If the judge considers that any of the rights listed would be breached, extradition could be refused under Clause 21. That is the penalty, as it were, that could be imposed for non-compliance.
With great respect, the amendments would make the provisions unnecessarily long. I do not make light of the subject, but I invite the Committee to imagine how much longer the Bill would be if we were to define all relevant ECHR issues. Once we alight on one, two or three of them, the suggestion can always be made that those are the issues that need to be proven and that other areas with which one should comply under the
GC 124
ECHR are irrelevant. The Government are loath to do that; all those rights should be available in such circumstances.
In short, I certainly appreciate the Committee's concern about the matter and why Members wanted to probe it to achieve clarity about our intentions, but in response to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Bucklow, I stress that convictions in absentia are rare and have not given rise to any problems to date. That is not to say that they may not in future, but such cases are rare.
Of course, we should not underestimate the importance of providing protection when such circumstances arise. That is why we have included much more detailed provisions on in absentia cases in the Bill than in any previous piece of extradition legislation. For the first time, we are making it an absolute condition that a person who has been convicted in absentia and who did not deliberately absent himself must have a guarantee of a retrial or an equivalent review.
I certainly accept the aims of the amendments. We agree without hesitation that no person's rights to a fair trial should be breached. I submit to the Committee that the Bill already provides protection against that. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I think that I have already welcomed the noble Baroness on another occasion, when I spoke of her exhibiting a dangerous degree of charm. For ourselves, we shall certainly enjoy that. Whether we shall enjoy the considerable toughness that I also mentioned is perhaps more questionable.
Today, we are trying to establish whether the Bill, in order to demonstrate the necessary degree of clarity for which we all strive in legislation, needs to have inserted the language in Amendment No. 81. I quite see where the noble Baroness is coming from. She says, "You do not need to do that. We share the objective. We are all on the same side. It is all perfectly all right, because Clause 21 states that extradition shall not be granted unless the requirements of the ECHR are fulfilled". I am not sure that that is a sufficiently satisfactory answer, because it is not only district judges, admirable though most of them undoubtedly are, whose interests must be considered. Before the matter reaches a district judge, questions will have to be asked and answered by legal representatives.
I feel that if the words "in particular" were added to my noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 81, that would provide a helpful guide to the essential conditions that must be fulfilled. I quite understand what the Minister said: if we include some matters but leave out others, there is an inference that the others are of secondary importance.
If the words, "in particular", were inserted, the amendment would state:
"the judge should not regard as a retrial or … a review … any proceedings that do not in particular include provision for".

GC 125
That would probably overcome the problem. We would then state in the Bill four matters that were absolutely essential. The noble Baroness said, "Anyway, consider the provision for the suspect to be present at the retrial, which is included in paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 81". The suspect may legitimately be thrown out of the court for misbehaviour, but is there any specific provision in Article 6 that deals with that? I doubt it; I am not an authority on Article 6, but it is necessarily written in broad conceptual language. It speaks of a fair trial; it probably speaks of certain particular matters; but I doubt that it speaks of that one.
I hope that the noble Baroness will undertake to reconsider the matter. There is much to be said for the amendment in the overall interests of clarity, notwithstanding the perfectly legitimate points that she made in response to it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Everything said in Committee will be considered. Speaking for myself, the Bill appears to be robustly drawn, but I entirely understand the anxiety to which the noble and learned Lord refers. I am happy to say that we shall look with great particularity to see whether anything else could or needs to be added. As I said, I cannot guarantee that I shall not return with the same answer, but the noble and learned Lord's charm has had equal effect and I shall certainly consider the matter.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Moving from the subject of charm, which I do with difficulty, because I agree with what my noble and learned friend said, as a layperson, it seems to me that legal advisers—I think of those in my home country of Scotland—will have not only to interpret the Bill but to consider whether what happened in another country sticks to what that other country should be doing in terms of human rights. The Bill relies completely on the convention to do that. That could put legal advisers in a difficult position. I understand very well what my noble and learned friend Lord May hew said. The noble Baroness should put herself in the shoes of legal advisers and consider the judgments that they will have to make. I understand what she is saying, but does not the Bill totally rely on the convention?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In the normal way, people will have the advantage of what we have said in Committee. The Explanatory Notes, which will accompany the Bill, will make it absolutely clear what construction should be put on it. It is clear from our debate that the Government's intent and explanation adheres precisely to what the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord have said in Committee. There is nothing between us; it is just a question of how it is expressed. That should satisfy the Committee.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful for the support of Members of the Committee and for the words of the noble Baroness—especially her closing words. We all agree that there is nothing between us in
GC 126
what we are trying to achieve. It is how we get there that is in dispute. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew of Twysden that the Bill does not provide the necessary degree of clarity. He spoke about the broad, conceptual language in Clause 21. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was absolutely right to guess in advance that the noble Baroness would seek to rely on Clause 21 as a save-all. Our problem is that we do not think that it quite fulfils that duty at present.
We are aware that already in extradition cases, the district judge will bear in mind when deciding on extradition what would be the rights of the person if returned to the country from which the request has come. When I recently attended Bow Street magistrate's court to watch an extradition case for half a day, the district judge had to consider in great depth the conditions that would apply if someone were to be returned for a jury trial in Russia. I am aware that they have great expertise in such matters. We are trying to achieve a Bill that will stand for a generation or so and will serve as a model not only to district judges but to all others involved in or affected by extradition, as my noble friend Lady Carnegy said.
All Ministers are always worried about adding extra words to Bills. I note that the noble Baroness said that she does not want to extend the Bill. In her absence, when her predecessor was sitting in that seat, I had a solution. My solution was to knock out Part 1 altogether. That would shorten the Bill. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 79:
Page 10, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) When determining whether the ground in subsection (1)(b) above has been made out, the issuing country must establish to the court's satisfaction that the person deliberately absented himself."
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 200. The amendments are intended to clarify what is meant by "deliberately absenting" oneself. Clauses 20 and 84 provide safeguards where a person has been convicted in absence, except where that absence was deliberate. Our amendments attempt to probe that point.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts has previously referred to the Theresa Daniels case, which makes it clear how easy it is for a foreign judicial system to fail to notify the defendant of prosecution and for the defendant to be unaware of subsequent conviction. Of course, in this country, one would not be in that position in respect of any serious matter; in any charges on indictment, one would have to have been present, at least in the first place. If absence is "deliberate" the defendant would lose a number of protections that are otherwise granted: extradition proceeds under Clause 21 with no entitlement to a retrial.
The question is: on what criteria is the judge to make the decision about whether absence was deliberate? What evidence must be provided by the foreign judicial system to demonstrate that? We have been briefed by Liberty on the matter. I am grateful to Liberty, which suggests:
"in order that this provision should provide full protection for the individual, it should be interpreted so that, in order for a person to be deemed to have deliberately absented himself"—
or herself—
"evidence must be provided that notice was personally served on that person and that he chose not to attend the hearing".
The Committee will remember that the Theresa Daniels case saw the Spanish lawyers and judges claiming that the required information was given, while it was clear that Theresa Daniels had no idea of her prosecution, conviction or, later, of the appeal taking place against her.
I consulted the Fair Trials Abroad website, which includes several examples of the dangers of in absentia trials. I shall refer to just one example. Mr O had been tried in Italy and acquitted. After he had left Italy for his home, the prosecutor appealed against the acquittal without actual notice of the appeal going to the defendant and he was convicted on the appeal in absentia—not knowing a thing about that. He returned to Italy for a holiday—rather a bad choice, in this case—and was flung into gaol to serve out his sentence. His state-provided lawyer believed that there was no court remedy. That is a hard case, but, as ever, one must consider hard cases.
We appreciate that some people may not know about extradition proceedings simply because they have removed themselves from the country with the intention of avoiding proceedings. We are not trying to protect them. If someone is trying to evade justice and has been properly dealt with, we are not concerned to protect them. We are concerned with hard cases. That is what the amendment seeks to probe. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for the way in which she moved the amendment. I can respond in a way that I hope that she will find helpful.
Earlier, we touched on findings made in absentia. I reiterate that they are rare. I do not intend to cover the detail again. Such cases will obviously be difficult. One of the most important considerations will be the quality of evidence produced before the judge in due course.
As I said earlier, we have included more extensive and detailed provisions on in absentia cases than we have ever previously had in any extradition legislation. The amendments would place the burden on the requesting country to prove that a person deliberately absented himself from his original trial. I am not sure in what way that would improve the Bill.
As the Bill is drafted, the judge must decide whether a person was convicted in his absence. If so, the judge must then decide whether he deliberately absented himself from the trial or not. As part of this process, it
GC 128
will be open to the requesting state to produce evidence to show that the person did deliberately absent himself. Similarly, the fugitive will be able to produce evidence to show that this was not the case. It will then be for the judge to weigh up the conflicting evidence and to reach the appropriate conclusion, deciding which piece of evidence he or she prefers.
That is in accordance with our normal law and practice; both parties to the case can advance arguments and adduce evidence on the issue, with the judge given the role to adjudicate. The noble Baroness was kind enough to say, after visiting Bow Street magistrates and watching these extradition hearings, that they can be very robust and are often pursued with great vigour by both sides. Ultimately, the district judge will have to make up his or her mind as to which bit of evidence satisfies them.
As the Bill is drafted now, that is how the matter will continue to be addressed. If the judge is satisfied that the person did not deliberately absent himself, the person must be extradited only if he is entitled to a retrial. If the judge is not satisfied that the person will receive a retrial or a procedure giving him those rights, the judge must discharge the person.
The Bill now allows the judge to weigh up the evidence to decide whether the relevant in absentia provisions apply. We believe this is the correct approach, and see no reason to add further and unnecessary wording to the three clauses. We do not believe these amendments would add anything, but they may muddy the waters and could represent a departure from our normal practice. I hope, with that explanation, the noble Baroness is more content and feels able to withdraw her amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: Will the Minister enlighten us as to what, in her view, deliberately absenting oneself means? If, on day three of a trial, someone skips bail and runs because the trial is going badly, he has obviously deliberately absented himself. But supposing he gets a summons informing him, in his home in this country, that a trial will take place, and he says to himself, "This is a load of rubbish; I can neither afford to go there nor can I afford all that time off work, so I won't go. I have just written a letter making it quite plain that I didn't do it". Is he deliberately absenting himself in that case? If it is, to prove that he did so, the prosecution has simply to demonstrate that it served notice of the process on him and he was not there. But if it depends on his reasons for not going, it is all much more difficult. This issue is relevant not only to this amendment but to the next one. I ask the noble Baroness to expound a little on what deliberately absenting oneself means.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I thought that perhaps the Minister would like a moment to look at the paper that has just been put in front of her as well as listening to a confession on my part that I am a little at sea on the resistance that she is putting up. She rightly says that the judge has to decide paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in Clause 20(1). But by what standard of proof does he

GC 129
have to decide? He has to do it, of course, on the evidence, but what is the standard of proof and where does the burden of proof lie?
I can quite see that so far as paragraph (a) is concerned, he will hear evidence on both sides as to whether the person was convicted in his presence or in his absence, or he will make his mind up on the whole of the evidence, perhaps. Indeed, he would have to, and I am not certain where the burden of proof lies. But I am, at present, quite clear that the burden of proof ought to lie upon the requesting state if it is asserted that he was convicted in his absence but he deliberately absented himself.
If they are making an assertion of that character, which goes to the purpose of the defendant—or the intended defendant—then, it seems to me, as a matter of elementary justice, that the burden of proof has to rest upon the country that is making that assertion. That is what the amendment seeks to make clear.
What the standard of proof is, I am not so sure. Is it the civil standard of proof or is it the criminal? No doubt the noble Baroness will be able to assist us on that. But so far as paragraph (b) in particular is concerned, with its emphasis on the purpose that motivated the intended defendant, the burden must lie upon those who make that assertion, particularly where the liberty of this individual is at stake. Will the noble Baroness be kind enough to come back on that and tell us how she sees the matter?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: First, I should like to deal with the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Of course it will be a matter for the judge to decide. In the noble Viscount's example, the person receives the notice and deliberately decides not to comply with it. If that was the evidence that the judge heard—first, that the defendant knew of the trial, secondly, that he knew of the date, and thirdly, that he knew of the substance of the trial but chose deliberately not to comply—speaking entirely for myself, that is evidence which the judge could take into account in deciding whether the person was deliberately avoiding the trial. We would say that would be a matter for the judge to consider in the round.
On the assertions, the usual rule is that he who asserts must prove. These proceedings, as; far as I am aware—and I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong—are dealt with by the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt", and that is the basis upon which the court will have to determine it. It will have to hear evidence from the requesting state as to why it asserts that this person could have attended, failed and/or refused to attend, and why it was thought proper, in those circumstances, to try the individual in absentia. That will be down to the evidence heard on the day. It will be incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate why he did not receive that information, did not know about the trial, could not have made proper arrangements to attend. It then comes down to evidence—evidence which the judge must hear and determine upon in the usual way.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Without being a bore about it, I hope, surely that is exactly what the amendment seeks to make clear on the face of the Bill. The matter is not self-evident, certainly not to a layman. Unless I am mistaking the purpose of the amendment, it is entirely to make clear what the noble Baroness has just explained, except that it possibly does not establish sufficiently clearly that it is a criminal standard of proof.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If I may say so, the legislation will, in the end, have to be construed by the courts and those who advise the individual parties. The noble and learned Lord will know that in these circumstances, it is very rare, unless the defendant deliberately chooses not to be represented and have the benefit of legal representation, that these submissions will be made before the court, and even if the person is not legally represented, the court itself usually judges with some expertise in these matters and will be able to make those judgments perfectly properly. I must respectfully say that we believe, contrary to what has been asserted, that these provisions are clear.
Lord Goodhart: With respect, is it not apparent that the standard of proof in Clause 20 as it stands must be the balance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt? Clause 20(2) states:
"The judge must order the person's discharge if he decides that he—

"(a) was convicted in his absence,

"(b) did not deliberately absent himself from his trial, and

"(c) would not be entitled to a retrial".

Subsection (3) then provides that the judge must proceed under Section 21 if he decides that the person was convicted in his presence, or was convicted in his absence and deliberately absented himself or did not deliberately absent himself and would be entitled to a retrial. If it was the criminal standard of proof, potentially, neither subsection (2) nor (3) would apply, because the judge might come to the view that on the balance of probabilities, subsection (2) was satisfied but not beyond reasonable doubt. He then could not make the decision under subsection (2), but nor could he make the decision under subsection (3) because he would have decided on the balance of probabilities that subsection (3) did not apply. It seems to me that subsections (2) and (3) must, between them, catch every possibility. Therefore, the judge must be satisfied that either one or the other does apply, and that condition cannot be satisfied if he has to take the decision on the criminal standard of proof.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I do not wish to add further to the confusion, but I was interested to hear the Minister say so clearly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that so far as this matter was concerned, the standard of proof was clearly the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
I am not sure whether she was made aware that, before she took over the responsibility for this Bill, in an earlier debate we had as to whether the judge had to be satisfied that the person brought before him was the person referred to in the warrant—which one

GC 131
would have thought was an equally, if not more, important position—her predecessor Minister argued that that should only be on the civil burden of proof rather than the criminal burden of proof. In the end, he said he would look at it again. I hope that when she does so, the Minister will remember what she has said with regard to this issue. If she believes that the criminal burden of proof is the necessary one on this issue, then clearly it must influence her, must it not, in deciding what is the proper burden of proof when deciding whether the person brought before the judge is in fact the person referred to in the warrant?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In relation to the identity of persons arrested, Clause 7(3) specifically provides, in that instance:
"The judge must decide the question in subsection (2)—
which itself provides that the judge must decide whether the person brought before him is the person in respect of whom the warrant referred to was issued—
"on a balance of probabilities".
In relation to that issue, it is the balance of probabilities.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I apologise if I did not make it clear, but my point was that before the noble Baroness became the Minister in charge, we had a debate on those very wordings. It was moved from the Opposition side that the burden of proof that should be satisfied in bringing the person before the judge was not the balance of probabilities but the criminal burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Standard of proof.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am sorry, the standard of proof of beyond reasonable doubt. I was saying that if the Minister feels that that is the right standard of proof in deciding this matter, clearly it must follow that on the issue of whether the right person has been brought before the court, that same standard of proof must equally apply.
5 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall take the issue away, examine it and return with a clear position on Report. If in the interim I am able to resolve the issue in a way that is significantly different from that which I described, I shall certainly write to noble Lords.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and to the Minister for saying that she will consider further the clarity of the Government's position on whether the standard in the various parts of the Bill should be on a balance of probabilities or that of the criminal courts. As my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow said earlier, we were being told that a balance of probabilities would be fine for something as vital as identity. But here the standard is, as we would hope it to be, the criminal test of beyond reasonable doubt. I welcome the noble Baroness's confirmation of that.
GC 132
My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew was right to point out that what we seek is clarity about the standard and the burden of proof. The burden of proof should be on the requesting state. We still have some serious matters to look at here. I shall have to consider the matter over the summer, and I think we will have to look at it again in the autumn, hopefully also with further clarification by the Government. I shall also seek advice from the Law Society on one or two matters of drafting.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Just before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may say how I see it. The fact that Clause 7(3) specifically provides for the balance of probabilities leads me to construe that the remainder is beyond reasonable doubt. That is why I shall look to see whether more is needed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 80:
Page 10, line 15, leave out from "that" to "entitled" in line 18 and insert "—

(a) he was convicted in his absence, and

(b) it would not be in the interests of justice to return him on the ground of that conviction taking particular account of the conduct of the proceedings which resulted in conviction and whether the person would be"

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 80, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 201 and Clause 20 stand part. The amendments would allow judicial discretion in the extradition of anyone convicted in absentia, regardless of whether his absence was deliberate, only if it were in the interests of justice not to return him.
In the previous group of amendments I said that I did not have much sympathy if someone deliberately absented himself simply to escape justice. I stand by that. Here I look at different tests where the person is not trying to escape justice but a malevolent state that has carried out a wrongful action against him. So I am looking at an "interests of justice" test.
This country and many others recognise that conviction in the absence of an accused may be unjust. The question must ultimately rest on the conduct at the trial at which the person was convicted and the extent to which defence rights were preserved even in that person's absence. The test currently applied in this country extends significantly further than merely whether the person has deliberately absented him or herself. Section 6(2) of the Extradition Act 1989 provides that:
"A person who is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of an extradition crime shall not be returned to a foreign state … if it appears to an appropriate authority—

(a) that the conviction was obtained in his absence; and

(b) that it would not be in the interests of justice to return him on the ground of that conviction".

The UK courts have found that the "interests of justice" test encapsulates such factors as whether,
"the trial was as fair as the circumstances permitted",
and in particular whether: first, reasonable steps were taken, both during the giving of evidence and in the summing-up to expose weaknesses in the prosecution case and to make such points on behalf of the defendant as the evidence permits; secondly, whether the applicant was represented by counsel of his choice at the first "trial" in absence and on appeal; thirdly, his legal representative was given all the relevant documentation in advance of the hearing; fourthly, that witnesses were called and cross-examined by counsel on behalf of the applicant; fifthly, that the applicant personally lodged an appeal; and, finally, that the applicant waived his right to appear at his appeal trial hearing.
We question whether Clause 20(2) should be amended to include an "interests of justice" test, so that the person's right to a fair trial is preserved. I beg to move.
Viscount Bledisloe: My understanding is that as the Bill stands at the moment, if the court decided that the man deliberately absented himself, then the country must return him even though he will not get any form of retrial, whereas under the amendment the court would have a discretion in those circumstances.
In the light of the answer which the noble Baroness gave to my last question, with which I have to confess I entirely agree as a matter of construction, it seems that there should be a discretion. Take a man who receives a summons to go to Greece to be tried for the harmless sport of train spotting. He has a job that he will lose if he goes. He has infant children and no spouse, which it would be difficult though not impossible to leave behind. He is at the very beginning of setting up his business. He has a contract. If he does not complete it, his business will he ruined. He writes a letter saying, "This is what I am doing. You really don't need me there. Please dismiss this silly charge".
He has deliberately absented himself on the definition given by the noble Baroness, with which, as I say, I agree. The court may very well think that it would be wholly unjust that he should be hauled back and stuck in prison for seven years without having had any chance for a retrial. Surely it is right that the court can say to the prosecution, "You can't have him back to imprison him unless you give him a retrial. You can of course extradite him for the offence and give him a trial, but you cannot extradite him before the conviction and just slap him in prison without any retrial". In those circumstances, surely a discretion in the court is right. The provision otherwise would work too fiercely on the people who had behaved perfectly reasonably, albeit—perhaps from a legal point of view—somewhat unwisely.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have a little difficulty accepting that one can behave unwisely and illegally without there being some consequence.
Viscount Bledisloe: It is not illegal not to go back for a trial in Greece. Greece has no jurisdiction over a
GC 134
citizen of this country. It has sent him notice of a trial, not a warrant to attend; it does not have the power to. It has told him that there will he a trial, but it is not illegal for him not to attend.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We could now engage in a very interesting debate, which is probably not quite on the point. Notwithstanding the temptation, I shall restrain myself from responding, and direct my comments to try and deal with the amendments and the noble Viscount's questions.
Amendment No. 80 states that a judge must have particular regard, when considering a conviction in absentia, to,
"the conduct of the proceedings which resulted in coviction".
That is a very important criterion that the court will be able to take into account.
I recognise that the phrase "interests of justice" is taken from the Extradition Act 1989. That is the sole test provided by that legislation. As I said earlier, we seek to go further in the Bill. It sets out clearly the factors on which the judge is to base his decision. Therefore, we suggest there is no need for the Bill to include a general discretion. The amendments would also require the judge to consider the conduct of the original proceedings which resulted in the conviction.
Of course I understand the example of the noble Viscount and the difficulty with that particular case. The main characteristic of an in absentia case is that the person was not present at the original trial. Once the judge has decided whether or not the person deliberately absented himself, there is nothing else of relevance concerning the original conviction which the judge can examine.
In a Part 1 case the judge cannot verify prima facie evidence, in the same way that the judge does not examine such evidence at the moment. In a Part 2 case the same applies where the prima facie requirement does not apply—for example, requests from Council of Europe countries under the ECE. In a Part 2 case where the prima facie requirement stands, the judge will be required to examine the evidence anyway under Clause 85.
So, to demand particular attention to any other aspect of the original trial goes well beyond established in absentia principles. It also, I would suggest, goes well beyond the jurisdiction of the judges and courts in this country.
As Members are aware, the United Kingdom judiciary will be able to prevent extradition where there is a real risk that it would be in contravention of a person's ECHR rights. That will provide adequate protection for the individual against the risk of an unfair trial.
I acknowledge the thought that has gone into these amendments. We are clear, however, that the right to a fair trial must be an important factor in extradition proceedings. I also understand why noble Lords say, "Well, in those circumstances there should be a discretion". The provision has been framed in order to be very clear that there is parity of treatment between our "nationals" and EU "nationals" with whom we

GC 135
enter into agreement, and in order to accelerate the process through and by which we exchange those who have committed offences, in accordance with the laws of our respective partners. One knows that hard cases can make bad law. We are trying to make good law.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As one who is very much a layman in these matters, perhaps I may say that surely one of the problems in such cases is the removal of the necessity of providing prima facie evidence. If that were to continue, of course there would be adequate protection. However, let me give the example of the case of Mr Bond, a man of 74 years who was wrongly identified as a criminal by the American authorities. The innocent Mr Bond is over here and quite safe. When he gets summoned he says to himself, "The conditions under which remand prisoners are held in the United States would kill me", because very often remand conditions there are not of the same standard as we would expect in this country. So Mr Bond, being careful of his own life, and believing that to surrender himself would be a death warrant, says, "No, I am not going". The Americans say, "Under those circumstances, we will try you in your absence".
In my view, Mr Bond would be quite entitled, because of the harsh conditions under which remand prisoners are held, to be afraid for his life. He may fear being chained, for example, and put through a fairly rough regime. He would be sensible to resist a warrant to go to the United States. I do not know whether the noble Baroness can clear that matter up for me. It is certainly a great worry so far as I am concerned because I am 77. It may very well be that I shall find myself in a similar situation.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am sure that the noble Lord would not find himself in a similar situation. I am sure that a number of noble Lords would rush to his rescue if that were ever to befall him.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord on identity, which we have already touched on in this debate. Clause 7 provides that the issue of identity would have to be established by the district judge or the judge hearing the matter before an order could be made against the person. Of course one does not want to debate particular cases, but the case referred to really did turn on whether there had been a proper inquiry into whether the individual was who the American authorities asserted he was. I think that they made a frank and full apology for what happened.
The safeguard in this country would be that unless and until they established on the balance of probabilities that he was who they asserted he was, the court would be entitled to say, "No order in favour of the requesting state". So the noble Lord need not worry about his own position. I know that all Members of the Committee would verify that he is precisely who he asserts to be.
Viscount Bledisloe: With respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think that that answer is right.
GC 136
Section 7 requires the court only to decide whether the person before it is the same person as the one named in the warrant. As we discussed, the section does not enable the court to decide whether the person named is in fact the person whom the demanding country thinks committed the crime. They named Mr Bond in the warrant, and Mr Bond is the person named in the warrant. Mr Bond's point is, "I am not the person you think committed the crime". When I sought in a previous debate to allow the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to raise that point, he turned it down.
Returning to the noble Baroness's answer to my point, I accept that her answer is an answer to the amendment as currently worded—namely,
"taking particular account of the conduct of the proceedings".
I am asking whether the court could not have a discretion to take particular account of the reasons for the person deliberately absenting himself, and then, if those reasons are in fact extremely reasonable and understandable, to say that it is not in the interests of justice to send him back.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think that that would present us with a very difficult test to apply. We are, of course, discussing a treaty that will have international application. In my own personal practice, I have found that what one person considers absolutely reasonable is usually anathema to another person who thinks that it is the height of unreasonableness. In such circumstances we need an element of certainty. It is in the interests of justice for all of us that those who are asked to respond to proper summonses in relation to criminal activity should do so. They should take the opportunity to assert their case and have it determined in the proper way. That is how we shall be able to put parity of treatment, certainty and integrity into this situation, so that the international community feels confident about operating these provisions.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I think that the issue between us comes down to whether there needs to be sufficient flexibility to meet the situation which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, described not only today but previously by raising the very important issue of what happens when someone is patently innocent and yet is caught up within this machine of extradition. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, said, such people may get themselves in a position where although they know they are innocent and can prove their innocence when they reach the foreign jurisdiction, they surrender and find themselves held in conditions which—let us be frank—could kill them. That is why we are looking for some kind of flexibility whereby the judge can decide in the interests of justice that extradition is not the proper course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, says that the amendment goes beyond established principles. We argue that this part of the Bill already goes beyond established principles. We are therefore trying to explore ways in which proper safeguards can be built in. Between now and Report stage I shall look very carefully at what she has said.

GC 137
Before seeking leave to withdraw the amendment, it might convenient for the Committee if I pointed out that although the question on Clause 20 stand part is grouped with these amendments, I shall not oppose it. The list of amendments also shows that Clause 21 has already been debated, but I am aware that my noble friends Lady Carnegy and Lord Lamont wish to address issues as regards that clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Contrary to my noble friend's belief, I have a further question on Clause 20. The last two lines of subsection (3), lines 25 and 26, deal with this business of the definition of,
"a retrial or (on appeal) … a review amounting to a retrial".
I was fascinated by some of the comments in our discussion on Amendments Nos. 81 and 82. I was puzzling away at the fact that the two amendments followed the style of the Bill in defining things by double negatives. I know that lawyers are very fond of that style. It almost needs another lawyer to sort it out, which is perhaps why they draft it in that way.
However, when the Minister reconsiders the questions raised under those two amendments, will she examine her first reply on what a retrial is? She compared it with a trial. As a layperson, I find it very much more helpful to have a positive description of what a retrial is and what a review amounting to a retrial is. When I first looked at the Bill, thought that the provision was too vague by half. I have become increasingly confused by these double negatives. I wonder whether that is a constructive suggestion which the Minister might like to take on board.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can certainly say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that her ability to construe these Bills far outdoes that of most lawyers. She puts them in the shade, but she need not worry about that. There is also the need for parliamentary draftsmen to ensure a consistent style in the Bill. I do not know whether my powers of persuasion are greater with the parliamentary draftsmen than they are with the Committee, but I shall certainly look at the issue.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Human rights]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 83:
Page 10, line 29, after "extradition" insert ", hearing and surrender"
The noble Baroness said: Since we are being welcoming, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, back to his place.
Amendment No. 83 asks the Minister questions on human rights issues. We welcome the inclusion of a specific clause in the Bill which places on the judge an obligation to assess whether the person's extradition,
"would be compatible with the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998".
GC 138
Our problem is with the drafting of subsection (1) of this clause. We find that it is rather ambiguous and might provide an unfortunate loophole. The judge has to decide whether "the person's extradition" complies with the ECHR. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, referred to that issue in our earlier debates on retrial. The difficulty is how that provision can be interpreted in detail. Does it refer to the preliminary stages of the extradition hearing in the United Kingdom? Does it cover the actual process of handing over the person? Does it extend to the eventual prosecution in the category 1 territory?
We are considering the stages of extradition. When we talk about extradition, are we simply talking about the part of the process that happens here, or are we considering it as a whole process? At the moment, as Justice pointed out to us in its helpful briefing, "extradition" could be interpreted as being limited to the actual return.
The proposed amendment would clarify the Government's intention to apply convention standards to the proceedings as well as the actual return, so that Article 5.4 of the ECHR procedural rights in particular would be applied in the hearing, proceedings and eventual return. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for the clarity with which she posed and explained the amendment. I hope that I can be relatively reassuring, as well as relatively brief, in my response.
Clause 21 provides that extradition cannot take place if it would be likely to lead to a breach of the person's ECHR rights. ECHR jurisprudence has clearly established that our obligations in this area extend to the treatment of the person once he has been extradited—which was, I think, the centrality of the noble Baroness's question. The key case in this regard is that of Soering. In its judgement in that case, European Court of Human Rights said:
"It would hardly be compatible with the underlying values of the convention, were a contracting party knowingly to surrender a fugitive to another State where there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, however heinous the crime allegedly committed. Extradition in such circumstances would be plainly contrary to the spirit and intent of Article 3".
The Court went on to say in respect of Article 3 of the convention:
"The decision by a Contracting State to extradite a fugitive may give rise to an issue under Article 3, and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the Convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if extradited, faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the requesting country".
The Court went on similarly to explain, and I think it relevant, that Article 6 issues under the charter could arise in extradition proceedings where there was a significant risk of the denial of a right to a fair trial in the requesting state. We may come on to that issue in a later amendment. So not only do our own procedures

GC 139
have to be ECHR compliant, but we could not extradite—or a district judge could not extradite, which is the focus of the clause—where there was a significant risk that the procedures in the requesting state would result in a breach of the fugitive's ECHR rights.
So I think that the reference to the "hearing" is otiose. Unless the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, particularly desires it, I shall not return to the previous discussion which we enjoyed on surrender and extradition. I would simply emphasise that we have included in the Bill—in the clearest possible terms, we had hoped; but perhaps this debate has increased its clarity—exactly what we want to do to give the district judge a very full power and discretion to consider whether extradition of the person requested would infringe the ECHR rights of that person. I hope that my comments and the authorities I have quoted will put that beyond peradventure.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his very helpful response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Turner of Camdenmoved Amendment No. 86:
Page 10, line 35, at end insert—
"(3A) If the judge decides that the presumption of innocence is not likely to be applied at his trial or retrial or review amounting to a retrial after extradition, or has not been applied in any such proceedings against the person, he shall order the person's discharge."
The noble Baroness said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton—I am afraid that the Committee is going to have to put up with me—may I again welcome my noble friend Lady Scotland?
We had originally tabled three amendments to this particular clause, the human rights clause. However, we decided that we would not move the first two amendments because we thought that our final amendment, which relates to the presumption of innocence, was the most important of the three. We are asking that a person should be discharged, if the judge decides that the presumption of innocence is not likely to be applied at his trial, re-trial or review or has not been applied in any such proceedings. That is a vital part of UK law. That has been attested to by none other than my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. In a debate in the other place, he said, in reply to Mr Letwin:
"I am very sorry to intervene at this stage of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but we must be accurate about the European arrest warrant. The proposals in that element of the Bill would ensure that no country could try someone in absentia on the ground that they are presumed guilty. Under the European convention on human rights, which the right hon. Gentleman has often attacked, there must be a presumption of innocence. The Bill will make it clear that no country will have the right to extradite
GC 140
under the European arrest warrant, without agreeing to the presumption of innocence".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/02; col. 649.]
The requirement does not appear in that form in the Bill. I hope that the Government will agree that it is so important that it ought to.
I may be advised by my noble friend that the reference in Clause 21 to the Human Rights Act 1998 is supposed to cover everything and that it would be otiose to make the amendment. I do not think so. The requirement is so important that there is a strong case for putting it into the Bill in the form that we suggested. That would be in line with what the Home Secretary suggested. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: What my noble friend has alluded to is enormously important. I am not sure that a case has been made for including the provision in the Bill, but, on the other hand, I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that the presumption of innocence, as has rightly been said, is of maximum importance. For that reason, the issue is worthy of debate.
I think that, although the issue is important, it is already covered by the European Convention on Human Rights. I would like my noble friend to emphasise that that construction is right. The points that my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden made are of enormous importance.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I support the noble Baroness's amendment. I would particularly like the Minister to comment on the issue of the juged'instruction—the investigating magistrate. It is one of the things that concern several of us.
On that point, I draw the Minister's attention to the remarks of Mr Strauss-Kahn, a former Finance Minister in France under Mr Jospin, which I have quoted before. He said that, in France, once the judiciary was interested in someone, he was presumed guilty until proved innocent. I am concerned at the coercion that sometimes seems to be exercised by investigating magistrates—sometimes involving preemptive custody—in putting enormous pressure on people to make a bargain with the prosecuting authorities.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I add my voice in support of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, gave the example of what happens in France, but we must be careful that the whole idea that someone is innocent until proved guilty does not slide past us in the Sexual Offences Bill that is before Parliament. In our treatment of rape, we are slipping away from the presumption of innocence until proved guilty.
In our own country, under several pieces of legislation, people must now prove themselves innocent. If they do not, they are guilty. It is an important amendment. A different situation is beginning to apply in this country, and I am certain that it already applies in other countries of the

GC 141
European Union covered by Part 1. All of us know—the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, just confirmed it—that standards in some other countries, particularly France and Italy, are not such as, hitherto, we would have accepted in this country.
The tenet that one is innocent until proved guilty is essential to the protection of the individual against the state and against wrongful prosecution. Habeas corpus is also essential, and it, too, is slipping away. It does not exist in some Part I countries. We should be grateful that the amendment has been moved. I shall listen with interest to the noble Baroness's reply.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I can quieten all the beating hearts on the matter. The issue is covered. I thank my noble friend for raising the issue. She has given us an opportunity to debate an essential part of the protection that we need.
It may be helpful if I remind the Committee that all EU member states and accession states and others besides are party to the ECHR and must operate accordingly. The judicial systems have all been found to comply with the ECHR right to fair trial, including the presumption of innocence. Therefore, any argument that the EU jurisdictions do not operate the presumption of innocence is without foundation.
It may be helpful if I remind the Committee of what Article 6.2 of the convention says. It states:
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law".
If we included an express provision giving effect to Article 6.2, it would, as I said earlier in Committee, cast doubt on whether Clause 21 brought in other essential safeguards, such as those in Article 6.3. I shall remind the Committee of what is in Article 6.3. The Government believe that it is of equal importance. It says:
"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail. of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court".

All of those provisions are bound up in Clause 21 and are, I respectfully suggest, succinctly expressed.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I am grateful to the Minister for reading that out. Is she saying that those conditions are observed in every state?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: They are observed in every state that complies with the ECHR. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, raised the issue of the procedure in France, which has caused him concern. No one can be convicted or punished in an
GC 142
investigating magistrate system unless he has been properly convicted in a court of law. Until the court has determined that he is guilty, he is innocent. That is exactly what the presumption of innocence is all about. The important thing about the countries with which we are in comity through the ECHR is that they all agree that they will adhere to those principles. Although we may construct our systems differently, those elements must be reflected. That is our assurance.
If the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, was right about the presumption of innocence and it was lost—if there were no presumption of innocence and the system did not work—the courts here would make a declaration of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998. So far, as I said, all the systems of all EU member states and accession states are compliant. By inserting Clause 21, we encapsulate the essential fundamental principles to which we all adhere and which we all want to have assured for individuals who come before our courts.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank noble Lords who contributed to our short debate. It is important to have the issues spelt out, as my noble friend acknowledged. I am grateful to her for spelling out what is in Article 6.2 of the ECHR. It is useful to have it spelt out and readily available in Hansard.
I shall study what my noble friend said. It is important.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, will she allow some of us to ask another question? When the noble Baroness concludes, I can ask a question.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Will the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, ask his question before I withdraw the amendment? That is probably the best way round.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Everything that the Minister said seemed to follow logically. Of course, there are all those provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights. I think it is the case that the Strasbourg court has judged that, for example, the practice of having investigating magistrates is consistent, as it chooses to define it, with the presumption of innocence.
For me, that does not satisfy. As a body passing the laws of this country, we must ask ourselves whether, in reality and in common sense, such practices are consistent with it. It may be an arrogant argument, but it is our duty to ask ourselves whether such practices comply with those concepts, when we make changes in the law.
Even if a country were judged to be compliant with the ECHR, we would not be justified in removing all the safeguards built into the existing extradition procedure. A country may be generally compliant, but there may be exceptions. If an exception arises in a particular case, the ECHR is of no use to the individual. It will take him years to get to Strasbourg.

GC 143
For the convention to bite, every judge in every court throughout the European Union must be fully conversant with it and, in his daily professional life, make sure that the cases in which he is involved conform to it. With great respect, I must say that there is quite a lot of evidence that that is not the case.
At Second Reading, several noble Lords quoted from the evidence of Fair Trials Abroad about legal aid. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, spoke about legal aid in southern Europe. We know that legal aid in Greece and Spain is thoroughly inadequate, whatever the convention says. We know that, whatever is said about translation facilities, Fair Trials Abroad said that France—I think that this is right, although I speak from memory—said that it provided all the translation facilities. Fair Trials Abroad said that it had never come across a case in which it had been involved in which France had met the standards that it said had been laid down. It also referred to several cases in Portugal.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The Fair Trials Abroad report on Teresa Daniels said that her conviction was on her diary entries in English which had been mistranslated into Spanish. It was as bad as that—a translation the wrong way convicted her eventually.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Of course there may be one bad case in one country, but Fair Trials Abroad argued that there was a pattern of such cases. It is just not enough to argue, in order to persuade us to assent to these legislative changes, that all these countries have signed the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether these matters are, in reality, being observed as we would judge they ought to be observed, quite apart from how other countries choose to define them.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the Minister replies, could I ask a simple question? Would the insertion of this amendment do any harm to the Bill?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think I have tried to explain that one of the important things that we have to ensure is that each applicant—each person who becomes subject to such an order—must have an opportunity to take advantage of all the provisions in relation to the ECHR, not only some of them. That is why I thought it might be helpful if we looked at the provisions of Article 6.2 and then those of Article 6.3, but we could have gone through the whole of the ECHR, picking out various parts on which we would say others were entitled to rely.
On the point of the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, each jurisdiction is equally jealous of the benefits of its own system. If you talk to Italians, French, Spaniards—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Not Italians.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Well, I have had the benefit of being involved in the Convention on the
GC 144
Future of Europe for 15 months and I can assure the Committee that each jurisdiction believes that their excellent systems far outdo any other system known to man. This is particularly a feature of lawyers from the various jurisdictions, who are firmly ensconced in their own tradition. I do not hesitate to say that I have a huge fondness for the common law and think it is extraordinarily attractive and should be promoted. But that is an attraction which I daresay others may not feel if they come from a different tradition.
So one has to look at the system overall to see whether the system in each of our countries complies with ECHR provisions. I am sure that other jurisdictions could point to miscarriages of justice and improper procedures which have, regrettably, happened on occasion in our jurisdiction and make very similar comments to those which have been made by the noble Lord in relation to our French and other European colleagues.
The important thing is that we all operate a system which is fair, which complies with the ECHR, and that there is parity of treatment. If the judge finding the matter before him is not satisfied that there is compliance with the whole of the ECHR, it will of course be open to that judge to so find. In this jurisdiction, we have some very robust and skilled lawyers who argue these cases very fully on a daily basis.
We also know that there are grounds upon which one can appeal if the district judge's decision is not found to be sound. So we believe that there are sufficient safeguards within the system to make us assured that this will work, and work well.
I remind noble Lords that we have for some time had difficulty in relation to extradition—in getting some of our colleagues to extradite those who committed offences from their countries to this country and vice versa. Those proceedings have been very lengthy. It will inure to our advantage to have a system whereby we can oblige other countries to comply in a way which we think proper in relation to extradition. The provisions are sufficiently robust to make us feel content.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Again, I thank Members of the Committee who participated in the debate—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who spoke on the basis of his experience of European jurisdictions, and so on. I shall of course seek to withdraw the amendment. However, I should like to consider what has been said because I think that there is a case for saying that, as the presumption of innocence is so important in British law——this is after all a British Bill—we should perhaps have it written into the Bill nevertheless, despite the arguments advanced by my noble friend about that being unnecessary. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 87:
After Clause 21, insert the following new clause—
"MINIMUM PROCEDURAL RIGHTS
(1) In reaching a decision under section 21(1) the judge shall have particular regard to the person's Convention rights under Article 6.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the judge may accept a written assurance from an appropriate authority in the category 1 territory in which the warrant was issued that the person's Convention rights under Article 6.3 will be observed.
(3) Where a written assurance has been given under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall make arrangements to monitor the future conduct of the proceedings in the category 1 territory to which the person has been extradited.
(4) If the Secretary of State concludes as a result of monitoring under subsection (3) that the person's Convention rights under Article 6.3 have not been observed, he may draw that conclusion to the attention of a judge acting under section 21 in relation to any proceedings for the extradition of any other person to the same category 1 territory."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 87 is intended to be spoken to together with Amendment No. 207. Amendment No. 87 raises what I believe to be an issue of outstanding importance. Indeed, it is an issue which gives rise to what I see as the most serious objection to the European arrest warrant—the variable standard of legal process in some member states of the European Union. That is an issue which I find far more troubling than the abolition of dual criminality. I regret that a proposal that has been floating around for some time, for a framework decision on minimum standards of legal process, has not so far made significant progress.
Clause 21 provides an important—indeed a vital—safeguard for the European arrest warrant procedure. It says that the judge must decide whether the person's extradition would be compatible with that person's convention rights under the ECHR. Of course, if they are not compatible, that person must be discharged.
The most relevant convention right—although not the only one, as we have discussed in the past few minutes—is the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. Article 6.1 confers the right to,
"a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal".
Article 6.2, as we have just been debating, provides for the presumption of innocence. Article 6.3 provides for a number of more detailed provisions. I will not repeat it because it has already been read by the Minister.
Article 6.3 is, I believe, of particular importance because it covers the problems which are the most common grounds of criticism of the process in some of the EU states—in particular, the lack of adequate free legal assistance, under Article 6.3(c), and the lack of interpretation facilities under Article 6.3(e).
The European arrest warrant greatly limits the grounds for avoiding extradition. The main grounds on which someone who is anxious to avoid extradition would have to rely would be either the presence of one of the bars to extradition under Clause 11 or incompatibility with convention rights under Clause 21. Clause 21 is therefore likely to be used frequently as a basis for resistance to extradition. That means that
GC 146
the court hearing the extradition case will have to hear evidence about the standards of justice in the requesting territory. That evidence may be lengthy and conflicting. That will mean that the extradition hearings may well be protracted to an extent which I believe to be undesirable.
In that context, Amendment No. 87 has a number of purposes. The first is to ensure that a United Kingdom court pays proper attention to the requirements of Article 6.3—not of course in any way exclusively: but it draws those particular provisions to the court's attention, in the same way as, in the Human Rights Act 1998 itself, the need for freedom of the press was drawn to the attention of the court.
The second purpose of Amendment No. 87 is to allow the judge in a United Kingdom court, if the judge is not satisfied that the Article 6 requirements are regularly observed in the requesting state, to accept assurances that in the particular case before the court, those requirements will he satisfied. That proposal is drawn from the procedure under Clause 93, which applies to extradition to category 2 territories that still apply the death penalty. The Secretary of State can in such cases accept assurances from the requesting state that the death penalty will not be imposed.
So it seems to me that in an appropriate case the judge conducting the extradition hearing should be able to accept written assurances that the rights of the person whose extradition is being sought under Article 6.3 will be observed and that that person will be entitled to full legal aid—to appropriate legal aid—and to appropriate interpretation assistance. That will shorten proceedings in the United Kingdom by making it unnecessary to investigate whether, as a general rule, rights under Article 6.3 will be observed in the requesting territories. It will also help to ensure that the convention rights of the person facing extradition are duly observed.
It is of course important to ensure that promises by the requesting state are duly complied with. Clause 93, on assurances concerning the death penalty, does not provide for monitoring. I think that that is understandable, because either the death penalty is applied or it is not. If it is applied, there is no way of keeping that fact secret. But of course a question as to whether convention rights under Article 6.3 are complied with is open to argument and to a degree of uncertainty.
Therefore, whether in any case assurances have been complied with is something which requires monitoring. The new clause provides for monitoring. It does not specify how it is to be carried out, but it could be carried out by employing a properly qualified local lawyer, for example, to observe the case. The penalty in the case of failure to comply with the assurances is that the fact of non-compliance can be brought to the notice of a court in the United Kingdom on any subsequent request by the same territory, and it is therefore likely to mean that similar assurances will not be accepted in a later case if they have not been observed in an earlier one.

GC 147
The new clause provided by the amendment therefore improves the existing procedure under the Bill in several ways. Where an assurance is given and accepted, first, the person extradited is given a specific promise that his or her rights under Article 6.3 will be observed, and that that promise is itself likely to be observed. Secondly, the new clause will obviate the need for lengthy evidence and argument about the standards of process in the courts of a requesting state in respect of which any doubt exists. Thirdly, whereas the Bill currently provides that extradition would have to be refused because of uncertainty about standards in the requesting state, the new clause will mean that in some cases a criminal will be returned to face trial.
Amendment No. 207 applies the same procedure to the human rights defence under Clause 86 in relation to extradition to category 2 territories. The same arguments broadly apply in that case as well.
If the amendments are not accepted, I fear that we may find that the extradition process is tied up by repeated arguments as to whether standards of justice in other member states are in fact in full compliance with Article 6. I believe that that is something which we should make every effort to avoid. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My name is attached to these amendments and I rise, very briefly, to lend them my full support. It would be wrong of me to go into detail; the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has made a formidable case. He said in his opening remarks how important were these amendments. Let the Committee be in no doubt that we agree with him that they are vital to the well-being of the Bill.
Viscount Bledisloe: Could one or other of the proponents of the amendment enlighten the Committee further as to how they see subsection (3) working? Perhaps understandably, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, skated rather lightly over it. Surely if the subsection were inserted in the Bill, an issuing state would be highly likely to send, almost automatically, a written assurance in this form with every warrant.
Does the noble Lord really envisage that in every such case an observer—whether local or from this country—will be sent out to watch the entirety of the trial and the proceedings before it to see whether adequate legal aid is given at the right time and whether the translator provided is competent? The amendment would involve this country in massive expenditure if every trial for which extradition is granted under Part 1 is to be observed and monitored throughout not only its proceedings but all the preliminary stages.
Lord Goodhart: Let me deal with that point now. I do not see any significant problems. The number of extraditions at present is under 50 a year. Even if that number is quadrupled because the process becomes easier, one is looking at 200 per year. In a considerable number of cases the extradition will be to countries where there are no problems with the local procedure.
GC 148
In other cases the person extradited will live in and speak the language of the country to which he or she is extradited. Therefore the question of interpretation will not arise.
The monitoring procedure will not necessarily require anyone to sit in the court and observe the proceedings for the whole time. Obviously a certain amount of visiting will be necessary, but I believe that one can safely assume that if the extradited person is suffering any problems he or she will be given the name of someone they can contact who will, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, look into the matter and decide whether or not there are any problems.
The expense involved in what is bound to be a relatively small number of cases will be proportionate to the matters at issue. I suspect that there may well be a net saving to the state because proceedings in the extradition hearings in this country, which are extremely expensive, will be shortened.
Lord Filkin: I genuinely thank the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for tabling the amendments, because they address central issues that it is right that we explore and test in Committee. At the risk of rashness, I shall seek to explain why, rather than the Bill weakening the rights of people who are requested for extradition to European Union member states or other signatories of the ECHR, in practice, it strengthens them. Let me explain why and suggest why the specific mechanisms suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, perhaps are not the best, because appropriate provision is already in place.
From discussion of earlier amendments, the Committee knows that we have built several important safeguards into the extradition process. I think that the Committee genuinely recognises the importance of trying to avoid the legalistic, hide-and-seek process that extradition has become—in some circumstances taking years—in ways that mean that people who ought not to be extradited are not in practice.
As we have said, the safeguards of Clauses 21 and 86, which we have inserted into Parts 1 and 2, are specifically intended to achieve that. The clauses are entirely unambiguous. They provide that extradition cannot take place if the extradition would be incompatible with the fugitive's convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. In other words, if extradition would breach the fugitive's ECHR rights, it must not and should not take place. Not only does that protect against the infringement of individual rights in this country, but ECHR case law has clearly established, as I said in response to an earlier amendment, that those obligations extend to the likely fate of the fugitive if he is extradited. If there is a significant risk that his ECHR rights will be breached once returned to the requesting state, the district judge must not extradite him.
I am therefore unsure why Members of the Committee feel that they need to raise a specific procedure for Article 6.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 6.3 guarantees the right to a fair trial and refers to minimum rights, to which I

GC 149
spoke earlier, in very explicit terms. In that respect, the ECHR is extremely helpful, because the judge, knowing that one test he must satisfy is that a person will not have his ECHR rights infringed, will have that document before him. The tests of which he must be satisfied before he decides whether to grant extradition could not be clearer.
So the judge is empowered to consider those issues without any need for a specific provision. More to the point, if there is the slightest suggestion that the person's ECHR rights will be breached, I am sure that the fugitive, or his lawyer—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is absolutely right in this respect—will argue the case that it is unsafe for him to be extradited to country X, because he will not receive a fair trial for X, Y or Z reasons. In those circumstances, if the judge considers that argument valid, he must bar extradition.
In accordance with normal practice, the district judge will have such arguments put to him by the defence for the person who does not want to be extradited. I am advised that extradition advocacy comprises a specialist body of lawyers who understand and will be well steeped in the arguments and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested, will attempt through Clause 21 to claim that it is unsafe for their client to be extradited, even if he meets the test in Clause 11.
That is good and right and must run its course. I am superficially attracted to the idea that one could save court time by avoiding the process of testing whether country X's procedures were compliant, but that is unworkable for several reasons.
First, the judge cannot decide whether country X is in general safe or compliant with the ECHR, he must make a judgment on the specific person at the specific time for the specific offence. A judgment must be made about the specifics of the case; that is, whether it is safe for that person at that time for that charge to be extradited to that country. Without going into detail, we can envisage circumstances in which a good advocate will argue that for a person charged with a particular offence in a particular country, given its history, culture and how the laws operate, that was not safe. Under the Bill, the judge has total discretion to make that judgment. That is absolutely right.
The second argument is that it might be safer if the Government themselves monitored any assurances to see whether they were compliant. Before I touch on that, there is the issue of certification. It is open to a state requesting the extradition of a person from the United Kingdom to send a certificate, if it wishes to do so, saying that it is compliant with the ECHR and giving evidence of how translations and so on are provided. We need not put anything in the Bill to make that clear. A country is at liberty to so do, if it wishes. The district judge still has the responsibility of making a judgment about whether he believes that it is true when he has heard what the defence advocate has to say, and whether it is true for the specific individual in the circumstances. The Bill gives a strong power to the district judge to make that judgment.
GC 150
I was going to touch on why I did not think that the monitoring process would be appropriate. For a start, there are all sorts of practical reasons to do with how civil servants would monitor the judgments. However, even if one had that in place, it would not be desirable that the Secretary of State should make the decision that country X was safe for a person in the circumstances. The Bill puts responsibility for that judgment on to the district judge. It is right and proper that the district judge should make the judgment, and it should not be up to the Secretary of State to say that something was kosher or that people had not behaved in the past. The judge has full scope and full discretion to decide whether it is met.
The final argument is that, if we put in a clause to that effect, the way in which it operated would open up a further opportunity for judicial review. Undoubtedly, people would go for a judicial review on the basis that the Secretary of State had not exercised his discretion appropriately. That judicial review case would have to be heard, and we would have built another delay into the process.
For the reasons that I gave, I am completely with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on how central it is to our attempts to ensure that people who should not he extradited are not extradited. The clarity and simplicity of Clause 21, underpinned by the clarity of Article 6, give massive power to the district judge. If the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, is right and it turns out that a particular country might be OK in some cases but not in the specific case, it is right and proper for the district judge to say, "No. I will not extradite this person because I do not believe that country X provides translation facilities. I have listened to what the defence has said, and I am convinced that it is a matter of doubt. I will not extradite". I see nothing wrong in a district judge making such a decision, and. if such a situation occurred, it would provide an incentive to ensure that it did not persist. The power is with the district judge, and that is helpful.
I shall make a final point. A district judge may make a judgment that, on the balance of the evidence that he has heard and of what the advocates have said, it is safe, in the circumstances, to send the person back. The person who is being sought for extradition and his lawyer have a further right of appeal to the High Court. The issue can be re-heard and re-tested in the High Court. That provides a strong set of legal protections for the individual, while not allowing the kind of perpetuation of a case that we currently have, which can turn into a hide-and-seek game lasting several years.
I hope that what I said—at some length, I fear—will go some way to meeting the tests and challenges that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly raised.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, helpfully explained to the Committee

GC 151
that Article 6.3 of the European Convention on Human Rights is very explicit. I had thought that it was less explicit and that it expressed matters more generally—I built some argument upon that premise at an earlier stage—but I am now quite satisfied that it is very explicit.
Can the Minister give an example of a feature of an individual case that is not covered by Article 6.3 but which might nevertheless lead the judge to withhold his consent to extradition on the grounds of incompatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights? As has been explained, one of the attractive features of the amendment is that it will save a great deal of time while, at the same time, preserving the essential criterion.
Lord Filkin: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is inviting me to find a hole in my argument and to shoot a bullet through it. Nevertheless, that is a perfectly fair challenge because these issues are serious rather than flippant.
My first reaction is that Article 6.1 deals with general issues. It states:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
There is a generality in that sentence which seeks to express in slightly legal terms the right to a fair trial.
The subsidiary paragraphs seek to unpack that for the avoidance of doubt. But if a defence barrister thought that something suggested that his or her client would not get a fair trial in country X, which was not covered by Article 6.2 or 6.3(a), (b), (c), (d) or (e), it would not be outwith the barrister's ability to argue that specifically.
Although I shall reflect on the issue, I believe that the article as currently drafted is effectively a catch-all, which allows other unspecified matters to be brought in as part of a defence that a person would not get a fair trial. I shall come back to the noble and learned Lord if, on reflection, I find a further hole in my argument.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for that very full response. The problem at the root of the issue we are debating is that, although I speak as someone who supports the European arrest warrant in principle, I would have preferred that it was not brought into operation until a framework decision on minimum standards throughout the European Union could also be brought into operation. Unfortunately, as I suggested earlier, although the idea of a framework decision has been floated, it seems to be a good many years off. We therefore have to accept the position as we find it.
I accept that Clause 21 will provide significant protection for people who are faced with extradition to member states where the provisions of Article 6.3 are not adequately observed. I am not particularly wedded
GC 152
to the method of dealing with that problem that I have put forward, although it is the best I could think of. I am concerned that in the next few years we will face a great deal of litigation about these standards. We may well end up with extradition to some of the member states becoming extremely difficult. That is a situation with which I would be unhappy and I have sought to deal with the problem. The same applies, of course, to category 2 territories.
I shall obviously ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I wish to make one or two points that may assist him in his reflections. We extradite now to these countries; we have done so for many years. We have ECHR in place now; it is an issue that is before the courts now. All that Clause 21 does is to put it in the Bill in black and white terms. In many ways these tests exist already and it is open to advocates to use them now if they so wish.
All we have done in Part 1 is to put in place a system of hearings—initial, substantive, appeal—which ensures that there is an opportunity to resist improper extradition while not allowing the process to take two years in ways to which we are all opposed.
If it had been possible to get the Valhalla of a general view that every country had come up to an exactly similar standard that we all thought was perfect, we would still face specific issues. Times and circumstances can change. The defendant still needs the right to argue that, although country X may have been all right generally in the past, "For me it is not safe". Therefore one still needs the broad scope of the power given by Clause 21.
Lord Goodhart: While I fully accept what the Minister says I cannot be quite as confident as he is. The fact that this argument has not been raised on previous extraditions to countries where procedures are questionable does not mean that it will not be raised in the future. The restriction on other arguments against extradition is likely to lead to a search for new grounds on which to base arguments against extradition. I remember a few years ago the decision in the case of Chahal which prevented extradition to India of people accused of terrorist offences on the grounds that they were likely to be tortured. That was a bar under Article 3. It is equally possible that there could be successful arguments under Article 6.
Be that as it may, I shall take the matter away and consider it very carefully and decide whether or not a useful purpose will be served by bringing it back. As I said, I am not certain in my own mind. I may do, but I shall not make a commitment one way or the other. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbottsmoved Amendment No. 87A:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
"EXTRADITION UNDER PART 1: NATIONAL SECURITY
If at any time in the extradition hearing it appears to the judge that the conditions in section 198 may be satisfied, the judge must draw the case to the attention of the Secretary or State."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 87A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 207A. The amendments are not grouped but they deal with exactly the same issue. Amendment No. 87A relates to Part I and Amendment No. 207A relates to Part 2. We may save a little time later if we do not have to go over the same arguments again.
Clause 198, to which the amendments relate, sets out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may prevent a person's extradition where it would be against the interests of national security. The amendments do not seek to probe the nature of this power but how it will be exercised.
Amendment No. 87A seeks to insert a new clause after Clause 24 into Part 1 of the Bill to require a judge hearing an extradition case to draw that case to the attention of the Secretary of State if he or she believes that the criteria relating to national security in Clause 198 is met. Amendment No. 207A would insert a similar new clause after Clause 89 in Part 2.
The purpose of these two probing amendments is to clarify precisely how the Government envisage the Secretary of State will take action under Clause 198. The Bill's provisions remove or, at the very least, greatly reduce the role given to the Secretary of State under the 1989 Act in relation to extradition claims. In respect of extradition under Part 1, the Secretary of State's role is almost completely eliminated. As I understand it, it will be limited to activities such as issuing certificates to confirm that countries are party to the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages under Clause 16, or the absence of speciality arrangements under Clause 17.
The question therefore arises whether the Secretary of State—or perhaps one should say the Home Office—will no longer have any significant role in the extradition process under Part 1, and how the kinds of cases to which Clause 198 applies will come to the attention of the Secretary of State so that he—or "it" in the case of the Home Office—can judge whether national security is affected. Will the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which is to be the designated authority—or in Scotland the Crown Office—be under a duty to keep the Secretary of State informed about such cases?
What will happen if NCIS is unaware that the person's extradition might be against the interests of national security—for example, if the person is undertaking activities on behalf of another government agency, such as the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service or the Armed Forces, that NCIS may know nothing about? What channels of communication do the Government envisage there
GC 154
will be so that the Secretary of State knows, first, that the person is being extradited and, secondly, that national security issues are involved?
In such cases, presumably, it would be up to the relevant intelligence or military agency to ring up the Home Secretary and say, "Sorry, Mr Blunkett, but such and such a person is working for us on a sensitive operation of major importance, so please can you use your powers to prevent extradition?". Is that how the Government intend the system to work?
As I said a moment ago, my amendments would place a duty on the judge to inform the Secretary of State if he believed that the criteria in Clause 198 were met. They seek to address the issue of how the Secretary of State will know about national security cases in the first place. No less important, they will make clear that the judges have the power or duty to bring such cases to the attention of the Secretary of State.
Without such an amendment, presumably, the judge will have to proceed with the extradition process laid down in the Bill without informing the Secretary of State. Is this allowed under the Bill or not? If not, is there any other person or body on which such a duty is to be placed? I am sure the Government will have simple answers to these simple technical questions. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I thank the noble Lord for tabling this probing amendment. I can reassure him that the Secretary of State is content with the arrangements that have been made. It is a pleasure to explain how we believe these provisions will work.
As the noble Lord said, Clause 198 enables the Secretary of State to intervene in any extradition case and to prevent extradition from taking place where it would be contrary to the interests of national security. I know that we shall discuss the scope of Clause 198 at a later date—I look forward to those discussions—and I shall not trespass into those issues now.
In any case where national security considerations apply, it will be open to the fugitive to draw them to the attention of the Secretary of State so that he can decide whether or not his intervention is required. More than that, it is hard to imagine that national security considerations could arise unless one of the statutory intelligence and security agencies had been involved in the matter at some stage or in some particular way. The agencies are always, rightly, very concerned to protect their interests and they have very good channels of communications to Ministers. We have no doubt that they would bring the matter to the Secretary of State's attention at a very early stage indeed.
The amendments seek to impose a duty on the district judge to bring to the Secretary of State's attention any case that raises national security issues. For the reasons given, perhaps I may respectfully say that it does not seem as though such a provision would be necessary. However, there may be some more fundamental objections to the proposals. The reason why the Secretary of State has been given the power to

GC 155
prevent extradition on national security grounds—which I am sure that all Members of the Committee will recognise and accept—is that the Ministers alone have the necessary knowledge and information to take decisions relating to national security. That has certainly been the thinking behind all our other legislation in relation to national security.
I am trying to envisage how a district judge would be expected to know whether issues of national security may in that particular case be engaged, unless he was made aware of such national security issues by the fugitive himself raising the issue. The effect of the amendment would be that instead of the fugitive raising national security issues discreetly with the Secretary of State, or perhaps the agencies doing so, the fugitive would be encouraged to raise them before the district judge in open court perhaps with the public or the press in attendance. We do not think that would be to the advantage of national security. It does not seem to us desirable and, from everything that the noble Lord said, is not something that he would want. The whole purport of the amendment is to ensure that national security issues are dealt with properly, sensitively and appropriately so that we do remain secure. I understand that absolutely.
The Bill, as drafted, allows for national security issues to be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State and for the Secretary of State to prevent extradition from taking place where that would be in the interests of national security. Furthermore, all this can happen in private rather than in public, which must be the best way forward. I appreciate why the noble Lord and noble Baroness have tabled these amendments. But I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that we are quite confident that these issues can be dealt with sensitively in a way that would be to the benefit of national security and, it is to be hoped, not to the disadvantage of the individual acting on behalf of our services. I hope that with that reassurance the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those answers. I accept that the Secretary of State will have the overview of the necessary information and the importance of discretion, that these matters are best not brought out in the open. Our amendments are probing—errare humanum est. We are concerned that, for a man or woman who is doing his "bit"—whatever his "bit" may be in connection with national security—he is not left in a situation where he is being extradited, because at that point he would be left hanging out to dry. From what the noble Baroness said, I take it that there would he nothing to prevent the individual raising Clause 198 in his or her defence at the time if he or her so wished. Would that be right?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: One of the advantages of having legal representation for persons in this position is that in the ordinary way the individual would be expected to raise this sensitive issue first with
GC 156
the legal representative who is bound by confidentiality. It would be through that route that the most likely appropriate authority could be addressed in order to ensure that those matters are dealt with.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: That is reassuring. In the past, there have been cases in which people have been taken on by the security services and then left on their own in a way that is unsatisfactory and unhelpful. I further accept that we shall not get clarity into this rather murky area of our national life in a Bill such as this. With the assurances that the Minister has given, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 87B:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
"SITUATION PENDING DECISION

(1) This section applies if at any time during the extradition hearing, or prior to extradition, the judge is informed that the requesting judicial authority has made a request under Article 18 of the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States.

(2) The judge must not agree to the temporary transfer of the requested person.

(3) The judge may arrange for a hearing to be held under Article 19 of the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States; and such hearing should be in accordance with procedures prescribed by Order in Council."

The noble Lord said: This amendment has been tabled very recently. It is a point which has been raised within the past few days by Justice. Under Article 18 of the framework decision, a judicial authority in the executing state may agree to the temporary transfer of the requested person to the requesting state.
Article 18 states:
"1. Where the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution, the executing judicial authority must:

(a) either agree that the requested person should be heard according to Article 19;

(b) or agree to the temporary transfer of the requested person.

2. The conditions and the duration of the temporary transfer shall be determined by mutual agreement between the issuing and executing judicial authorities.
3.In the case of temporary transfer, the person must be able to return to the executing Member State to attend hearings concerning him or her as part of the surrender procedure".
Article 18 seems to be somewhat obscure because, as drafted, Articles 18.1(a) and (b) seem to be alternatives. Either the court agrees to a temporary transfer or it agrees that the requested person should be heard under Article 19. It is clear from Article 18.3 that the hearing on the decision whether to enforce a warrant continues in spite of the temporary transfer. It certainly looks as though sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) are not alternatives but that the hearing continues to operate even if there is a temporary transfer.
The first problem is that the Bill does not deal at all with the issue of temporary transfer. Therefore, to a considerable extent, this is a probing amendment because the purpose is to elucidate the intention of the Government about temporary transfers. It could be

GC 157
that many countries will ask for temporary transfers. Certainly, the information available from Justice suggests that Spain is already planning to seek temporary transfers on a regular basis.
At the same time, it seems that a temporary transfer—except in the very rare case where someone has, for some personal reason, agreed to it—is dangerous. It could lead to people being extradited, in effect, in circumstances where they will be investigated or interrogated. Obviously, I can understand the possible attractions of temporary transfer from the point of view of the Government because they save the cost of keeping people in detention if that is what they have to do. I certainly think that it is undesirable to transfer a person whose extradition is being sought under the European arrest warrant except in the very exceptional case where they consent to it. We believe that that is a restriction which should be on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I have added my name to Amendment No. 87B in support of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I am very happy to do so. He put his finger on the two critical issues here. First, we have no response to the requirements of Articles 18 and 19 in the European arrest warrant built into the Bill. Therefore, we have no way of knowing how this will be dealt with. In order that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, does not accuse us of being paranoid, I must use my words very carefully.
Article 18(1), read by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, states:
"Where the European arrest warrant has been issued for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution".
We are nervous that we are back into fishing expeditions. It is not about prosecuting someone; it is for the purposes of conducting a criminal investigation. We are away for investigation and fishing, not for carrying out the prosecution of a crime, which is a matter we are trying to speed up.
There is a big issue here. It is very important that the Government make it clear, either by accepting these types of amendments or by producing their own, how the requirements of Articles 18 and 19 will be dealt with within the legislation as presently drafted.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I am not being too ambitious when I say that I hope I shall satisfy Members of the Committee in relation to this matter. I shall not have the temerity to suggest that in this or in any case the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is being paranoid. I think that I can deal with it briefly.
As has been pointed out, Article 18 of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant allows for requesting states to ask for one of two things to happen while the requested state is considering whether it should surrender the person. Clause 18(a) and (b) are alternatives, but in either case the substantive extradition procedure continues. Either the person should be temporarily surrendered or arrangements should be made to take evidence or statements in the requested state.
GC 158
The first point is that we would expect such requests to be very rare indeed. If our new procedures work swiftly and effectively, as we believe they will, there should be no cause for any such requests to be made to the United Kingdom. However, we clearly cannot rule out the possibility that a request of this kind might he made in an exceptional case which was taking a very long time to complete. If that were to happen, this amendment suggests that we should go for the evidence-taking option rather than temporary surrender.
The Government agree absolutely. However, I can probably go further; legally that is the only possible option. There is nothing in this Bill or any other law on the statute book which would allow for temporary surrender in these circumstances. No judge could make the necessary surrender order, nor would we have the power to remove the person. The Bill contains provisions on temporary extradition but I should like to make it absolutely clear that these relate only to the narrow circumstances where we receive an extradition request. They also provide that such temporary extradition can only take place after a full extradition hearing. They certainly do not allow for temporary surrender of the kind envisaged in Article 18 of the framework decision. I repeat that there is no legislation that does.
Finally, I turn briefly to hearings for the purpose of taking evidence or statements. Our existing legislation on mutual legal assistance, the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 already contains detailed provisions on how this should he done. We see no need for the Order in Council suggested in the amendment. I hope that Members of the Committee are reassured and that noble Lords will feel content to withdraw the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am still slightly puzzled. The noble Baroness suggested that the hearing referred to in Article 19 was one at which the person whose extradition was being claimed could be questioned for the purposes of a trial in the requesting country. I may be wrong, but that is what she appeared to say. Article 14 states:
"Where the arrested person does not consent to his or her surrender … he or she shall be entitled to be heard by the executing judicial authority".
In other words, the person whose extradition is sought is entitled to be heard to present his or her objections to extradition. Nothing suggests that the hearing referred to in Article 19 is different in any way.
Having said that, I am certainly encouraged by what the noble Baroness said. My impression is that she is correct to say that, as a framework decision is a kind of treaty, it is not self-active in this country but needs primary legislation to authorise a United Kingdom court to order the temporary return of someone whose extradition hearing had not been completed.

GC 159
I will consider what the Bill states about the circumstances in which a temporary extradition can be ordered, but unless anything in particular arises—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps I could raise one further point. It is a narrow, specialist point on which I shall not pretend that I am fully up to speed, but the noble Baroness referred to the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 as one of the bases for her view that the amendment is superfluous. Justice points out that that is not the case because Section 4 of that Act, to which she referred, relates to gathering evidence in the UK for use overseas, which has nothing to do with the European arrest warrant; it is to do with traditional mutual legal assistance and requires the Secretary of State's assistance.
The Secretary of State must nominate a court to consider that evidence. So we are reintroducing the Secretary of State into an area—the European arrest warrant—from which we have been trying desperately to remove him or her. If that is what the noble Baroness is advised, we are undoing some of the work that we were trying to achieve—namely, removing the political element from that part of the extradition process.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is not what we are suggesting. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, Article 19 is a hearing for the purposes of the preliminary, pre-trial matters in the requesting state. That is quite different. There is nothing in the Bill or that we have been able to identify elsewhere that would allow for temporary surrender in the circumstances that the noble Lord described.
Of course I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, says about Section 4 and the construction put on it by Justice. We do not agree with that construction. We do not think that the provisions reintroduce the Secretary of State's political arm in an inappropriate way or would undo all that which we have done to date. I shall certainly take the issue away for consideration, but that is our current view of the proper construction.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall consider the matter and, if I am satisfied that there is no legislation which would enable such a temporary transfer, it will be unnecessary to return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Physical or mental condition]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 88:
Page 12, line 4, at end insert—
"( ) In discharging his duties under subsection (3), the judge is to have regard to the provisions of section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (c. 20) (admission for assessment)."
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 208. The amendments pick up a point first aired in Committee in another place. Clauses 25 and 90 confer an obligation on the judge to
GC 160
consider whether the person's extradition would be unjust or oppressive. If the judge finds that it would, he can, under subsection (3), order the person's discharge or adjourn the hearing until he feels that the person's condition has improved to such an extent that subsection (2) does not apply.
In another place, my honourable friend Nick Hawkins pointed out to the Minister that it might be pertinent, in the interests of public safety, to have another alternative: to admit the patient to hospital for assessment, rather than simply discharging him or adjourning the hearing. The then Minister said that the judge would anyway be free to detain such a person under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 if the relevant conditions that warrant the person's detention were met.
We have redrafted the amendment to draw the judge's attention to that section of the 1983 Act. That is the third option for the judge under Clause 25. As that provision is there, it should be clearly stated in the Bill.
In another place, at column 118, the Minister, Mr Ainsworth, said that he did not accept that each and every piece of legislation should call the judge's attention to every issue that he might consider, but that he would consider whether something special about the new extradition arrangements warranted the mental health powers being specifically drawn to the judge's attention.
The Bill makes significant changes; the amendment gives the Government the opportunity to put on record the results of the further consideration of Mr Ainsworth—or, since his departure, that of his colleagues. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Although I have no quarrel with the noble Baroness for raising the issue, will my noble friend confirm that when the judge considers whether the condition in subsection (2) is no longer satisfied, he can order that a suitable examination should be made under the provision invoked by the noble Baroness? Is it not equally true that the judge can have regard to other provisions that may become highly relevant? So there is no cause specifically to refer to that provision.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having tabled the amendments, which enable us to clarify our position. As she said, the issue was raised in another place.
The amendments are important because they concern the issue of the physical or mental condition of the person facing extradition. That is a proper concern; that is why the clause has been included. This is one of those amendments where I do not think that there is any real difference between us about our objective.
It is right that we should not extradite in cases where the fugitive's mental or physical condition would make that unjust or oppressive. That is exactly what Clauses 25 and 90 achieve. Those clauses are drafted in such a

GC 161
way as to distinguish between medical or physical conditions which are permanent and those from which the fugitive is likely to recover, such as a broken leg.
Turning to the amendments, I am sure that every Member of the Committee would agree that we need some way to detain those who, because of their mental condition, need to be compulsorily detained. Where we may part company is on the question of whether the amendments are required. We contend that they are not.
As the noble Baroness explained, Amendments Nos. 88 and 208 would require the judge to have regard to the provisions of Section 2 of the Mental Heath Act 1983 when considering questions of the mental or physical condition of the fugitive. Section 2 of that Act allows for a person, on the application of two medical practitioners, to be detained for assessment for a period of up to 28 days where there are grounds to believe that he poses a risk to himself or the public at large.
The first point to make is that Clauses 25 and 90 cover both physical and mental incapacity, so there will be plenty of occasions when they may come into play where Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is not relevant. That may be because what is being considered is a physical disability or because the fugitive's mental condition is such that, though it makes extradition inappropriate, it does not warrant compulsory assessment or treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983.
A few sittings ago, I asked the Committee to suspend belief and, to argue a point, suggested that I be considered as a judge. I could ask the Committee to suspend belief and imagine that I was a social worker. I was one, briefly, in a short and somewhat inglorious career.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Not a paranoid one.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Not a paranoid social worker— but I had to deal with paranoids. The truth is that sectioning someone is a serious business. I had to have a card that enabled me to do that, identifying me as the person whom I said I was. Sectioning may well be entirely inappropriate on occasions, nevertheless, someone's mental condition may be such that the judge would feel that it was not right to extradite.
My point is that the Mental Health Act 1983 deals with mental disorder of a nature and degree that require compulsory treatment. I saw plenty of people who did not require compulsory treatment but whose mental condition—because they were depressed or stressed—was such that they required treatment. In such instances, it would probably be right for the judge to consider that they should not be extradited.
A person brought before an extradition hearing will often have spent a period in prison on remand. If he needed compulsory mental health treatment, that is likely to have been identified in prison, from where he could have been transferred to hospital for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983.
GC 162
However, our primary concern about the amendments is this. Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is used and can clearly apply in any case where it is appropriate. If the district judge takes the view that the person before him needs to be detained—perhaps on the basis of the evidence presented to him in the extradition hearing—he can take steps to alert the appropriate authorities. That power exists at present and applies in the domestic context, just as it does in that of extradition.
The danger is that if we spell out one piece of legislation of which judges are required to be mindful—such as mental health legislation—we call into question every other piece of legislation in which mental health provisions are not directly referred to. I am sure that that is not what the noble Baroness intends by the amendment, but we must take into account the law of unintended consequences.
Although the spirit in which the amendment has been moved is helpful, those unintended consequences have not been thought through. Our mental health legislation is already capable of coping with the situation in which a person's mental condition requires compulsory treatment. It is open to both sides in the proceedings to commission medical evidence.
Judges can have regard to all relevant considerations—provisions—in those circumstances. District judges in extradition cases will have few problems in ensuring that appropriate references are made if they feel that a second or third opinion is required.
Bearing in mind the drawbacks of raising that as a specific reference for the district judge and, as I said, the law of unintended consequences, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel confident in withdrawing the amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. One of the genuine reasons for tabling amendments in this House that have previously been debated in another place is so that the Government can be asked to fulfil their commitments. I believe that the Minister has done just that, and I give notice that I shall not consider returning to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Court's powers on appeal under section 26]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 89:
Page 12, line 19, after "(4)" insert "or (4A)"
The noble Baroness said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 90, 214 and 215. These deal with that most fundamental protection within our own legal system—that of habeas corpus. When my

GC 163
honourable friend Nick Hawkins raised questions on this matter in Committee in another place, the Minister replied as follows:
"The common law right of habeas corpus goes back many centuries, and there is nothing in the Bill that affects it … It is always open to a fugitive to raise habeas corpus issues. At every stage, the district judge is required to consider whether remanding in custody or granting bail is appropriate, and to ensure that custody issues are properly taken into account".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee D, 14/1/03; col. 119.]
I feel that that is rather a disingenuous position to take, to say the least. It is a little more complicated than that. We have a specific law of habeas corpus here—it is a unique part and particular feature of our criminal justice system. Other countries do not have the same position. How is a fugitive to know his or her rights to raise habeas corpus matters—lacking, as he or she would, a detailed knowledge of British law? He or she may be unaware of how to go about raising those issues. That brings us back to the importance of something we discussed earlier—the provision of independent legal advice from the very start of extradition proceedings. However, I shall not abuse the Grand Committee by rerunning that—I am sure we shall have more to say on Report.
There is, of course, a corresponding point: our own citizens will not get the protection afforded by habeas corpus when they are returned to face prosecution in the requesting country. They will lose a key safeguard, which we believe is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I was somewhat perplexed by some of the issues raised by the amendment, and I thank the noble Baroness for the clarity with which she has sought to enlighten me as to its purport.
Let me make clear from the start that there is certainly no attempt to remove habeas corpus by the measures in the Bill. The provisions seek to abolish the statutory habeas corpus, which was first introduced in 1967 and then consolidated through to the Extradition Act 1989, and replace it with a different appeal system. Habeas corpus, as we know and love it, which was given birth to by the Magna Carta, remains.
During the Bill's passage in the other place, various assertions were made that we might be abolishing habeas corpus. I want to make it absolutely clear that any such concerns are quite wrong. The common law right of habeas corpus remains; anyone who is subject to extradition can bring a common-law habeas corpus claim. Whether it will succeed is obviously an entirely different matter.
The principle of habeas corpus is that no one can be detained without proper statutory authority and due process. By virtue of Clause 4(5) and Clause 6(6), anyone arrested in Part I is treated as being held in legal custody. A person arrested under Part 2 is arrested on the basis of an arrest warrant, which similarly provides the legal basis for the person to be held in custody. Therefore, in every case the person must be brought before the district judge very shortly after arrest, and the district judge is required to take a
GC 164
view on whether the person should be remanded in custody or granted bail. If the judge decides on the former option and remands the person in custody, there is clearly a proper legal basis for that person to be detained.
I hope that Members of the Committee will accept that the procedures which the Bill puts in place comply fully with the principles of habeas corpus. And although, as I said, there would be nothing to prevent a person from bringing a habeas corpus claim, it is hard to see how it could possibly succeed, the principles having already been satisfied by the scheme created in statute. For that reason, I cannot see why we need to include a special provision requiring the High Court to consider habeas corpus factors.
Let me pray in aid the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In its report on the draft Bill, the committee concluded:
"The provision for hearings before the district judge would be likely to be held to satisfy the right to take proceedings to test the lawfulness of detention [under the ECHR]".
For the avoidance of doubt, let me deal with one other issue. Section 11 of the Extradition Act 1989 provides the fugitive with a right of appeal immediately after the judge commits the case to the Secretary of State. Rather confusingly, that appeal is termed habeas corpus, though it is clearly quite different as it is concerned with the substance of the case rather than simply the lawfulness of the detention.
The Bill also provides the fugitive with an appeal to the High Court, as the amendments recognise. In the interests of clarity, it is simply described as an appeal rather than a habeas corpus hearing, but the principle is the same. The fugitive can bring his case back to the High Court and seek to have the judgment of the lower court overturned. It is worth pointing out that the Joint Committee on Human Rights gave the appeals process in the Bill a clean bill of health, saying that it offered proper avenues for fugitives to challenge their detention and to appeal against the decisions that have been taken.
All that leads back to the conclusion that I have already outlined—that the amendments would serve no real purpose and that the rights implicit in habeas corpus continue and will not be expunged.
The noble Baroness raised the issue about independent legal advice. I am sure we will return to that on many occasions.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who has put on the record a far more persuasive case than did her honourable friend in another place. I think that she has done sufficient for me not to have to return to the matter on Report.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Baroness is, as always, so gracious.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Appeal to High Court: time limit for start of hearing]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved. Amendment No. 91:
Page 14, line 12, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"(1) The High Court must begin to hear an appeal under section 26 or section 28 within 28 days of notice of appeal being received."
The noble Baroness said: I should like to make clear that even if we were on the Floor of the House, this would be a simple probing amendment only. It focuses on the timing within which an appeal to the High Court must commence. Clause 31(1) states that the rules of court must prescribe the period within which the High Court must begin to hear the appeal. We have suggested in our probing amendment a limit of 28 days, beginning from the time when the notice of appeal was received.
We appreciate that timing is a delicate issue. When I was watching an extradition case a couple of weeks ago, it was brought home to me with great clarity that one of the many problems that politicians cause for the smooth running of the judicial system is that we put a plethora of time limits within a plethora of different and competing pieces of legislation and then dump them on the courts and expect them to sort it out, with all the timetabling problems that they have. The amendment has been tabled against that background, which is why it is definitely only probing.
There is a balance to be maintained. We are asking the Minister to put on the record some information about the kind of timescale that the Government expect to be operating in these circumstances. We hope that a guarantee will come easily to her lips that this will not be an open-ended matter. We do not have a fundamental problem with leaving the period to be prescribed by the rules of court, as long as we can be assured of some protection for the defendant in terms of a sensible and workable timescale. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am most grateful for the very helpful way in which the noble Baroness has phrased her amendment and for her understanding of the burden that we all too often place on courts in such matters. I can reassure her that the Rules Committee will consider the matter, but if it is helpful, I will go through a little detail so that we have it on the record. I hope, thereby, that the noble Baroness will have the sort of reassurance that she seeks.
A central tenet of the Bill and one of the driving factors behind the Government's determination to modernise the UK's extradition is the need to streamline and simplify our extradition process. For that reason, the Bill contains a number of time limits to ensure that proceedings are undertaken efficiently and without unnecessary delay.
We make no apology for the need to do that. Our history has demonstrated that we need to bring about some change. It is clear that our existing procedures have been abused by those determined to string out
GC 166
extradition for as long as possible. Although the new system offers far less opportunity for multiple and repetitive challenges, time limits will ensure that cases proceed with due expedition.
Clause 31 is one example: it provides that the rules of court be drafted, setting out the period within which the High Court must begin to hear an appeal under Clauses 26 and 28. It is normal and appropriate for such time limits to be set out in the rules of court—Clause 200(1) provides for this—to prevent legislation from becoming bogged down in administrative detail that pertains primarily to the administrative processes of the courts.
As the noble Baroness will know, one of the beauties of the Rules Committee is that it can take a more holistic approach in relation to the system and try to craft something that will enable the smooth administration of justice to be delivered without causing unfairness to those who have to participate in the process. We see that that has value and we do not propose to depart from that methodology in this case.
I understand that Members of the Committee may be concerned that in setting particular time limits, we do not allow sufficient time for the necessary court administration—especially for an appeal hearing to he listed, and for the preparation of the respondent's case. We share that concern. There would be absolutely no point in designing an extradition system which was so streamlined that it did not serve the interests of justice. Again, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the matter just to make sure we all keep on our toes—a skill she has honed over the last year or so in particular.
I am thus pleased to be able to reassure the Committee that we are in discussion with the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Civil Procedure Rules Committee and senior members of the judiciary to agree an appropriate time limit for the start of appeal hearings under Part 1. I can also reassure the Committee that our thinking runs very much along the lines of the timescale proposed fortuitously in the amendment. So the noble Baroness need not be in the least bit hesitant about the time she has plucked out. A period of about four weeks from hearing to appeal seems about right to strike the balance between speed and ensuring that the system functions properly.
Of course all these details will be properly considered in the discussions to which I have just referred. I can assure the Committee that those members of the judiciary with whom we are in contact are very vigilant. They will ensure that the rules of court which finally emerge are both efficient and fair and make sense to those who will operate them.
I hope that I have said enough to reassure the noble Baroness and the Committee that we are looking at these issues very seriously and that we will have a framework which will be both practical and effective, but most of all fair and just. With that, I would invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am very grateful to the Minister. She is absolutely right that it is vital to balance expedition with fairness. I certainly did pluck out 28 days because it seemed a fair period in comparison with other time limits. I am grateful to her for her careful response and that she has given us some advance notice of the consultation being carried out by the new Department for Constitutional Affairs, the judiciary and others. That is obviously the appropriate way forward. I certainly do not intend to return to this issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Position where asylum claimed]:
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 92:
Page 20, line 5, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
The noble Lord said: This is another issue raised by Justice. Under Clause 39 extradition cannot be ordered where the person whose extradition is requested has made an asylum claim and that claim has not been finally determined. A claim is finally determined after it has been rejected and when the appeal against that rejection is dismissed or when the time for appealing has ended without an appeal being brought.
Clause 39(9) states that if the Home Secretary has rejected the claim as being clearly unfounded, the asylum claim is treated as being rejected immediately and therefore cannot be used as a bar to extradition.
Extradition does not terminate the right of appeal against the rejection of an asylum claim. Under Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, if an asylum claim is certified as unfounded, it does not prevent the appeal but allows an asylum seeker to be returned to his country of origin pending the hearing of an appeal. The Home Secretary issues the certification that the claim is unfounded when he dismisses the claim.
That particular point—the power to send someone back to his country of origin on the basis of the Home Secretary's certificate that the claim was unfounded when an appeal against the rejection of the claim is still pending—was the subject of a great deal of controversy and debate during the passage of the 2002 Act. Be that as it may, it is now the law and must be accepted as such. However, I believe that there is a distinction between the cases where extradition is sought and other cases.
In the great majority of cases that the Home Secretary certifies as unfounded nothing adverse will happen to the returned asylum seeker. Of course if extradition is sought it is known that the person on his return will face a criminal trial. It will therefore be that much more difficult for that person to make an out-of-country appeal against a rejection of the asylum claim. I recognise that no extradition can in any event be made until after the hearing has decided that the order has been made, but that is another matter.
Further, if the appeal from the rejection of the asylum claim is granted—as indeed is bound to happen occasionally—it may well be useless to allow the appeal because the person who sought asylum is locked up pending a trial or is serving a sentence and therefore will be entirely unable to return to the United Kingdom in order to claim asylum. I therefore believe that cases in which an extradition warrant has been issued require special treatment and that the extradition order should not be carried into effect while the asylum application has not been finally determined whether or not it is a case in which the Home Secretary has certified that the claim for asylum is unfounded. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I agree with the noble Lord and accept that the changes made to the immigration and asylum law by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, now that they have come into force, have brought about considerable change. Because of that change, it may well be necessary for us to revisit the way in which the Bill is currently structured in order to give voice to the intent that we still have to have an integrated system, which is more proof against abuse but which still allows the kind of care and protection that we would need to have in place for those who are meritorious of our protection. Therefore, I cannot explore that too far at this stage.
It may be of importance and noteworthy for me to explain how we see extradition interacting with asylum provisions because we shall seek to continue the principles upon which the scheme is founded. So it may be helpful for me to outline how we see the two emerging. I hope that that will enable noble Lords better to understand whatever further provisions we may have to make.
The Committee knows that as our extradition law currently stands, we cannot extradite a person serving a custodial sentence in the United Kingdom. We have to wait until he has completed his sentence before we can accede to any—I hear mutterings behind me.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: You are departing from the script.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No. As our extradition law currently stands, we cannot extradite a person serving a custodial sentence in the UK. Perhaps the Committee will give me one minute. I seem to have had a mental aberration.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Those of us on this side of the Chamber who suffered throughout the whole Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill certainly feel for the Minister and are quite happy to give her a few moments.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is very gracious.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is very kind.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The argument was a convincing one.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It just related to the other provisions.
As I said, I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling the amendment. It allows me the opportunity to explain the Government's approach to the provisions. I hope now that I shall be relating the correct one. The amendments relate to a very complex provision in the Bill that deal with the situation where extradition and asylum meet, as indeed did those to which I have just spoken. There are clearly some very strong and basic principles involved. I shall try to explain why these provisions, and other related ones, are drafted as they are.
It is well known that the asylum system has been subject to abuse, as I said earlier. The Home Office has made great efforts to reduce the potential for such abuse and continues to do so. We also know that the asylum system has been used as a means to delay and frustrate the extradition process. The Committee may have noticed why the previous notes and the current ones seem to have merged in my mind.
As well as a growing incidence of cases involving both issues over recent years—now approximately 15 per cent of ongoing casework—we have even had the national of an EU member state claiming asylum. Such claims are often made with the express purpose of frustrating extradition on the basis of groundless applications being made.
That is why we included in the Bill provisions specifically to deal with this difficult situation and to address spurious asylum claims and appeals. Our aim in including these provisions is that the asylum system should not be open to abuse or delay or used to frustrate extradition. However, it is also our position that a person who genuinely fears persecution should not be prevented from having the opportunity to seek refuge. We believe that, by including these specific provisions in the Bill, a balance has been struck between these imperatives.
Perhaps I may explain a little further about the provisions and how they will work. Any asylum application made after the extradition request was received would be considered in the normal way, but as a matter of priority. If the application were refused, the person would then be able to appeal, not using the existing appeal processes available to asylum applicants in other circumstances, but to the High Court—the same venue as the extradition appeal. These modified appeal procedures have been set out in the clauses. We shall reach them later under Part 5.
Clause 39 contains slightly different provisions to the corresponding clause in Part 2. In a Part 1 case, if the claim were considered to be clearly unfounded, it would be certified as such by the Secretary of State when refusing the claim. The effect of this certificate would be that the person could appeal against the asylum refusal from abroad, but only after extradition.
GC 170
However, immigration and asylum law, as I said, has developed significantly since the Extradition Bill was introduced in another place last November. The provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 have now come into force, which have brought with them considerable change. So we will have to, as I said right at the beginning, look at this and see what can be done. Therefore, although I am not able, as I said earlier, to give specific details at this time, I would say that it is highly likely that amendments will be introduced in due course to reflect a different approach.
Our aim remains the same—that the asylum system should not be abused to delay or frustrate extradition, while at the same time allowing an individual the opportunity to seek refuge in the face of persecution.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is reassured that the Government are committed to their obligations under the 1951 refugee convention and to the fundamental right of the individual to seek protection where it is necessary. At the same time, the Government have made it clear that we intend to deal robustly with spurious or abusive asylum claims. Therefore, in the light of those comments, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Before the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, replies, I should like to thank the Minister, as I am sure the noble Lord will, for outlining the Government's further thoughts on these matters. When I first came to look at the Bill itself and the discussions in another place, I telephoned the Immigration Advisory Service because, given our debates in the past year on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, I was concerned about the implications of these provisions. I am certainly aware that there was hope outwith the House that the Government would look cautiously at some amendments to this Bill.
I appreciate that the Minister cannot give us a timetable within which amendments may be brought forward, or even tell us whether they will be brought forward. However, would it be the normal expectation that we will see important amendments such as this on Report rather than leave it to Third Reading? She will know that there was some vexed feeling in the House on the nationality Bill when substantial amendments were brought forward at a very late stage.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The answer is yes. The noble Baroness knows that even in those circumstances we made efforts to table the amendments as soon as was reasonably practicable. It was with very much regret that we were not able to do so more quickly. For that reason I thought it proper to foreshadow the fact that we were looking at these again. As soon as we are able to share that information in the usual way, we shall certainly ensure that those

GC 171
amendments are notified as soon as reasonably practicable to all interested Members of the Committee.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the Minister. Obviously, in the circumstances, I will have to suspend judgment until I see the amendments. At the moment I cannot say whether they will be welcome as an improvement on the present position. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think that this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday at 3.30 p.m.
Committee adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Fire and Rescue Services Bill
  (First Day)
  Thursday, 6 May 2004.
  The Committee met at a quarter past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): There has been a request that gentleman may wish to take off their jackets; I suppose it falls on me to say, "Yes, gentlemen have permission to take off their jackets".
  Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of two points of procedure. Noble Lords will speak standing and the House has agreed that there will be no Divisions in Grand Committee. Unless an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
  Title postponed.
  Clause 1 [Fire and rescue authorities]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Hamwee: I apologise if there has been confusion as to whether or not we are opposing the clause—we are not. Our opposition to it was tabled as a result of a misunderstanding. I hope that the Minister received a message this morning outlining the question I wish to raise on the clause.
  In the Commons, Nick Raynsford said that the fire and rescue authorities would be able to call themselves whatever they want. I think the words he used were that they could rename themselves in line with the new definition. Can the Minister confirm whether that extends to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, which has that name as a result of the Greater London Authority Act 1999? It is actually enshrined on the face of the Act, which then goes on to refer to it as "the Fire etc Authority".
  To table an amendment on this point would be going too far; it is not a huge matter of urgent moment. I do not think that the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority—which has only quite recently changed from its previous title of the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority—is anxious to go into a great deal of reprinting and rebranding. Nevertheless, if the Bill's predecessor is any precedent, it will last for some
  GC 238
  decades, and "emergency planning" in its title may or may not be appropriate as new arrangements are undertaken for cross-service resilience arrangements. Indeed, as the new and very welcome powers are established and better known, it may appear to be a rather outdated title.
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): I have a brief answer to the noble Baroness's question, which I hope she will find satisfactory. I am not up to date with the matter being raised in the other place, but it is a matter for individual authorities, including the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, whether they wish to call themselves a fire and rescue service in line with the changes in the Bill. The definition in the Bill has been changed to comply with what is, in reality, a fire and rescue service.
  In order for that to happen, an amendment to Section 328 of the Greater London Authority Act would be required to change the name formally. Such an amendment would be within the scope of the Bill but we understand that no formal request to this effect has been received from the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. In other words, it could be done through the Bill if it so desired, but it does not have to do it.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful for the Minister's reply. It seems to raise the possibility of putting in the Bill some kind of enabling provision so that the authority can decide—this year, next year or in 25 years time—whether it wants to change its name. Perhaps I may leave that thought with the Government. As I said, the authority does not want to do anything now, but it would be a pity if we passed legislation which prevented it saying what it is. I would be grateful to the Government if they were to come back on that.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Power to create combined fire and rescue authorities]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
  "(1) Fire and rescue authorities may constitute, with the agreement of the Secretary of State, a fire and rescue authority for the combined area of two or more existing fire and rescue authorities."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 9 and 10. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has two amendments in this group. It seems that daily the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Bassam, and myself face each other across the Dispatch Box on successive legislation.
  In principle, there are many matters in the Bill on which we are in agreement, but we want to test some issues. As with all Bills, we shall want to see that it is improved where necessary and build on it during the course of debate. The Bill contains flaws and, if it were enacted as it is, I believe that the effect and capability

  GC 239
  of our fire service to perform its duty to the best of its ability would be reduced. We do not want that; we want it to be effective.
  The background to the Bill is well known. Not all that long ago in Grand Committee, we considered other measures and we aired the background at Second Reading. However, in drafting the Bill, I believe that the Government have departed from the good intent of the Bain report and of their own White Paper. As well as taking this opportunity to bring much-needed modernisation to the fire service, which we are happy to support, the Government have taken upon themselves to introduce once again little-needed structural reform. Quite apart from introducing additional bureaucracy, it is clear that regionalisation of the fire service, as the Bill intends, has more to do with the Government's obsession with devolution and providing work for regional assemblies than bringing about real reform of the fire service. So far as we are concerned, that is not a promising start.
  I hope that during the passage of the Bill the Government will listen to the arguments and—dare I say?— see the light and back down on the Bill's more unwelcome elements. On these Benches, we do not believe that the possibility of forcing fire authorities to combine on what may be unnatural and artificial regional boundaries is at all sustainable. Hand in hand with regionalisation, the Bill gives almost unprecedented powers to the Secretary of State—almost unprecedented since the planning Bill. The two themes of regionalisation and centralisation run throughout the Bill; that comes from a government who miss little opportunity to proclaim their belief in localism.
  Turning to Amendment No. 1, we strongly believe that there should be democratically accountable fire and rescue authorities, based on viable, recognisable and publicly understood administrative units—not on artificially created boundaries drawn up by the Secretary of State in Whitehall. Provision of the fire and rescue service should reflect local circumstances, and the constitution of any fire and rescue authority should be democratically accountable to the community that it serves.
  However, we recognise that not all services can be delivered at the lowest level because of the economies of scale, the need for specialisation, which is well addressed in the Bill, and reinforcement patterns and various other aspects about which we have no disagreement with the Government.
  It is entirely appropriate that fire and rescue authorities should work together in collaborative units. I use the term loosely because some may wish to combine fire authorities, but others may wish to organise themselves into clusters for certain purposes only while retaining their independence for other purposes. Amendment No. 1 seeks to achieve that objective by giving fire authorities the ability to come together as they wish and removing the unwelcome hand of central government in forcing them to do so.
  Amendment No. 7 is a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 1, removing the power of the Secretary of State to compel authorities to combine if Clause 2(1) is amended, as my first amendment designs. Amendment No. 10 is, again, a consequential amendment, removing the unnecessary subsection that empowers the Secretary of State to consult under subsection (3)(b), which the two previous amendments would, if accepted, remove.
  Amendment No. 9 seeks to require the agreement of authorities to any modification by the Secretary of State to a combination scheme that they themselves have proposed and, as such, it reinforces an important principle of local decision-making and discretion, as opposed to the excessive dead hand of the centre once again being imposed without due regard to local circumstances. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: I am grateful for the way in which the noble Baroness introduced the amendment. So that I can get it off my chest and not repeat myself later, I say at the outset that I reject the arguments about excessive centralism. On behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, I can say that he does not take personally all the references to removing his alleged centralist powers.
  The final thing that I want to say in order to help things along is that many of the amendments, but not all, were considered in the other place. That is not a criticism of how they are considered here but, as one can imagine, my answers will be the same as those given in the other place. Nevertheless, sometimes it is worth taking a second look at issues, and, in any event, that is the purpose of this House.
  This group of amendments, taken together, seeks to prevent the Secretary of State combining the fire and rescue authorities under any circumstances other than those in which the authorities themselves have requested it. The amendments even require the initiating authorities to give their agreement to any modifications that the Secretary of State might suggest. As Ministers in the other place pointed out, this latter restriction could lead to an extraordinary situation. They gave the example that if Cheshire, Shropshire and Staffordshire were to propose to combine, they could veto a modification to restrict the combination to Shropshire and Staffordshire, even though the people of Cheshire were due to vote in a referendum on whether to have a north west regional fire and rescue authority. Therefore, in an example such as that, massive complications would be caused. Obviously, such a proposal is hypothetical but it is an example. As I have already said, many of these issues were raised in the other place.
  The amendments mean that the Secretary of State will have no power at all to act on his own initiative—even if, and when armed with an independent Audit Commission report, there is evidence that improved economy, efficiency and effectiveness might well result from combining authorities or when faced with an urgent need to combine authorities which have failed to deliver on a vital issue of public safety, such as the creation of cross-regional control rooms. We say that

  GC 241
  that is simply untenable. We are dealing with a national service which is locally delivered and locally governed in many ways. Therefore, it would be untenable to remove the Secretary of State completely.
  The fire and rescue authorities cannot exercise individual vetoes, which is what the amendments would amount to. As we shall deploy over the coming sessions, the Bill requires extensive consultation, including an inquiry in all but the most urgent circumstances or where the matter is, in any event, uncontroversial. To suggest that even then the Secretary of State should be unable to act in the interests of the public as a whole is to say that the Government should abandon their responsibility to ensure an effective emergency service and the best use of taxpayers' money.
  As I said, I reject the arguments of excessive centralism. It is a national service and it is delivered locally in many cases by extremely local people, as in the case of the retained firefighting staff. Nevertheless, there needs to be a power at the centre in the sense that the holder of the purse strings is held accountable if things go wrong—and, believe you me, it will be the Secretary of State who is blamed and not individual fire authorities.
  Therefore, I believe that it would be wrong to cut out the Secretary of State completely in all the circumstances that I have mentioned, and there may be others. Where there are clearly major problems and where, following inquiry and armed with Audit Commission reports and so on, initiation at the centre is required, it would seem preposterous to remove the Secretary of State from that role.
  I hope therefore that, as the answers and questions have not changed—indeed, the example has not changed; it was the one given in the other place—that will satisfy the noble Baroness. However, there will be plenty of opportunities to test the details of the arrangements in the amendments with which we shall deal later.
  3.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will not be astonished to hear that I am not totally satisfied with it. In fact, it is difficult to achieve in amendments the absolute fineness that one wants. It will be no surprise to him to know that, by and large, we think that the Secretary of State's ability to control and direct should be taken out of the Bill. I have some sympathy with the fact that there might be odd occasions when it is necessary, but the Bill makes no such provision. At the moment, the Bill simply makes it very clear that the Secretary of State may, under no circumstances delineated, intervene and force fire and rescue authorities to come together. It is also clear that, under Clause 1, the people who are authorities are laid out but they are subject to Clauses 2 and 4, which we shall consider today.
  I note the example that was brought to the other place, and I also note the role of the regional assemblies, which again come roaring into the Bill. We shall come to contest further the fact that the regional assembly areas—and indeed, the regional development agency
  GC 242
  areas, on which we had a small skirmish yesterday—are democratic areas, even if the assemblies are elected. We shall also contest whether they are the right way sensibly to combine fire authorities.
  I do not think that I can take the amendment any further at the moment. The whole issue of the Secretary of State's power will come up again as we go through the Bill. In some cases, we may accept that it is justified. However, on a general basis, which is what appears under Clauses 2 and 4, we are not happy with it at present. For today's purposes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 2, line 7, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
  The noble Baroness said: With Amendment No. 2 are grouped Amendments Nos. 3, 8, 15 and 18. The arguments on both sides are probably much the same as they were on the previous group. I thought to myself that I would not repeat the points, but I will say that none of them are personal so far as we are concerned. I hope that they are not taken personally.
  Our amendments differ from those of the noble Baroness in that we have specifically provided that, if authorities notify the Secretary of State that they want to combine, he shall make an order. However, we have left in the possibility of modifications under subsection (4). I heard what the Minister said about where the buck stops if there is a problem, but why not combine if asked to combine by the authorities in question? That point must be answered as everything else is consequential on it. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassani of Brighton: My noble friend Lord Rooker made all the arguments that needed to be made on the previous amendment, and I would save him the task of repeating them. In truth, I can see very little—and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said that there is little—between the two groups of amendments. The only question that was asked in the contribution made by the noble Baroness was: why he should not make an order if there is already local agreement to a form of combination? My guess is that in most circumstances, if the authorities were bringing forward a combination proposal, the Secretary of State would probably be very happy with it.
  There might not be a circumstance when that happens, and you must allow for that. It may be completely ridiculous; it may be a barmy proposition. I cannot believe that sensible fire and rescue authorities would come forward with such a barmy proposition, but there may be circumstances when it just does not make sense in terms of the way in which the services need to be organised. I do not think that we could allow that to creep into the Bill.
  We come back to that important point made by my noble friend Lord Rooker, which is that there might be circumstances where the Secretary of State—by the effect of the drafting of this amendment, were it to be put in place—would be prevented from acting effectively in the public interest, even where he is well

  GC 243
  armed and well prepared with the proper Audit Commission evidence. The point is that sensible means of combining authorities could be prevented because of the way in which this set of amendments would work.
  One further point that is perhaps worth making—it is an oddity really—is that if we were to agree to Amendments Nos. 15 and 18, and if they were passed in isolation, they would have a strange and perverse effect of allowing schemes initiated by the Secretary of State to proceed without an inquiry. That seems to be very odd, given where the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, comes from. Nearly every time that we discuss and debate things such as this, certainly the Lib Dems and our colleagues on the Conservative Benches are keen to ensure that there is the utmost consultation, and in most instances we agree with that. Amendments Nos. 15 and 18 would prevent any sort of consultation or local inquiry as to the effectiveness of the combination scheme. For those reasons, we cannot accept these amendments, both in principle and in detail.
  Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord knows of course that Amendments Nos. 15 and 18 are not proposed in isolation, but are part of this package. I accept that finding appropriate legislative language to restrict barminess is quite a task, but as it was described, the Secretary of State might not agree with authorities, first in terms of the organisation of the fire and rescue services, and secondly in terms of the public interest.
  The noble Lord has made me think that I want to reread this part after today. It comes hack in one way to what the noble Baroness was saying, but what are the criteria that must the Secretary of State use, and what criteria should be excluded? Are we talking just about the fire and rescue services, or can the Secretary of State say, "I have some other game plan, something else that is related to other bits of organising how government is delivered"? What is the relationship to those? I apologise to Hansard that that is nothing like a proper sentence. He has made me interested in the question of the criteria that will be applied. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 4:
  Page 2, line 12, leave out "economy,"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 4 is a probing amendment, and not one that the Minister should use as a basis for teasing us for being spendthrift. It is to seek to understand what weight the term "economy" has in this context.
  We are all used to the term "economy, efficiency and effectiveness". The three go together. It has almost become a technical term covering those three limbs. But it is not a technical term. And it must be possible to have one or two of the triumvirate without the others.
  The rationale for the Bill—modernisation—is very much about effectiveness and delivering a modern service in a modern context. We know that modernisation should carry savings in its wake, but that is not its purpose. So I have tabled the amendment in the hope that the Minister can explain the weight of the term judged against efficiency and effectiveness and to help me decide whether that is the right combination of characteristics and whether economy, while always laudable, should have first place, or indeed a specific place on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: On that last point, if you try to read out these three words in any other combination you get really tongue-tied. They are always presented in this fashion because you would really have to think about saying them the other way around. That answers that point. I do not think that any one word is more important than another; it is just for clarity of reading out. Obviously, this is a probing amendment and I shall not be nit picking on that.
  In Committee in the other place, comments were made that to some Members of Parliament—very suspicious people—"economy" is a euphemism for cost-saving. You could argue that such economy would be an excuse for wasting money. No one in his or her right mind is going to stand up and say that we should proceed with this policy in order to waste money.
  We have the point about efficiency and effectiveness. It was also said that they were euphemisms for cost-savings. In other words, "Let it rip; there's loads of money; please sign the cheque". That is what people normally say to the Government. We have gone over that. That is not the position.
  If the concern is that there is a subtext to any of these words—this is just one chosen for the amendment—I can assure the Committee and the noble Baroness that this is not what "economy" means in this context. It is our intention, and I am sure it is one the opposition parties endorse, that the fire and rescue authorities should continue to be best-value authorities. As such, the Audit Commission will assess them on the extent to which they are achieving economy, efficiency and effectiveness. That wording of course follows Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1999. My three years on the PAC back in 1989–90 branded the words on my forehead and this was the way of tracking taxpayers' pounds to make sure that they receive value for money and we achieve an efficient use of public resources.
  The general use of the term in the National Audit Office and the Audit Commission seems quite uncontentious. It is true if you are a suspicious Member of the other place—there are no such people in this place—you can see other agendas. I want to make it clear that there is no other agenda. We want them to be best-value authorities, assessed by the Audit Commission. These are the words that guide the Audit Commission in its duties. One is no more

  GC 245
  important the other. I genuinely think that they are always presented that way around simply because they trip off the tongue a lot easier.
  Baroness Hamwee: I suppose they would trip off the tongue more easily if they had started off in a different order. It is often difficult to follow the other place because I have points that I want to raise which may look as though they are the same as those raised at the other end and they are actually quite different. How one ever explains that in tabling amendments, I do not know. They are indeed best-value authorities but, at this point in the Bill, the issue is not how they perform and how the Audit Commission judges them but the decision of the Secretary of State. These are the criteria to which he has to have regard.
  I have hard what has been said and I am not wholly convinced. However, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 5:
  Page 2, line 13, leave out from "area" to end of line 15.
  The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to delete Clause 2(2)(b). As it stands, Clause 2(2) is schizophrenic. The first paragraph provides for a proper test for the creation of combined fire authorities—that the scheme can be made if it is in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness. Although we believe that such a scheme should be voluntary, that is the kind of test that makes sense.
  However, paragraph (b) completely undermines that test by allowing the Secretary of State to create combined fire authorities if the boundaries are coincidental with those of the Government Offices for the Regions. We have had this argument before. This subordinates the appropriate operational and economic criteria to the political agenda of the Government, which is the regionalisation of England according to entirely inappropriate regional boundaries. As paragraph (b) makes clear, the regions we are talking about were created for regional development agencies, not combined fire authorities.
  Public services should not be strategically organised on the basis of convenience and coincidence. If paragraph (a) sets a proper test for the public, paragraph (b) exposes the Government's real objective regardless of what is best for the public. I can think of no arguments for allowing the Secretary of State to create fire authorities for regions without proving that the sensible criteria in paragraph (a) have been met or would be promoted by the scheme proposed under paragraph (b).
  The Government have not attempted to demonstrate that the Government Offices for the Regions would be the most appropriate operational boundaries for fire authorities, presumably because they know that facts as well as public opinion is not on their side. Let me illustrate my point. The south east has a population of 8 million; the north east has a population of 2.5 million;
  GC 246
  the north east has an area of 8,500 square kilometres; the south west has an area of 23,000 square kilometres. It seems inconceivable that the most effective way of managing a fire service stretches between these two demographic and geographical situations. It beggars common sense.
  Public safety must be the first criterion for any reorganisation of the fire service. We assume that the word "effectiveness" is underpinned by the principle of promoting public safety. However, paragraph (b) undermines that principle. The Government need to convince a sceptical public that the aim of modernisation is not to promote a political agenda for the regionalisation of England but to improve our fire and rescue services.
  There is no evidence—no supporting arguments at all—that the existing nine Government Offices for the Regions will be the most operationally effective units of our fire and rescue services. If there were no Government Offices for the Regions or the Regional Development Act 1998, and if the Government were modernising the fire and rescue service from a purely "best practice" perspective, we all know that the answer to the question of how best to organise and deliver fire and rescue services would not be based on the current regions.
  That is the case. Fundamentally, the amendment will improve the Bill because it will shift the burden of the argument from convenience and coincidence to improving a public service. I am sure that we will come back to this issue. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: My noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have added our names to the amendment. As usual when we talk about regions, the two parties approach the issues from slightly different angles.
  I am particularly concerned about the very large size of the regions. I probably live in the smallest one—the north east— but even there, in the southern part of our region, there will be difficulties in trying to organise the service across the area and making it accountable to local people. This is what concerns me about the Bill and a great deal of the other legislation on public services that has been dealt with recently.
  For that reason, we do not want this provision in the Bill. However, if the Government carry on with it, what kind of criteria will they use to judge whether the regions are a suitable size to be run as a single fire and rescue authority? It is asking a great deal of people who want to run such an authority effectively.
  On the previous group of amendments, we discussed the criteria of economy, efficiency and effectiveness. However, in regard to other legislation I read that some areas in south-west England, which runs from Gloucestershire to the end of Cornwall, are nearer to Scotland than to the end of Cornwall. The Minister therefore needs to clarify the issue because the areas are large.

  GC 247
  My main concerns, therefore, are the size and criteria. I believe that the areas are too big and that we will not achieve democratic accountability. I say that much as I agree with regional government, provide of course that it is democratically elected.
  Lord Rooker: Here we go! We cannot escape it. This is the fourth Bill in the past 12 months in which regional boundaries have arisen. I have my own views on them, but the views I give at the Dispatch Box are always those of the Government—unless they are my own personal views.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, gave a good example. I have never measured the distance but I have seen on a map that Chipping Camden is one of the most northern parts of Gloucestershire. The bit that sticks up, which is about 40 miles south of Birmingham, is in the same region as Land's End. I have given that example previously—it is not new—but I shall resist the temptation to redraw the regional boundaries.
  As this is the fourth Bill in a row where the issue could be raised, there may be an idea that the Government have a plan, a plot or a deadly scheme for regionalisation by stealth. One cannot call open debate in a House of Parliament "by stealth". On the other hand, each Bill has a purpose and in this case it is the fire and rescue authorities. I hope that the concerns were allayed by Nick Raynsford in the other place during Committee stage and Third Reading when he made it clear that the only circumstances in which the Government envisage using the provisions of Clause 2(2)(b) are ones of public safety where the fire and rescue authorities have failed successfully to work together to ensure resilience.
  He cited the example of the failure of the authorities to agree on the siting of, or the operational arrangements for, a regional control room. We believe civil resilience requires that the fire and rescue service is equipped to meet the challenges of the new dimension of both the terrorist threat and environmental disaster. They can be the same thing, but that is why it is important. In order to meet that challenge, the service must be integrated into the work of the regional resilience teams based within the Government Offices for the Regions.
  I realise there is a natural suspicion and I hope that I have given an assurance. Every time we bring forward such legislation, it is possible to raise the issue of the shape of the boundaries and the south east is a good example because Banbury is in the same region as Hastings, Thanet and Guildford. One can look at them and make points about the geographical size of an area as opposed to its population. Heaven forbid that we made everything the same because the beauty of this country is that it is not all the same. The regions are different in size and so forth.
  When the previous Conservative government, in their wisdom, set up the Government Offices for the Regions they wrote these regional maps. That is what they are—they are not new. It may appear to an outsider and onlooker that we are talking about
  GC 248
  regions constituted under an Act of Parliament of 1998 and that they are therefore Labour-drawn boundaries. We all know that that is not the case. The simple fact is that that legislation mirrored the Government Offices for the Regions. We have not changed the regional boundaries. We have also stated that they are not there forever—I hope that I can knock that idea on the head.
  We have said repeatedly in relation to the other legislation that the place to start was not by redrawing the boundaries through legislation because that would take for ever. It was important to deal with the matters in hand. One issue was a form of elected regional government, which was not the purpose of this legislation. I nearly said "Madam Chairman" but we do not have a chair in this place; there are no orders. I cannot be ruled out of order. That is what is so crazy about this place. I am still working to the rules of the other place and trying to stay in order.
  The point that I was making was that it is important to do the job in hand. We must see whether we can set up regionally elected assemblies. In this case, that is relevant because they would become the fire authorities. We must look at the fire and rescue service and, if it has to be regionalised for various reasons, those boundaries should be used. That is the key job—it is keeping our eye on the ball. It does not mean that at a later date the boundaries will not be reviewed. I can say that because I have said it in relation to other legislation and it would apply no differently to this Bill. Obviously, if the boundaries did change, they would change in sequence for all the items of administration and delivery of functions that we have talked about in the past, whether they are the regional planning bodies, the regional housing boards or the elected regions.
  Throughout the Bill, many of the Secretary of State's powers, although I am not claiming that here, are, indeed, reserve powers. It is not the case that he will wake up one morning and say, "We are going to do this today". He must have a reason for doing it. Criteria must be laid down. What he does must be subject to judicial review and it cannot be done on a whim or a hunch. Nor can it be done as a party-political fix. It cannot happen in that way. I hope that, with those reassurances, which I am sure I shall repeat throughout our debates on the Bill, the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord responds, in brackets I want to say that I have always thought that it takes a huge talent to chair the House of Lords or a Committee of the House of Lords because of the self-discipline that is required not to intervene and call us to order.
  The Minister made a great exhibition of Clause 2(2)(a) but, if I may say so, he has not begun to explain Clause 2(2)(b). Surely all that he said relates to Clause 2(2)(a). If anything needs to be done in relation to the regional aspect, that can be picked up when we deal with the regional assemblies powers Bill, which we hope to see before too long, and dealt with on a regional basis. But

  GC 249
  everything that he has explained as justifying the Secretary of State's decision to use the power in Clause 2(2)(b) is set out very clearly in Clause 2(2)(a).
  Lord Hanningfield: I want to ask the Minister one or two questions arising from his comments. When he talked about resilience—I do not really want to quote my own county again—Kent or Buckinghamshire in the south east were very much involved with London resilience. That is certainly a matter in which I have to become involved as the leader of a local authority. Clearly the boundaries—even those relating to terrorist problems, although I hope that that will never be the case—are not regional boundaries; they are based far more around large conurbations or other areas which might be affected by terrorism. The same applies to difficult situations in respect of the fire and rescue service. If there are big fires in London, we all have to come and provide support in those situations.
  I cannot see why the Government want to proceed in this way when we could have smaller systems. Our regions, if we ever have the regions envisaged by the Government, are about the size of a German Länder. Every other European country has much smaller regions. Spain has one or two big regions but all the other countries have far smaller ones. The south-east is about the same size as Austria and yet Austria has 10 regions in it; therefore the south east could have perhaps 10 regions.
  I cannot understand the Government's thinking. I can understand that because of modern technology one could perhaps have fewer control rooms as long as they all work. However, from a fire authority's point of view, most of the world has relatively local fire authorities which are supported by their communities. In Germany people are proud to belong to the fire authorities. They are almost like a club and they are very much supported.
  I do not understand the Government's thinking. I do not understand why they want the areas to be so enormous and so impersonal. The regional paper in the east of England, called the East Anglia Daily Times, ran a campaign and thousands of people wrote in support of the Suffolk fire authority and the Norfolk fire authority and the Essex fire authority. It is not a popular move at all. I really cannot understand the thinking behind the Government in wanting to create these enormous, remote bodies. Although there needs to be efficiency, which can be achieved technically, I cannot understand why they cannot do something that the public might like more.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: The Government do not want to create these authorities. In the areas where there are no elected regional assemblies, it is not our intention to force this on regional authorities. So for the good people who want to support their local fire services, that is fine. It is only where the local fire authorities do not work together and are clearly operating against the issues of public safety—that would have to be judged as a criterion—that the Secretary of State would use
  GC 250
  the powers. We do not want to create them where there are no elected assemblies. The east of England and Essex is such a case because no referendum is being held there.
  Lord Hanningfield: Surely the Minister would not expect Cornwall to co-operate with Gloucestershire? That would not make sense. Cornwall would rarely go near Gloucestershire because Devon is in between. There may be times when Devon and Cornwall need to co-operate. I cannot understand why the Government are going in for large regions, although I agree that neighbouring fire authorities would need to co-operate.
  Lord Rooker: I know that Devon and Cornwall have a joint police authority, but I cannot answer the noble Lord. Quite clearly Cornwall is a long way from Gloucestershire. For one to come to the aid of the other would mean travelling through several counties to do so. One would assume that the more local counties would give support. If that were the case, it would mean that they were working successfully together. There are good reasons why there may be contact between Cornwall and Gloucestershire, as they are in the region, but I suspect that there are no issues of public safety and resilience because they are not very near to each other. The local county authorities would be the obvious ones to work together successfully. If they work together successfully there would be no reason for the Secretary of State to intervene.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for those answers. This is an issue that we shall continue to explore as the Bill proceeds. I still want to question why any authority should be forced into this, although I agree that local authorities should work together. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
  "and provided in either case that the Secretary of State does not consider that, in the interests of public safety, a scheme should not be made"
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment does not refer to the point on public safety made in the Commons, which I believe was answered by safety falling within effectiveness. It is provoked by the reference in Clause 2(9)(d) to public safety being taken into account in deciding whether the Secretary of State is to hold an inquiry into making a scheme, varying it or revoking it. I wonder why the same should not be explicit in Clause 2(2). If we are talking about effectiveness and public safety is within the framework of effectiveness, why is the issue dealt with differently in Clause 2(9)(d)? Is it a reason not to hold an inquiry? The decision in the first place and holding the inquiry are clearly different, but is it enough that the Secretary of State has a view to lead him to determine that there will not be an inquiry? I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness asked questions about whether the action was in the interests of public safety. She is obviously indicating a genuine concern that Clause 2(2) does not incorporate a specific reference to public safety.
  That being the case, all that I can do is follow what was said by the Minister for the fire service in the other place. I shall repeat the assurance that he gave to the Committee there, which was that the Secretary of State is expected under Clause 21 to discharge his or her responsibility for the fire and rescue national framework in a way that appears best calculated to promote public safety. There are no conceivable circumstances where a Secretary of State would approve a combination over which there was any question mark of such a nature. Indeed, we claim that the whole purpose of the Bill is to improve and extend the protection of the public.
  The issue that the noble Baroness raises is of genuine concern, but in some ways it is answered by the duties in Clause 21. There is no real difference between us there. I shall take advice on the points that she raised about subsection (9)(d), but I do not think that they mitigate what I said about Clause 21.
  Baroness Hamwee: I thank the Minister for that; of course there is nothing between us on the issue of safety. He has heard me ask before why a couple of clauses are not the same, or are the same, and about the issues that that raises. I understand his reference to Clause 21, which I would have thought applied to holding the inquiry. Perhaps not; perhaps the function dealt with under Clause 21 is different. I come at the matter with a small but nevertheless noticeable niggle that, if safety is referred to in subsection (9)(d), it raises a question mark over subsection (2). That is the extent of the niggle. I am not trying to make trouble, but to be clear. As we are in Grand Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 not moved.]
  Broness Hamwee Broness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 11:
  age 2, line 25, after "question," insert—
  "() all local authorities in the area affected,"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12. Again, we are dealing with the issue of consultation. Our amendments would provide that,
  "all local authorities in the area affected",
  would be consulted in the making of a scheme. The amendment was raised in the Commons and is intended to make the same point as was made there. However, I had some difficulty in quite understanding the answer, no doubt because it was a compendium response by the Minister to a lot of amendments that covered related but not exactly the same ground.
  The consultation that we propose does not amount to a veto on the part of any individual or group of authorities.
  It seems to us that to consult all the authorities— after all, they are democratically elected public authorities which would debate the matter in public—is the correct democratic way to go about it. It is also common sense. Anyone who has undertaken a consultation exercise—I am not suggesting that the Government are inexperienced—know that consultees often come up with things that are not wholly expected. They often make good points and they reinforce the importance of consultation.
  In much of this, the name of the game is partnership. All authorities, because of their other roles in dealing with anti-social behaviour and so on, will have views about the fire and rescue services. Perhaps as the services' powers and remits are extended under the Bill, they will have even more comments and directly applicable experience. We may hear that of course the Minister will consult all local authorities, but if that is so, I would like to see it on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: On the face of it, this seems an extremely reasonable proposition. We have had the same debate in many pieces of legislation and we are all in favour of consultation. But it comes down to whether it is proper, right, sensible and practicable to list each and every organisation in the legislation. The difference between us is that we do not believe it makes much sense to do that. However, we are fully committed to the widest possible involvement of all the affected authorities and organisations which might be caught up in a proposal for combination, an alteration in the pattern of their services and so forth.
  We believe it is more flexible to leave listing out of the legislation. For instance, 52 organisations were listed as formal consultees in Annexe E to the draft national framework. The inclusion of some organisations but not others would inevitably mean that those not listed might fear they would not be consulted. That would be especially unfortunate when we have shown in practice that we want to be as inclusive as possible in the way in which we consult.
  Picking up an argument made by the noble Baroness, it may well be that consultees come up with the unexpected. There may well be unexpected consultees—people who suddenly find that in their organisation there is a real and genuine reason for them to be included. Therefore, an exclusionary list would work against their interest.
  I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that if it is relevant for an adjacent local authority to be consulted, of course we will want to see it consulted whatever tier of local government it is. There is therefore no desire to exclude people from consultation; our desire is to have maximum flexibility. If an organisation is relevant and important, whether it is a local authority or a voluntary organisation, it has access to the consultation process. We are trying to be inclusive rather than exclusive.
  Baroness Hanham: I want to follow that up. Local authorities are probably one of the most important organisations to consult as their members are representative on the fire authorities. It is not wholly

  GC 253
  unknown for representatives of local authorities and fire authorities to disagree with their own local authority when the time comes for a decision to be made. There can be disagreements.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is called "going native".
  Baroness Hanham: I did not put it that way, but that is exactly what I am talking about. A proposal as important as this should be tested out with the lead organisation of the representative. Other organisations are involved in fire authorities and the same applies to them. The bodies which provide the representatives are, sine qua non, at least as important as any others. In fact, I think I am probably supporting the amendment.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: I shall see you in the Chamber for the next stage. This is not intended to exclude anyone. I want to make that clear. I believe that democratically elected authorities are different from quangos and from practically everyone who is listed in Annexe E of the draft framework. I could make a case for referring to those who currently work in the service. I would not expect to list them in detail. There is a difference of quality when one refers to local authorities.
  The annex to which the noble Lord has referred mentions the Local Government Association, quite rightly. This is not intended to be a criticism of the Local Government Association, but if it is collecting other people's views inevitably there will be a filtering exercise. I do not believe that that is right. Chairs of fire authorities are mentioned and I am sure that we shall return to this matter. There is something very important here. By including this in the Bill, the Government will not lose out, but will gain Brownie points and will certainly make me feel more comfortable, without impugning what the Minister has said.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I can ask the noble Baroness which authorities she believes in the end we would exclude by adopting what I see as the more flexible approach that the Government wish. Is she worried that people may not listen to adjacent authorities? Is she worried that people may not listen to constituent authorities? About which authorities is the noble Baroness concerned?
  Baroness Hamwee: I cannot answer that question. I am not in the Government and the Minister may not be in the Government who operate the clause in 20 years' time. We have been here before. We shall not make headway today so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 2, line 37, at end insert "by an independent inspector"
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 14 is grouped with Amendment No. 17. The amendment probes who will undertake the inquiry referred to in Clause 2(9). Will it be an independent inspector? Can the Minister explain who will carry out the job?
  In Amendment No. 17 I refer to Clause 27 which provides for the appointment of inspectors, but those are inspectors to check on how an authority is performing, not on the making of the scheme in the first place. I have tried to find another reference in the Bill to inspectors and there is one in Clause 55. which has the title "Inquiries: supplementary", but that appears to concern the powers that apply to an inquiry, and not to its function or objective. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 14 seeks to ensure that an independent inspector should carry out an inquiry held into a combination scheme. On the face of it, this is unnecessary. However, there is a problem. When the amendment is read, as we believe it must be, in conjunction with Amendment No. 17, it clearly intends that those appointed under Clause 27 as Her Majesty's inspectors of the fire and rescue services should fulfil this role.
  There are many important roles to be fulfilled by Her Majesty's fire services inspectorate, not least the professional advice it provides to the Secretary of State. But its expertise does not extend across the full range of issues of an inquiry under Clause 2(8) that it would be expected to address. These include a range of governance issues, the extent to which a proposed combination will test economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and the impact on public safety.
  I am advised that it would be normal to appoint as chair of such an inquiry someone with expertise in considering evidence from a wide range of parties, drawing conclusions and making recommendations. He or she would need the benefit of the operational side and technical advice, for whose provision the fire services inspectorate would be ideally suited, as well as an input from the Audit Commission on best-value matters and others as appropriate. However, because Amendment No. 17 misunderstands the role of the inspectorate in relation to such inquiries, we believe that it is fundamentally flawed. As a result, Amendment No. 14, which would otherwise simply be redundant, is flawed by extension.
  I know it is horrible and I feel bad about saying it—it is terrible what I used to say about them—but the kind of person I have just described is the pinstriped barrister twit sent from London to Birmingham to conduct parliamentary boundary inquiries because he had the expertise in listening to arguments, weighing up evidence and writing a report. Most of that they did successfully but sometimes unsuccessfully.
  Lord Hanningfield: And on the same lines throughout the regional agenda.
  Lord Rooker: It is a terrible thing to say about my learned friends, but it is one of those things. In other words, because of the nature of the job of chairing, it is not for the fire services inspectorate. It would have a massive input because of its technical expertise, but the job of drawing the evidence together is beyond the range of expertise and experience of the fire services inspectorate.
  I will never take through a Bill for the lawyers in this place, that is for sure! With that explanation, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Baroness. The points she raises are legitimate, but the nature of the inquiry is such that another class of expertise would be best chairing it.
  Baroness Hamwee: Personally, my entirely prejudiced assessment of these people is in direct relationship to the width of the pinstripes. I am not sure that the Minister has answered the point technically about what an inquiry is under subsection (9). One is so used to seeing inquiries hedged about with provisions on how they are to be held and here the term arises without explanation in the middle of a Bill;
  "cause an inquiry to be held".
  I do not know how you define "pinstriped twit", but I take the point made about the expertise being different. It seems to me that "inquiry", even if it is put with "held", could be something quite informal. That is really what I was driving at. However, having exchanged sartorial comments with the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 2, line 39, at end insert—
  "and shall only proceed with the proposed scheme, variation or revocation as the case may be if the inquiry concludes that the making of the scheme, variation or revocation is in the interests of greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the fire and rescue service or services concerned"
  The noble Baroness said: I am just ruminating as to whether the Bar Council is at the moment leaping to find out whether it can sue the Minister for undermining its members. I am sure that we will see about that later.
  Both Amendments Nos. 16 and 30 would ensure that the powers of the Secretary of State both to initiate a scheme for creating combined fire authorities and to revoke or vary such a scheme—in effect his powers of intervention, control and pursuing a regionalist agenda at the expense of what is best for the public—would be limited by the findings of an inquiry that would focus only on answering the question whether the Secretary of State's plans would deliver greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the fire and rescue service concerned.
  This is a modest hurdle. The fire and rescue services and the public will need to be assured that the modernisation, or the bringing together of formation service, is not premised on regionalisation and centralisation, but on delivering improvements and the best possible service structure. They need to know that there is a process that protects the public interest. An inquiry that finds that the Secretary of State's regionalisation plans would not promote greater economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the relevant fire services cannot be ignored. It would need to be taken into account. Only an inquiry can decide whether the Secretary of State's plans are genuinely in the public interest, or possibly, a political agenda with no operational merit.
  I say that not in terms of doubting this Government but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, keeps reminding us, this legislation might last for a long time, and its implementation will not be carried out by those of us who had anything to do with it. The Minister may say that there will be consultation—I am sure that he will. That is insufficiently rigorous, because the Government can, if they wish, ignore the results, or some of the results, of that consultation. The Bill needs teeth to ensure that the Government are obliged to act in the interests of the people, and, most importantly, of the service. The principle behind this amendment is important. Central government control and the political agenda of regionalisation need to be judged according to what is best for the public and the future of the service. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: This is another amendment that limits scope for action by the Secretary of State, and I am fairly confident that I can give a response that will be acceptable. The point is made that only if an inquiry agrees that a combination scheme or a variation or revocation of existing schemes is justified on grounds of economy, efficiency and effectiveness can it proceed. The primary purpose of this is to prevent combination along regional lines envisaged in Clause 2(2)(b). I hope that I have already given assurances there. They are significant assurances about the limited circumstances in which we would use that power.
  Indeed, in those limited circumstances, sometimes to wait for an inquiry might not be in the interests of public safety. I remind your Lordships that the Government agreed to an inquiry being the norm, in response to representations made in the other place. This was not in the Bill to start with. We have accepted that it should be the norm, and having agreed to it, I assure noble Lords that we are hardly likely to ignore the findings of the inquiry. If an inquiry came to the conclusion that economy, efficiency and effectiveness were not best served by a particular combination, or a change to a combination, the Secretary of State would be obliged to have regard to it. It would be a foolish Secretary of State who decided to proceed on the basis of such an inquiry. He would have to have very good reasons, having had such an inquiry. The point is that the Secretary of State must take account of an inquiry that came to such a conclusion. He cannot simply ignore what an inquiry would say.

  GC 257
  Therefore, we think that the amendments are unnecessary in the circumstances. I cannot be any stronger than that, because one cannot envisage the hypothetical circumstances—that is all we are dealing with—of what might happen as a result of one inquiry in one part of the country, as opposed to another inquiry in another part of the country. The Secretary of State might take a different view, and circumstances might be different. Needless to say, as I have said before, he would not be able to act on a whim or a hunch, having had the results of an inquiry that said, "Don't do it on these grounds". If one proceeded down that road without a good, clear and transparent reason, that would be the subject of a judicial review by interested parties.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I appreciate that he will become tarred with the issue of regionalisation. It is important to be certain that in an inquiry that found against regionalisation and against the whole process, matters would not be overridden because of a wish to regionalise. That is what lies behind this matter. Even with regional assemblies, if that were the situation it may still not be appropriate for the service to be regionalised and it might still be the wish of the Secretary of State to do so. One has to be very clear that with an inquiry held under those circumstances there would be no question of the Secretary of State not bowing to the result of the inquiry. I have heard sufficient from the Minister on this amendment. It is an area to which we shall return at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 not moved.]
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 19:
  Page 3, line 12, leave out subsection (10).
  The noble Baroness said: To some extent Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, which would remove subsections (10) and (11) of Clause 2 respectively, are probing amendments. Whether they were discussed in the other place or not, I cannot make head or tail of them. I hope that the Minister will clarify why the subsections are in the Bill. Perhaps I can try to make sense of this matter. Subsection (11), which is dependent on subsection (10), bypasses the requirement that an order must come into force to have effect. Although at the end of subsection (11) there is a proviso that a scheme,
  "may not come into force before the order or provision does",
  in subsection (11)(a) the Bill states that a scheme under Clause 2,
  "may be made as if the order or provision referred to in subsection (10)(b) were in force".
  Perhaps the Minister can explain the reasoning behind the two subsections or perhaps the reasoning behind the explanation of the two subsections. If the issue concerns the sequence of order making in
  GC 258
  establishing a particular scheme, can he illustrate how and why the two subsections might be necessary and how and why they are expected to work? I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the noble Baroness said, these issues were debated in another place although they did not proceed to a vote. Consequent to that, we thought that the technical explanation provided by our ministerial colleague in the Commons was considered to have answered the point. As I understand it—I have not read Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1972 or the other related pieces of local government legislation—the intent of this provision is to ensure that local government reorganisation, and any consequent reorganisation of fire and rescue service boundaries, proceeds in tandem. That is what those two parts of the clause achieve. I do not suppose that I need to spell it out much more than that, other than to say that obviously if there is a local government reorganisation, and it does have implications for the reorganisation of fire and rescue services, it makes sense to do these things in an orderly fashion and to achieve transition in as smooth a way as possible.
  I have been involved in a local government reorganisation, and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, has also been involved by implication. That is what the technical impact of these two parts of Clause 2 achieve. Where boundaries need to be changed, the Government would have to be satisfied that existing fire and rescue services continued to cover their current areas of responsibility until new authorities were established, and that the new authorities operate seamlessly from day one. That is difficult to achieve in any reorganisation, as we all know. Subsections (10) and (11) allow the development of a combination scheme to proceed in parallel with any relevant local government reorganisation, so that there are no gaps in the overlap or transition period. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness. If not, no doubt she will come back.
  Baroness Hanham: I am as satisfied as I can be. I still cannot make sense of the orders of the sections. I am not a lawyer, as everyone will know. I cannot understand how lawyers can get themselves into such a confusion. The explanation given by the Minister was straightforward. The two subsections are completely opaque, it seems to me—
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: If it helps, when I read them at first, I thought, "What does this mean?". Clearly, it has something to do with the way in which a process is put in hand. That is actually the explanation, at the end of the day.
  Baroness Hanham: I had tumbled to that. It was just unclear how the process was legitimised by these two subsections. I will not tangle any more with the Minister or with the parliamentary draftsmen on this. We have had an explanation of what it means. I am grateful, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 21:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
  "REGIONAL MANAGEMENT STRUCTURES
  (1) The Secretary of State shall within 12 months of the coming into force of any Part of this Act—

  (a) commission an independent study to establish the optimum geographical areas within England for the organisation of fire and rescue services; and

  (b) commission an independent study of the impact of any existing regional management structures on—

  (i) operational effectiveness of fire and rescue services,

  (ii) cost-effectiveness of fire and rescue services, and

  (iii) management capability of fire and rescue authorities.

  (2) Upon receipt of the reports of the studies referred to in subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall cause those reports to be published."
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 21 is drawn widely, and touches on all the fire authorities in England with the exception of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. It addresses the compulsory and arbitrary regionalisation of the fire and rescue services on the basis of the existing regional development agencies or the Government Offices for the Regions. Clearly, that is the issue that we referred to in several other amendments this afternoon. The Commons ODPM Select Committee looked at the Government's proposals on regionalisation and said in paragraph 81 of its report:
  "The draft framework emphasises the importance of local solutions to local needs, and highlights that there is no national blueprint. Yet Fire Services and Authorities appear to have no choice about adopting a regional approach".
  We have always accepted that there is a case for harvesting the efficiencies of co-operation by doing certain things at supra-brigade level, but that must be a bottom-up process that starts with individual fire authorities collaborating together, not a top-down process in which the Secretary of State directs fire authorities to work in certain ways. It must be driven not by the Secretary of State's demands, but by the accountability of fire and rescue authorities to local taxpayers and by their best-value obligations. That is already happening, but not necessarily on the geographical boundaries that Ministers seek.
  We accept the case for common procurement to ensure interoperability and the need to co-ordinate the response to non-conventional threats at a higher level than that of the individual brigade. None of those arguments, however, points to a government-dictated organisation of fire and rescue services along the geographical lines of the Government Offices for the Regions. Fire and rescue services are a local government function and, under modernisation, they are charged with becoming more of a community
  GC 260
  service. They must be managed and run closer to, not further away from, the local community that they serve. We must never forget that, even in the environment in which, sadly, we now find ourselves, at least 90 per cent of a fire and rescue authority's work will continue to be performing community-based traditional roles as well as the new, important role of fire prevention and education.
  The Government have not produced a shred of evidence to establish the benefit to public safety of choosing the structure of the existing Government Offices for the Regions as the basis for imposing regional management boards, the use of those regions as the basis for the combined fire authorities of the future, or, indeed, for reducing the 49 existing control rooms to just nine in England. We need convincing evidence that the regions chosen by the Government are the optimum regions for fire and rescue purposes and that they will not merely reduce costs but will meet the Government's avowed criterion of improving public safety.
  I was interested in the fact that earlier the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that he might have his own views about regions. When he replies, perhaps he will be able to give us some of those views. For example, the Government have not explained why it is right and appropriate to have one control room in the north-east region with a population of 2.5 million spread over 8,000 square kilometres, and one control room in the south-east region with a population of 8 million—the size of Austria—spread over 19,500 square kilometres.
  Resilience will be achieved by common equipment and operating standards. The reduction of 49 control rooms to nine is about saving costs. There is nothing wrong with saving costs, but it is not the Secretary of State's role to deal with such matters in a locally based, locally accountable service. He should deal with resilience, but economy of operation should be dealt with under the best-value arrangements and through the accountability of democratically elected fire and rescue authorities to their local electorates.
  The truth is that the Deputy Prime Minister has been scratching around to try to find some powers for his pet regional tier to counter the repeated accusation that it is a hollow promise. The fire and rescue services are being regionalised by stealth through the regional management boards, the inevitable withering of the management capability of individual fire and rescue authorities, and by the regional fire authorities that the Secretary of State will impose on any region that elects to have a regional assembly in a referendum. Incidentally, that demonstrates the untruth of the Government's repeated statement that any extra powers given to elected regional assemblies will be handed down from central government and not drawn up from local government. Those extra powers will clearly come from a diminution of local government power and responsibility.
  We will never accept that public safety should be subordinated to the Government's regional agenda through the imposition of a sub-optimal regional structure. I re-emphasise that we object not only to the

  GC 261
  introduction of a supra-brigade level for certain purposes but to the transparently political use of existing government office regions.
  This new clause would also require an independent study to be carried out on the impact of the existing regional structure. That will be a structure of regional management boards and any regional combined fire authorities that the Minister creates when the study is conducted. That is the best that we can do within the structure of the Bill as the regional management hoards are not created by the provisions but are part of the national framework document.
  If the proposed reports were carried out, they would show whether there was a better way of organising supra-brigade level activity and whether the Government Offices for the Regions structure was really a cost-effective way of organising fire and rescue services. They would also show what impact it was having on fire and rescue authority management capability, which, inevitably, appears likely to wither as a result of the transfer of responsibilities up to regional management boards. That process would be entirely objective.
  If the Government are confident that the best interests of public safety are served by the Government Offices for the Regions and that they are the best and most appropriate units of organisation, they have nothing to fear in accepting the new clause and commissioning an independent report so that we can all see some independent underpinning of the Government's position. The public would then be able to see for themselves whether the structure was designed primarily to enhance public safety rather than to advance the Deputy Prime Minister's regional agenda. I beg to move.
  Lord McCarthy: How long does the noble Lord think this will take? He will have to commission an independent study, find people to undertake it and service them. They will then have to decide what the optimum geographical areas are within England for the organisation of fire and rescue services. People may not agree with that: they may want to debate the issue to decide whether it is right.
  The noble Lord would then have to commission another independent study of the impact of any existing regional management structures. Does that mean that while the second inquiry is going on it will be all right for the Government to set up new regional management structures? If not, there would not be many to be examined; they would not have much impact.
  How long will all this take? Does the noble Lord feel that all the matters the Government are suggesting to us, and which the Bain report suggested, about the need to get on and create new authorities based upon the formulae of integrated risk-based management are somewhat urgent? Is he saying that all this can go on irrespective of the consequences while the inquiry is sitting, or would it all have to stop?
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Lord for that question. We already have, of course, the regional management boards. They had to be established by 1 April and so they are there. Obviously the suggested new clause would open the door to something we have wanted for some time—a consideration of the boundaries for the regional areas. I would be interested in the Minister's comments because I believe everyone accepts that there should be some rethinking of the boundaries. The amendment offers the opportunity to do that and it could be done as quickly or as slowly as people wish to do it.
  The amendment would clearly open a new dimension, which the Government would be reluctant to do. One can understand sometimes why they are reluctant because, once one opens a Pandora's box on boundaries, there will be a great deal of debate on the issue. But, if we are going to proceed, surely it is better to have that debate and get the thing right.
  The Minister said in reply to my earlier amendment that the boundaries could be changed in due course. But how can they be changed if we continue to set up structures based on these boundaries? It would cost a lot of money to do so. We are talking about a very important emergency service for which the public has a tremendous regard. It has been through a series of difficulties over the past few years and therefore, if we are going to do it, now must be the time. We tabled the amendment because we feel that now is the right time to review the process in order that we may get the best possible structures for the safety of our country.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, put his finger on one of my concerns: that essentially the amendment is a recipe for delay before we can proceed with what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, agrees is an important agenda—that is, the modernisation of the fire service. We agree on that. Where we disagree, obviously most profoundly, is on the way in which that should be achieved. The noble Lord said, essentially, that any modernisation should be bottom up. We agree that that is highly desirable. But the Government obviously have a responsibility to ensure that they see through the modernisation, and we can probably both agree that there is a need for a fair amount of determination to ensure that that is the case.
  I shall deal with the specifics of the amendment. Our ministerial colleagues observed in the debate in the other place that, unless the Opposition are turning the clock back on the modernisation agenda, a study of the boundaries of Government Offices for the Regions—which the noble Lord's party introduced when it was in power—is rather academic. The pure research suggested in the amendment seems even more academic. I am not sure what its benefits would be today, and I am certainly not sure what its benefits would be in terms of this legislation. We all have our views about boundaries, but pure research on the optimum geographical boundary seems to be

  GC 263
  somewhat rarified when we are considering the ways in which the services themselves can be better run, better modernised and better organised.
  The second issue is probably one of more practical concern. I can confirm what was said in another place. It was said that rather than wait for studies to be commissioned within 12 months of the Act, we have already agreed that the Audit Commission, which, after all, is an independent body—one not established by our Government but by the noble Lord's government when they were in power—will take on this task. On 25 February it published a consultation paper setting out its draft comprehensive performance assessment on fire and rescue authorities. It proposed to implement it early next year, with the outcomes publicly reported before the autumn of next year.
  An important part of the CPA process will obviously focus on value for money. It is also planned specifically to assess the effectiveness of the work undertaken through regional management boards and to report on the management capability of individual fire and rescue authorities. In other words, it is planned to address the very issues covered by the second part of the amendment. And it is planned to address them sooner rather than—as the amendment envisages—later. I hope the noble Lord can accept that and that that will enable him to withdraw his amendment.
  In this legislation we are trying to modernise and improve the way in which fire and rescue authorities work. We have no desire to take away from them the full responsibility for fire safety work, the response to fires, the response to road traffic accidents or any other emergencies to which they respond through their current service planning. Therefore, we do not see the need for the amendment. We think in any event that the second part of it is covered by the Audit Commission's proposed study into the way in which the original management boards operate. We think that the consideration of the boundaries in the way in which the noble Lord suggested is rather a secondary consideration. We want to make sure that these things work well. Navel gazing about getting to a state of perfection on regional boundaries does not best serve us when we are looking at the modernisation agenda for the fire and rescue authorities.
  Baroness Hanham: Does the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, think that this obsession with taking on the regional environment has waltzed a whole lot of legislation into considerable problems—perhaps this Bill almost more than any of the others? The regional management boards are already there. It keeps on being pointed out that the previous government set up the government offices. But the government offices were never meant to be anything more than an administrative base. They were never meant to be the centre for democratically elected government. Their whole purpose was entirely different. Somehow this Government seem impaled on regionalisation against those boundaries.
  GC 264
  In fact, the whole Bill would work perfectly well without any question of regionalisation. The bringing together of authorities could be done perfectly well without any question of regionalisation. My recommendation to the Government would be to take the whole question of regionalisation out of the Bill and to concentrate on bringing the fire services together in the most useful, comprehensive and efficient way, and make it work not only in running the service but to protect the public.
  This whole obsession with regionalisation merely clouds issues all across this particular Bill and other legislation.
  Lord Hanningfield: I endorse what my noble friend said. No one is disputing that the fire service needs modernising. We all agree on that. The fire authority for the most part falls into substantial organisations. To be modernised they do not need to be regionalised. We agree that they need to co-operate. In particular, neighbouring authorities need to work together. That is different from creating regional fire authorities.
  As my noble friend said, we keep having it thrown at us that our government created the regional offices. We know that they created the regional offices. I was the regional chairman for further education colleges. We were based in one office. The highways office for the region was based in another office. Another group was based in another office. It made absolute sense to put all the offices together in one group of buildings. I was part of that grouping as regional chairman of the further education colleges.
  No services were run there: they were all run at different places. The Government are now trying to deliver services from what were supposed to be outposts of the Civil Service. So that is a totally different agenda altogether.
  If the Government want to pursue the regional agenda and to create regional fire authorities, it should be done on the logical basis of which ones should sensibly work together. I do not like to keep referring to my own authority, but it has much more business with London, Hertfordshire and Kent than with north Norfolk. It is crazy. Much as I love north Norfolk—my mother came from there—one feels as though one is going back 20 years or so. In Essex we are modernised, different and part of the London conurbation.
  Going back to the south west, we are creating artificial things, which will not make anything any better. If you want to have regional fire authorities, it would be much better to look at the map and say: "Well, these fire authorities are similar. They work together. They can help London if there is a problem". And to do it properly. Rather than do something that does not make any common sense at all.
  To continue to pursue a regional agenda, someone has to sit down at some stage and make sense of the boundaries. We might as well start some time. That is why we tabled the amendment. We are putting the issue together as necessary to modernise the fire service without regional fire authorities. It might take a few

  GC 265
  months to do it. We can carry on the modernisation agenda without having regional fire authorities. But let us make some sense of it. I wish the Ministers would admit that and let us get on with it and start some time. Perhaps they would like to comment on when we can start to make some sense of this whole thing.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Let us go back to the core argument. The noble Lord is really suggesting that we have this massive regional agenda, but that it should be held up while we consider one piece of legislation that relates to the modernisation of the fire service. While that is going on we should hold up the whole process of modernisation so that we can just go back and check whether we have all these regional boundaries right, not just for the fire service presumably, but also for a whole range of other regional functions.
  If that is what the noble Lord is suggesting, clearly that is nonsensical. As we have said, we can have lots of arguments about whether boundaries are right. I lived in north east Essex for the first 19 years of my life. I am not sure I consider myself to be part of Greater London. I had more affinity with southern Suffolk on the borders.
  We can always have that argument. But I do not think it is right to hold up modernisation and then to have that argument. That is essentially what the noble Lord suggests. That makes no sense at all. There are many good reasons for working to ensure that we get that agenda moving more quickly, so that we can bring those efficiencies into place; so that we can work across services; and so that we can change how the service works and work with the service to achieve that change in a co-operative and understandable way.
  As to whether fire authorities are the wrong size to carry out some of the services, that is obviously a debatable point. This much must be the case: some fire authorities acting and working on their own are not always best able to carry out those functions. For instance, the Isle of Wight fire authority provides a service, which is there for the island, but there may well be times when it requires and needs support from other fire services. It is for such reasons that we need to move this agenda on and to carry on with the modernising approach. I am sure that the noble Lord would understand and appreciate the point I am making here.
  This is not the right way to deal with the issue the noble Lord identified. It is not about our obsession, it is about making some good sense and some progress in modernising the fire service; making it more relevant to the demands that are currently being placed on it; and ensuring also that we get good value for money.
  5 p.m
  Lord Hanningfield: We shall continue the debate for the rest of this legislation and probably other legislation, as we have done in past legislation.
  The Isle of Wight obviously has to work with someone. It is an island. Hampshire is the place it works with. I am not sure whether the Isle of Wight needs to work very well with Oxfordshire or Kent, as
  GC 266
  it has to under these arrangements. They are rather a long way away. It would be much better to have some simple arrangement in which the Isle of Wight works with Hampshire.
  I still dispute that the modernisation could go on without this complication of talking about creating regional fire authorities. The whole thing is becoming a nightmare. One fairly obvious region of Newcastle and the area around it and the whole of the rest of the country is artificial. Perhaps Yorkshire and Humberside should be together. But the rest of the country is so artificial that I am describing it as a nightmare. I have to live with this nightmare all the time these days in various capacities. I wish other people would recognise that. Someone is going to have to undo the provision. We will have to undo it one day. It seems silly to keep on creating these provisions. But we shall carry on talking about the matter during the Bill, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 [Creation of combined fire and rescue authorities: supplementary]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 3, line 30, at end insert "and which, in the case of a scheme made under section 2(3)(a), have been agreed to by the authorities in question, and in the case of a scheme made under section 2(3)(b), have been considered by the inquiry held under the provisions of section 2(8)"
  The noble Baroness said: This is a small amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State does not get carried away when dealing with Clause 2(3). In subsection (3) he has two possibilities, one is agreeing to a scheme that has been put forward to him by authorities and the other is on his own initiatIve. The amendment would seek to limit his ability to go outside the scheme—either one put forward initially by the authority or agreed to in an inquiry—and subsequently to make up some of his own rules or have his own ideas and put those forward without the agreement of the original authority or outside the inquiry.
  It is a small test to ensure that the Secretary of State does not go dancing off on his own frolics any more than he can do already.
  Can the noble Lord in reply—and if he cannot do so now he might let me know subsequently—enlighten me as to what a "body corporate" is on page 3, line 27? I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: Amendment No. 22 is a continuation of the theme of other amendments. It suggests that in the case of a voluntary combination submitted by fire and rescue authorities, those authorities should have a right to veto any amendments the Secretary of State chooses to make. As we have said throughout the passage of the Bill, the fire and rescue service is—among many other things—an emergency service; and the Government must be able to take a wider view of the public interest than that taken by individual fire and rescue authorities themselves.
  We do not act lightly, nor, as I constantly say, on a whim or a hunch. Nor do we do so without consulting those affected. But to say that we cannot act in the best

  GC 267
  interests of overall national resilience is to place an unreasonable restriction on our constitutional responsibilities.
  The suggestion that we might make provision in a combination scheme that has not been part of a detailed inquiry under Clause 2(8) is incorrect. Clause 3(3) covers the main issues that a scheme might include. I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no question of Clause 3(2) being a Trojan horse for unidentified further provisions. The phrase used is "supplementary and incidental". Subsection (2) states that the,
  "scheme under section 2 may, subject to this section, make any supplementary and incidental provision which the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
  That means what it says—in case that is queried—"supplementary and incidental". It does not mean "substantial" and it does not mean "subsequent". That is normal language.
  No notes have arrived on what "body corporate" means, but there are loads of bodies corporate about. It means legally a person. I am not a lawyer but I know that this makes it a person so that it can act and do things that people can do. Companies incorporated under the Companies Act are bodies corporate. It gives a legal entity to the structure of the organisation, so it can do things that people can do. It can buy and sell property and so on.
  Therefore, it is a normal term. It is not something we have invented for the Bill. It is not part of the regional agenda. There is no regional agenda in that sense. There is no ulterior motive in using that phrase. It is perfectly normal. So, it is a legal body; it is treated as though it was a person. The lawyers among us, of whom I think there is only one—there are plenty of barrack-room lawyers—will understand what I have said and that it is true. On that basis, I hope the amendment can be withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, particularly about the body corporate. I am sorry I brought it in, but it has been bugging me for some time. People keep asking me about it in relation to regional assemblies. A number of RDAs are apparently being constituted as bodies corporate. It is an interesting construction of bodies that are using public money. It is something that I do not want particularly to pursue at the moment, but it is a matter of legitimate interest, which has suddenly arisen as a result of regionalisation. That is where it first started. I know of no local authority that is a body corporate. Indeed, under the Local Government Act it would not be allowed.
  Lord Rooker: Local councils are bodies corporate. The leader of a very powerful local authority, who is sitting next to the noble Baroness, will understand that. His local authority is a body corporate. Nothing has been invented for this Bill or the fire and rescue services, or the regional agenda, in terms of bodies corporate. It is not new.
  Baroness Hanham: I accept what the Minister says. I am glad I raised the matter because now I have been
  GC 268
  enlightened. As far as the rest is concerned, I do not wish to pursue the amendment further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): We come to Amendment No. 23. Your Lordships will see that in the list of groupings we are also covering Amendments Nos. 24 and 25. I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 24 were agreed to, I should not be able to call Amendment No. 25.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 3, line 33, leave out "or by the Secretary of State"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 23, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27. I accept that, as the Deputy Chairman said, they will fall if Amendment No. 24 is agreed to. They deal with supplementary and incidental provisions, which the unwary reader might be led to think are of minor consequence. In fact, a careful reading of the clause shows that those supplementary and incidental provisions include fundamental matters that relate to combined fire authorities that would be established under Clause 2.
  I suspect that the Minister will not be surprised to learn that these amendments target the right of the Secretary of State to appoint 50 per cent of the members of the combined fire authority, minus one, which would give him a huge say in the running of that authority. The Government have argued that, for reasons of democratic accountability, it would be appropriate for regional fire and rescue authorities to be accountable to elected regional assemblies, should regional assemblies be created. It is slightly disingenuous for the Government therefore to argue simultaneously that they must be allowed to appoint half the members of any such authority.
  If combined fire and rescue authorities were created other than as a result of the establishment of elected regional assemblies, there simply would be a naked transfer of power from local authorities to the Secretary of State; a provision that undermines most, if not all, of the Government's rhetoric about wanting to remove the hand of Whitehall from the affairs of running fire and rescue authorities. The Secretary of State has no such powers of appointment at the moment. I am curious to know how a government who profess to the creed of localism can possibly justify seeking to give themselves, in effect, the power to appoint half the members of a combined fire and rescue authority.
  The provision more than any other in the Bill underlines the Government's centralising tendency, and suggests the hollowness of the apparent commitment to decentralise.
  That is the essence of the reason for tabling Amendment No. 26. Amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 27 are consequential amendments, drafted to deal with changes to the Bill that would be required if the

  GC 269
  Secretary of State's right to appoint members of a combined fire authority were deleted, as Amendment No. 26 seeks to do. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: Several amendments are grouped here. I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has just said. We should be grateful if the Minister could explain the rationale behind this scheme; how it would work and why they are again creating a slight democratic deficit. I do not know who the Minister will appoint to these boards. We do not have any information on that. I note that in Amendment No. 27, which would delete subsection (5) of Clause 3, that there is some concern that when voting, particularly on the precepts, the majority is elected members. For my part, I am a little confused as to the rationale behind this provision and exactly who is going to be on these authorities. I concur with many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for explaining their amendments. The noble Baroness is right to ask for the rationale behind this provision. That is only fair.
  The arguments were, however, well rehearsed in another place. I want to say at the outset that it is not the Government's primary motivation in seeking the power to appoint to enhance central control. Our primary motivation is to improve the quality and the delivery of a vital service. Clause 3(4) makes clear that Secretary of State appointees will be a numerical minority. It also makes clear that they will not be allowed to take part in votes on precepting—to deal with the point the noble Baroness raised—and that only elected members will be able to do so.
  Furthermore, to guarantee that Secretary of State appointees are independent, they will of course be appointed based on their ability. The advertising will be entirely open, as it should be, and entirely in accordance with the Principles of. Public Life, set out in the Commissioner for Public Appointments' code of practice—commonly described as the Nolan principles.
  I also want to make it clear that the Government's firm view is that where combination has to be undertaken to tackle failing authorities, it would be contradictory and counter-productive to restrict appointments to existing authority members. Where capacity is needed to deliver modernisation, Clause 3 will be used to bring into new authorities the wider experience and knowledge which they lack—whether that is managerial, financial, personnel or relating to other professional services that are important to the way in which the authority carries out its work. Elected members will still make the decisions, but assisted and advised by those with specific expertise, which members of the fire authority may not always possess.
  The body will operate with clear safeguards as I have outlined and it should be clear to noble Lords that we will use the power carefully and responsibly. Our primary purpose is to ensure that where there are
  GC 270
  failing authorities and where a combination has to be undertaken to tackle that problem, this particular clause will come into play.
  I can almost hear the arguments made against this and the noble Lord as an echo of the arguments made against the appointment of independent members to police authorities in the mid 1990s. That was not on our watch, it was on the watch of the noble Lord's party. In that case, they were imposed on police authorities and were designed to dilute the work of the pace authority members—as they were then. As time has gone on, there has been much learning and the value of those independent members has been recognised. I am not making a direct comparison, but the appointment and use of those independent members in the context of police authorities has some relevance. It shows what that independent expertise—whether professional, financial, managerial or personnel-related—can bring to a body dominated by elected representatives. It is a parallel in that sense.
  I have heard the arguments, which sound like an echo of an old argument. For the reasons that I have outlined, they are no longer relevant on the matter, and the noble Lord needs to understand the circumstances in which we would seek to have independent members appointed.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness Maddock: I am grateful for the Minister's attempt to enlighten me but, I have to say, enlightenment has not really dawned. I would like to know how many people we are to have on the bodies. I do not know what a combined fire authority of elected members would be but, if we are to try to appoint all the people by Nolan principles, all I can say is that it is going to be a hell of a long job.
  We rightly agreed that, on the committee, the elected members would make the decisions about precepts and finance. However, what happens if the majority of the committee, with the non-elected members, votes through all sorts of provisions. They do not have anything to do with the money. I fail to see how the provisions will work in practice. Will we see some details about the matter before we get through our consideration of the Bill? I would like to see more detail on Report, as I am not convinced that there is a clear idea about how the provisions will work. I understand the principles that the Government are trying to get over on what they want to do, but the practicalities of how the provisions will work are far from clear.
  Lord Hanningfield: I echo that. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, indicated that appointments would be made only to failing authorities. I would like that clarified, as it is an important point.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Obviously, the size of a fire authority will be set out in the statutory instrument that establishes it. However, as I made clear in my initial comments, we would expect the numbers of independent appointments to be small. We expect authorities to be somewhat less than 20 in

  GC 271
  membership. The important point is that the independently appointed members would not have a majority on the authority. It could be that only one independent member was appointed to the fire and rescue authority. Alternately, a minority—a majority minus one, as it were—might be appointed.
  I shall take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. My argument is based on the police authority experience. I hope that it would be recognised that the independent members have made a very important contribution to the way in which those police authorities have worked. They have brought in expertise and experience that was not there. They have offered the opportunity and scope to provide a broader social base as well, in some circumstances. Our firm view is that, where a combination has to be undertaken to tackle failing authorities, it would be both contradictory and counterproductive to restrict appointments to existing authority members. Other members would have a direct value in those circumstances, because they would bring something else with them. Our clear view is that they would help to strengthen and broaden the experience necessary, to ensure that the failing authority does not carry on failing under its new guise.
  For those reasons, we see the provision as having value. Of course, we need to approach the matter sensibly. We obviously want to ensure that the democratically elected element that is so important to the way in which Fire authorities now work is continued in any new arrangements. We want to see the provision working carefully and cautiously. We obviously want to ensure that we get maximum support for the new approach.
  Baroness Hanham: Before the Minister retires from the frame, we are all assuming—and I am not sure whether it is correct—that the members appointed by the existing authorities will be democratically elected members of that authority. There is nothing in the Bill which says that. All local authorities can appoint people who are not elected—shall I wait while the Ministers get the answer?
  Lord Rooker: My noble friend is dealing with this. The noble Baroness asked a question and we stated the obvious because we had assumed that the local authorities would be appointing elected councillors. That assumption is correct.
  Baroness Hanham: But the Bill does not say that and, as everyone involved in local authorities will know, local authorities are usually empowered and able to appoint people to all sorts of things and by definition they are members. School governors are an example in point. It is not necessary to have an elected member as a school governor—you can have, but you do not have to have one. You can have an elected member appointed to some of the outside bodies but you do not have to have one.
  The clause simply states,
  "the appointment of members by the existing authorities",
  GC 272
  and that does not indicate that they must be elected members of the existing authorities. It may be resolved simply by producing an amendment on Report requiring elected members, but as things stand that is not what the clause requires.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened to the noble Baroness and I am half way persuaded.
  Baroness Hanham: It is a new argument!
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: We like new arguments—we thrive on them. There may be 100 reasons further to clarify the issue. We will want to write to Members and we may well return to the matter at the next stage of the Bill. The noble Baroness is right, we want to be clear on that point.
  Baroness Maddock: I am pleased that the Minister has said that and I would appreciate something in writing before the next stage. I want to make it clear that I was not questioning what the Government were trying to do—and the Minister told me again about police authorities—but I was questioning the practicalities. Who will it be and how will it work? We would appreciate information on that.
  Lord Hanningfield: I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that we must have some answers. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, did not answer my question about whether they would relate to more failing fire authorities rather than to the generality. I am not certain that everyone believes the police authorities work so well, and I gather that the Government have proposals for fully elected police authorities. People have all sorts of ideas about their future, but they are different from Fire authorities. They are bigger, have more staff and much larger budgets. Furthermore, magistrates are among those appointed to them. They are two totally different bodies.
  I would have thought that if the fire authorities wanted expertise on human resources or finance, they would look to officials for that support. It is demeaning to the officials who support the fire authorities to say they need other members to provide such support. The whole proposal will need much more scrutiny and the Government must be more rigorous in its defence. It does not seem to be the right thing to be doing when we are trying to improve democratically elected bodies and ensure that there is democratic accountability. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 24 to 27 not moved.]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 28:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  "LIMITATION ON POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO APPOINT MEMBERS OF A COMBINED FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY
  (1) Where a scheme made under section 2 provides for members of a combined fire and rescue authority to be appointed by the Secretary of State, the provisions of this section shall apply.

  GC 273
  (2) Before making an appointment to a combined fire and rescue authority, the Secretary of State shall invite each of the existing authorities with power to appoint members to the combined fire and rescue authority to submit to him a list of nominees for consideration for appointment by the Secretary of State.
  (3) The Secretary of State shall appoint from the lists of nominees received those persons who appear to him to be best qualified to serve as members of the combined fire and rescue authority unless there are an insufficient number of persons on the lists appearing to the Secretary of State to be suitable for appointment.
  (4) If the Secretary of State considers that there are an insufficient number of suitable persons on the lists to make all the necessary appointments, he shall advise each of the existing authorities of his reasons for considering each of their unsuccessful nominees as suitable for appointment and shall indicate the qualities, experience and other relevant factors required for appointment by the Secretary of State in the particular case.
  (5) Each of the existing authorities shall then be invited to submit a further list of nominees fulfilling the criteria set down in accordance with subsection (4) by the Secretary of State.
  (6) Upon receipt of the further lists referred to in subsection (5), the Secretary of State shall appoint from the lists those persons who appear to him to be best qualified to serve as members of the combined fire and rescue authority.
  (7) If there are insufficient numbers of persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be suitably qualified for appointment on the list submitted, the Secretary of State may appoint such other persons as he considers suitable to fill any remaining vacancy.
  (8) On the occurrence of any casual vacancy for membership of a fire and rescue authority which falls under the terms of the scheme to be filled by an appointment by the Secretary of State, the procedure set out in subsections (2) and (3) shall apply."
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 28 is consequential on what we were discussing just now. It seeks to limit one of the extraordinary powers of the Secretary of State under the Bill. The Bill seeks to create a combined fire and rescue authority and mirrors the power under the 1947 Act to create a combined fire authority. However, the power to appoint 50 per cent of the members of that authority, minus one, is new.
  While protesting that fire and rescue authorities remain a local service, the Government are not only grafting on a regional structure but are displaying the usual centralising instinct by taking draconian powers to appoint members. We have just discussed that point, but I shall continue to move this amendment today.
  The deployment of that power will fundamentally alter the nature of democratic accountability in the local services. If the Secretary of State can deploy the power to appoint 49 per cent of members, the political balance in a combined fire authority, which might be an elected regional assembly area fire authority, will be capable of being overturned by the Secretary of State's appointments. That seems to be a step too far in what is still supposed to be a democratically accountable service, as we have just debated.
  The Secretary of State will say that he needs a power to appoint as a reserve power, in case fire and rescue authorities do not nominate people of what he considers to be a sufficiently high calibre. That point arose in the discussion that we have just had. However,
  GC 274
  that does not alter the preposterousness of suggesting that, whenever the electorate choose badly, Ministers can intervene.
  The amendment sets out a procedure to ensure that a Secretary of State appointment is made only as a last resort when no appropriate nominees are offered by the appointing authority. We may have an objection in principle to such a power of appointment, but the new clause is drafted in a spirit of compromise, recognising the argument that reserve powers may be needed. Combined fire authority members are appointed by the authorities that would be fire authorities if not for the existence of the combined fire authority.
  Under the proposed new clause, in circumstances in which the scheme gives the Secretary of State powers to appoint, he must exercise them by taking names from lists submitted to him by the underlying authorities. Furthermore, if he does not believe that there is a sufficient number of suitable people on the list, he can specify reasons for rejecting any of the nominees and ask the authorities to submit a further list, reflecting criteria that he set down in his rejection. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: Until the noble Lord was halfway through his speech, I thought that the amendment might be inconsistent with the points that he had just been making. However, I believe that it is intended to provide an alternative to the Secretary of State's appointments.
  As I understand it, the amendment talks about appointing from a list of nominees provided by the local authorities. Are those intended to be local authority members? If that was the route to be followed where a fire and rescue service was failing, I would be hesitant about putting the matter back to the local authorities as they themselves may have failed as part of the whole process. I am not saying that I support the amendment; I am trying to follow the logic of what is to be achieved here. If one is looking for "independent" members to bring along different expertise, and if one accepts the premise from the start, I wonder whether it is wise to confine the list of candidates in the way suggested.
  I am not trying to argue against what the noble Lord said because, as my noble friend said, we are very much with him in relation to the previous set of amendments. However, I think that the whole thing is a complete porridge.
  Lord Hanningfield: In moving the amendment, I tried to indicate that we had tabled it and I had written my speaking notes on it before the previous discussion. That discussion highlighted a lot of the difficulties of the whole area. The Minister recognised that as well, and clearly the Government will go away and look at the matter. We will have to look at it altogether before Report, and I hope that the Minister can clarify some of the points on it. I still object totally to the principle of having appointed members but, if there are to be appointed people, we need to find processes that can make them acceptable. I hope that we can resolve the issues as we go further with the Bill, but I would like to hear the Minister's comments.
  5.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: Having got the clarification that local authorities can appoint elected members or non-elected members, can we now clarify the process of appointment? That was effectively what the amendment was trying to do. There are all sorts of examples of ways in which people are appointed to authorities. The Bill leaves appointment in the hands of the Secretary of State, effectively.
  The Minister said that people would be appointed along Nolan lines. That is all right; that makes sure that people are competent, straight, have no criminal convictions and are capable of fulfilling a public appointment. However, it does not set the scheme for appointment. There is no indication of that in the Bill. Will they be appointed by an appointments committee, or on behalf of the Secretary of State by a committee formed from the combined fire authorities? The Minister will say that all that will be part and parcel of the regulations, but it has not been aired and clarified in a way that would be helpful.
  We want to ensure that the authorities are made up of elected members and people who have been appointed through a proper, recognised process. There should be not only an advertisement in the Guardian, but a proper process so that we know who will do the appointing.
  Lord McCarthy: I wish to ask three questions. The provisions ought to get an alpha for ingenuity. I have never heard of it before but we are told that, in local government, all kinds of things are done in the way outlined. First, has such a method been used before? Is it something that the Government have particularly invented for the Bill, or is the ingenious and somewhat complex procedure well known in certain local authorities?
  Secondly, if some people are appointed but not others first time round, why do the Government think it a good idea to write to those who did not get appointed to say why? It is not usual to write to unsuccessful candidates to tell them why they failed.
  Noble Lords: It is.
  Lord McCarthy: Well, one must be very careful about the libel laws if one does. That brings me to my third and final question. The first time that such people go around the roundabout, one writes to tell them why they have failed. The second time that they do, one does not, so far as I can see. Perhaps that is done all round the country, too. Why the difference?
  Lord Hanningfield: In employment procedures, if we interview people we certainly have to tell them why we have not appointed them. We make notes and so on; people have the right to know why they have not been appointed. These days, other people who apply for jobs or positions under the Nolan laws have a right to know. I assume that most of that is enshrined in law. If it is not, it is a matter of good practice to tell people why they failed in various positions. It is common practice, certainly in local government and, I thought, in most organisations.
  GC 276
  We have been going round in circles on the matter. At the moment, joint fire authorities are mostly comprised of elected members. A county fire authority is normally always made up of members of that county council. We now have a lot of joint fire authorities— counties and unitaries—and London as well with the metropolitan areas. As I understand it, the members appointed to them are mostly elected members of the authorities that constitute the joint fire authorities.
  We have had an interesting debate today on whether local authorities can appoint members who are non-elected. I do not know any instances where they have done so. Perhaps that can be clarified before the Report stage. I repeat that the amendment was tabled before the previous discussion took place. I am sure that there will be further amendments and discussions, and I hope that Ministers will try to clarify some of the issues and take them forward so that we can have a more positive idea of what the Government think. Then we can put forward potential alternatives before Report. After that discussion, I should probably withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Rooker: We will come back to it.
  Lord Hanningfield: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Combined authorities under the Fire Services Act 1947]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 4, line 27, after "must" insert—

  "(a) obtain the agreement of the fire and rescue authority constituted under the scheme or (in the case of an order to revoke the scheme) the agreement of all the authorities which would, apart from the scheme, be fire and rescue authorities under section I for any part of the area covered by the authority constituted under the scheme; and

  (b)"

  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 29 is designed to safeguard against the Secretary of State misusing the powers under subsection (3)(a) in order to take a scheme for the creation of a combined fire authority that was presented as voluntary and change it out of recognition. The Secretary of State may want to review a scheme and to come back to the authorities and propose certain changes. So long as the authorities agree with that, there is no problem; it remains their scheme, with improvements proposed by the ODPM and agreed by the authorities.
  If the Secretary of State wants to propose something more radical which is not, in the view of the fire authorities concerned, acceptable, he should have to resort to the powers to create a combined fire authority on his own initiative rather than allowing one to be voluntarily created with his potentially substantial modification. Amendment No. 29 would require the authorities to agree all modifications. We believe that that is a more transparent approach. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: Although the word never crosses the lips of the noble Lord, this is basically another veto amendment. Its purpose is to prevent the Secretary of State taking a wider view in the interests of the public as a whole, and we therefore cannot accept it.
  I have already said in relation to a couple of previous amendments that the Bill requires extensive consultation on a range of issues including, in Clause 4(5)(c), with anyone other than fire and rescue authorities that the Secretary of State considers to have a potential interest. That is a very important point. To suggest, as the amendment does with its veto, that even after such wide consultation the Secretary of State should be unable to act is, in effect, to suggest that the Government should abandon our responsibilities. We simply cannot do that.
  Ultimately, it will be our responsibility to ensure that we have an effective emergency service and that the best use is made of taxpayers' money. That is done on the basis of the Secretary of' State undertaking extensive consultation outside of the fire and rescue authorities. Anyone who has a potential interest is covered. I cannot spell the matter out any more than that because I would then repeat what I said on earlier amendments. Amendment No. 29 is simply an amendment too far.
  Lord Hanningfield: I hear what the Minister says. We are concerned that sometimes the establishment of combined fire authorities may be imposed without the ownership of the local authorities. As we go on through the Bill, we may be able to clarify that rather more. I shall withdraw the amendment today, but we shall have to come back to the area to make certain that there is some acceptance locally of what happens and what the Minister might do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Powers of combined fire and rescue authorities]:
  [Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Fire safety]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 5, line 23, at end insert—
  "(iii) the use of sprinklers as an effective means of reducing deaths, injuries and damage as a result of fires."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is an honest attempt to establish a clear role that a fire authority could play in the promotion of sprinklers in the fight against death and damage caused by fire.
  The most recent figures, published earlier this year, show that in 2002 there were 562 fire deaths—44 fewer than in 200 l—while the number of fires fell by 5 per cent to 519,400. However, I am sure that we all believe that that figure is still too high. No one can forget the tragic events of earlier this year at the Rosepark care
  GC 278
  home in north Lanarkshire in which so many lost their lives. It is that kind of horrific incident that the use of sprinklers might have avoided.
  Furthermore, a recent survey from the Local Government Association found that the annual cost of fire damage in schools was around £100 million, and that one in 15 schools will suffer from a fire in any given year. Sprinklers would be a very simple, effective and cost-efficient method of protecting school property.
  The amendment does not seek to impose sprinklers on a mandatory basis—far from it. It merely encourages a fire authority, wherever possible, to promote their use. The number of lives saved and the protection of property would be substantial. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 32, Amendment No. 33:
  Line 2, after "sprinklers" insert "and misters and other devices"
  The noble Baroness said: I obviously support everything that the noble Lord said about his amendment; our amendment would widen its scope. We need to be clear in the Bill what methods we want to be used in trying to reduce the number of deaths and amount of damage caused by fire. Modern technology has moved on incredibly since the previous fire Act, whenever it was. The cornerstone of the reform programme that we are discussing is a move away from overdependence on intervention once fires have started.
  There was a long debate in another place—introduced by one of my honourable friends, I think—which was far more wide-ranging than this debate. It looked at how sprinklers, misters and so on could be put into all kinds of different buildings. I suspect that we may have a discussion on such matters at a later stage on the Housing Bill, under building regulations, as they are quite important.
  These are fairly modest amendments. It is an important issue. The Local Government Association takes it terribly seriously and has continued to push it. It and others who support it believe that such devices are a very effective way of reducing deaths and injuries, and particularly damage to property, which costs local authorities a huge amount. Although it obviously costs to install sprinklers, I am told that the amount that local authorities can save in insurance over five years more or less pays for them. Schools are particularly important. When a school is burnt down, the effect of that on the education of many children over a long period, let alone the cost of rebuilding a school, is enormous. The technology that we have today could make a huge difference.
  The Government have looked at some research in the area. The Building Research Establishment has considered it. I accept that it is not a panacea, and it is very important that sprinklers and other mechanisms using water are correctly installed, just as smoke alarms have to be. Our amendment includes all kinds of apparatus—not only those that use water.
  I hope that the Government will be a little more friendly about this than they were in another place and that they will consider the matter more seriously. If there is one area in which there is agreement across the board on what we want to see as we modernise the fire service, it is the use of modern technology to reduce the scale and number of fires. It would send a very powerful message if that was on the face of the Bill and I hope that the Government will seriously consider it.
  There is a huge amount of evidence from all kinds of bodies and, in terms of saving money, clearly the case has been very well made. We discussed the issue of money and finance earlier and I look forward to a more positive response than we had in another place. The Minister is very good at coming back with good news at later stages and, even if he cannot do anything today, I hope he will do the same on Report. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: As the noble Baroness said, there is a widespread view, right across the board, in favour of the amendment. Indeed, the unions are very much in favour of it. I have a note which states that they believe that steps need to be taken to ensure a far more widespread installation of sprinkler systems. This should include their compulsory installation in multiple occupation premises and in all new builds. This would be the most positive step forward in reducing all fire deaths and must form part of a holistic modernisation agenda.
  It is notable, of course, that the people at the forefront of the battle to prevent fire deaths and all the unions involved, including the professional organisations, are in favour of sprinkler systems. The FBU is in favour of compulsory installation of sprinkler systems in multiple occupation premises. I note that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, does not propose compulsion. Nevertheless, if this provision were on the face of the Bill it would lead to the installation of systems. I hope that my noble friend will receive it with agreement.
  Lord Rooker: I shall receive it with sympathy. However, I should remind the noble Baroness that basically it is the same Government in this House as in the other place; the line is not so different.
  I wish to make it absolutely clear, as the Committee would expect, that we believe that systems that suppress fire, stop fire and prevent fire have an absolutely crucial and central role to play. The fire service gains its success by preventing fires; it spends very little time on fighting fires and a great deal of time on preventing them. There is no question about that. It is what the fire service wants and what it is expert at. However, I fully accept that more people should listen to its advice.
  As was mentioned, the Government commissioned new research on the effectiveness of residential sprinkler systems, which is available from the research contractor at the Building Research Establishment. A summary of the work is available on the website of the
  GC 280
  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It underlines the potential role of sprinklers in providing additional fire protection in homes for children, homes for the elderly, homes for people with disabilities and higher-risk houses in multiple occupation. As the noble Baroness said, we shall discuss this in extensive detail when the Housing Bill arrives in the House.
  We shall be undertaking further work on this as part of our current review of Part B of the building regulations which deal with fire safety. I am not using it as an excuse, but that is the place to deal with this issue and to tackle it head on. Part B deals with fire safety in new and substantially altered buildings. In some ways, dealing with a new building is easy; it is the stock that presents difficulties. I do not rule it out on the grounds of cost—that would be ridiculous—but there are difficulties with the practicalities of using these modern technologies in the stock.
  The research highlights the importance of having effective smoke alarms and the important role they play in increasing the chances of surviving a fire. I mentioned at Second Reading that I spent three-quarters of a day at the Fire Service College, where I went through the process of seeing a fire started and fighting the fire using breathing apparatus. When they said to me, "Okay, Jeff, you can put the lire out now", I could not see the fire. I knew it was there because I had watched it being started, but within five or 10 minutes the smoke was so black that I could not see the fire. I knew where it was, but I could not see a thing; I could not see the fire. By and large, most people die of smoke inhalation before the fire service gets there.
  The current building regulations already recommend that all new residential buildings are provided with inter-linked mains-operated smoke detectors. Sprinklers can help to protect particularly vulnerable groups, but only when properly maintained and in good working order. That applies to all preventative measures, of course. In any case, sprinklers cannot be a substitute for simple precautions, such as closing fire doors and installing smoke alarms, combined with fire safety education and the effective management of such buildings.
  That is not always the case. I know from my own certain knowledge that the Government can sometimes get contradictory advice on buildings. I shall not go into details, but when I was at the Home Office there was a large fire in one of our buildings in the Bedfordshire area. That building had been constructed at exactly the same time as a similar building carrying out the same function in the London area. The written advice from the two fire brigades about the installation of sprinklers at the point of construction was totally different. The Secretary of State at the time—this was before the election and the construction was well under way—received totally different advice for the installation of sprinklers in regard to two buildings, both used for a similar purpose and identical in terms of modular construction.
  One also has to consider costs and, if one uses sprinklers in certain buildings, one has to be very careful that they cannot be deliberately misused. Sprinkler systems are open to abuse and can cause difficulties. This issue should be considered in the sense

  GC 281
  that the people in those buildings may not want to be in them. As I have said, sprinklers can be used to protect particularly vulnerable groups, but they are not a panacea. That may be why the reaction was as it was in the other place. It can sometimes look like an easy solution, but it is not necessarily the case.
  Watermist technology has been used for sometime now in specialist engineering and marine applications. There is no established standard for the design of watermist systems and each installation may indeed be different. Indeed, these days when fighting fires, the last thing the firemen will do is turn a full jet of water onto a fire. The delivery of the water and the use of watermist technology is totally different and much more effective in fighting fires.
  I regret to say that there is not sufficient reliable evidence about the effectiveness of these systems. In some situations they will work; in others they will not work as well. We have recently commissioned the Building Research Establishment to carry out an initial project to establish what kinds of innovative fire suppression systems are being used, where and to what standard. When we have this information available we shall consider whether further investigation of the potential benefits is warranted.
  In this context, the proposed amendment is unnecessary. Clause 6(2)(b)(i) already requires fire authorities to give advice, on request, about how to restrict the spread of fires in buildings. Where justified by a proper risk assessment, the fire service may already advise the installation of a sprinkler system.
  Amendment No. 32 could also be taken to imply that advice on sprinklers should be given without taking account of the research evidence on their effectiveness and without regard to a proper risk assessment of the building and its occupants. The risk assessment is the basis of our approach across the board, for work places and homes and for existing and new housing. As I said, there is an issue in regard to dealing with the stock.
  I am sure we shall come back to this issue. I did not intend to give a negative response and I hope that it has not appeared as such. We have commissioned further research and we wish to look at the issue in the context of the review of the building regulations. As with some of the other issues that were raised in regard to building, energy and installation, the best and most effective way of dealing with them is to consider them with the building regulations. They can be reviewed more quickly and keep pace with the changes brought about by modern technology.
  Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his reply. I was right: it was more friendly than the reply in another place.
  I understand the point about the building regulations. However, I am particularly concerned about fires in schools. Perhaps when we return to the issue we can consider ways in which we can make it more difficult for schools not to use them. It is the one area where it works well and saves a lot of money.
  Lord Rooker: I have no evidence for what I am about to say, but I know that there are some 20,000
  GC 282
  primary schools and 4,000 secondary schools in England. My experience as a constituency member was that when a school was set on fire, it was usually at night and at a weekend. It was usually when the building was unoccupied and not being used for its normal purpose.
  That is not to say you do not do anything about it. That is the point. Fires can occur when there is not enough staff and the caretaker's house can be somewhere on a campus where he has three or four schools on the go. One school burnt down whilst it was being rebuilt after a previous fire. It was heartbreaking. Now it has been built to world-class standards. Perry Beeches school has floods of visitors because of its modern technology and northern European architecture, by which I do not mean English architecture. It is a very startling building. As I say, I can also remember it being on fire when I was a young pupil there. But I shall be happy to look at the issue.
  My experience with local authorities—this may apply only to the large ones—is that they self-insure; they do not go out to insure their buildings as such. So it is not a question of saving on the premium, although they would save on the distress and the absolute waste of money spent on rebuilding as the result of a fire. I shall seek further and better particulars about the situation in regard to schools before Report stage.
  Baroness Maddock: I am grateful to the Minister for that. It occurred to me that we could have discussed the issue on the Housing Bill, but that would not affect schools. From the figures I have read, more fires are occurring when people are in schools than ever before. I thank the Minister for his answer. I am sure we shall pursue the issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 33, as an amendment to Amendment No. 32, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield: There has been a great deal of agreed discussion on the issue of sprinklers. I believe that sprinklers should be in every elderly persons' home and in every school. Certainly we should try to get sprinklers installed in new build. I totally accept the Minister's view that installing them in converted buildings and existing buildings is not so simple.
  I hope that we come back to this issue at later stages of the Bill. The discussion was agreed between us all. I hope that when we come back to it we shall show some enthusiasm for sprinklers becoming the norm in new build public buildings, especially where there are vulnerable groups. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 32, by leave, withdrawn.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 5, line 23, at end insert—
  "() All fire and rescue authorities are to be included in section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (promotion of well-being) and be given the power to undertake work that promotes or improve the economic, social or environmental wellbeing of the areas they serve."
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 34 is designed to probe the Government's thinking on giving all fire and rescue authorities the power of well-being afforded to local authorities, as set out in the Local Government Act 2000. The power of well-being applies to county, unitary, London borough and district councils. However, it does not apply to combined fire authorities, fire and civil defence authorities and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, which collectively comprise more than half of the fire and rescue authorities in England and Wales. Can the Minister explain whether the Government are deliberately letting this difference stand? It is interesting to note that the Scottish Executive has given fire and rescue authorities in Scotland the equivalent power of well-being in Section 20 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003.
  As is clearly stated on the face of the Bill, fire authorities are now expected to play a full role in tackling social issues and work to prevent fires as well as to extinguish them. They are also seen as increasingly mainstream authorities, with legislation such as best value, precepting powers and, shortly, the comprehensive performance assessment process, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred earlier. However, they do not have the power to undertake activities that promote or improve the economic, social or environmental well-being of the areas they serve.
  There may be benefits in extending this provision to all fire authorities. After all, freedoms and flexibilities are usually required to enable local strategic partnerships to be both creative and innovative in delivering new patterns of working and new solutions. However, we recognise that there may be important reasons why this has been left off the face of the Bill—for example, the danger of mission creep or that the power of well-being that county fire authorities enjoy is really for the overarching county council rather than the fire authority.
  The aim of the amendment is to give the Government an opportunity to clarify their position on this issue. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: We support Amendment No. 34. I am unclear as to why Amendment No. 35 has not been grouped with it; they could hardly be more similar.
  Lord Rooker: I am not in charge of the grouping.
  Baroness Hamwee: We are not in charge of the grouping either. The trouble is that if one is not consulted on the groupings because the e-mail does not arrive, there is not much one can do about it—other than to seek the Minister's indulgence and ask him to reply to both amendments at the same time.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was going to suggest that we should do that because it would make much more sense.
  Lord Hanningfield: Perhaps I may suggest that Amendment No. 47, which is grouped with Amendment No. 34, should be spoken to separately.
  Lord Rooker: Certainly. That is no problem.
  Baroness Hamwee: Fire authorities have, as we know, a wide, widening and prospectively wider role. To have the power of well-being—the promotion of well-being, as we abbreviate it—would enable them to fulfil that role.
  In response to a point made at Second Reading, the Minister said that he has not had examples of where there is a problem—there is a point to be made about what problem the Government see in putting this power into the Bill—and so I have sought some examples. I thought to do this only a couple of days ago. I shall read them and get them into the record. If I had thought to do it earlier, there may well have been many more.
  A point was made to me that the power in the Local Government Act 2000 is still in its relatively early days and local authorities may not specifically be using that power as they will as time goes on. I recall that the power was included in the Bill, perhaps, as the next best thing to a power of general competence, which many of us were arguing for on behalf of local authorities. It is close to being the best thing and certainly ensures that local authorities are not vulnerable to claims of ultra vires.
  One of the examples that I have received is from South Yorkshire where, in partnership with Humberside authority, the authority is engaged in hosting the World Fire Fighter Games. When I read that I thought, "What has that got to do with it?" hut, reading on, it became clear. The letter stated that the restricted nature of the fire authority's powers means that it cannot be involved to the degree that it would in an ideal world like to be.
  The games made an excellent platform on which to herald community fire safety to an audience which would not otherwise be attentive and the authority is disappointed at not being able to fully embrace the opportunities the event would offer in a whole raft of fire-related well-being areas. It refers to the occasion as an opportunity wasted in terms of the wider fire safety agenda, to say nothing of the scope for recruitment, advertising training, anti-arson initiatives, including crime reduction, and so on.
  In the area of partnerships, the lack of powers restrict the authority's ability to be pre-emptive in community safety issues. It refers to a local multi-services initiative of teaching good citizenship and life skills, including fire safety, to young people as part of its wider outreach initiative. The authority includes a current example. It states that its ability to engage in this is severely restricted by its being denied the power.
  It makes the useful point that the exercise of such powers would be auditable and confined within the ethos of the fire authority's raison d'etre The officer who contacted me said:
  "I would not envisage it being a mandate for reckless expenditure and as a legal adviser I would always advise restraint".
  The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, made points about the ODPM's apparent concern with "mission creep". From Hull—the same area but not the same authority—I have received information that it has no

  GC 285
  powers to purchase equipment such as smoke detectors from its own budget. Considerable time is spent working with local businesses to raise funding from them for these. It is also unable to second officers to work with specific communities, or to use its budgets to carry out work with junior firefighters, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award or the Prince's Trust. Again, it spends time looking for alternative resources for these projects. The Lancashire authority also referred to the Prince's Trust and to a local community safety and combating crime initiative.
  Finally, from Essex, from the noble Lord's authority, an inquiry was made whether, when doing a fire home safety check, should a fire fighter ignore an obvious unsafe situation, such as a stair guard to prevent a child falling just because it is not related to his core function. Commonsense would suggest no. The chief fire officer refers to the Bradford race riots when the West Yorkshire Fire Authority demonstrated that, as a facilitator, it could contribute significantly to bring various groups together on neutral ground.
  As I say, if the counties and some fire and rescue services authorities have the power, and they have it in Scotland, and if there is concern that some things could not be done by confined authorities, why should the Government resist?
  Lord Rooker: I shall deal, first, with Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 and answer the specific points raised by the noble Baroness.
  Amendment No. 34 seeks to give all the fire and rescue authorities the power of well-being available under Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000. We do not believe that approach is necessary or warranted. I am sure that the Committee is aware that the power of well-being is already available to all principal local authorities. This is in recognition of their role as directly elected bodies uniquely placed to provide vision and leadership for their communities. They have multi-service delivery responsibilities and a wide strategic role. As a result, county fire and rescue authorities have access to the power of well-being by virtue of being a service department of the principal authority for their area.
  However, we are not persuaded that a combined fire and rescue authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority or metropolitan fire and civil defence authorities, as single purpose authorities, need this particular power to aid the discharge of their statutory functions. Nor do we believe they should be able to assume the leadership functions of directly elected bodies. In taking decisions affecting their areas or their people, councils will have to weigh up the likely effects of a decision against the three objectives—economic, social and environmental—and, if necessary, strike a balance to ensure that the overall well-being of their areas is achieved. It would be difficult to combine fire authorities and fire and civil defence authorities, with their relatively narrow focus, to do this.
  In our view the duty to promote fire safety under Clause 6 will provide all fire and rescue authorities with powers to work with other agencies and local
  GC 286
  partners to help save lives and create safer communities. The provisions in Clauses 5, 11 and 12, when taken together, provide significant local flexibility and discretion for all fire and rescue authorities to discharge their functions and provide a service that responds to local priorities.
  I should add that we have yet to receive—I must put this on record—robust examples of where the powers in the Bill would be insufficient or inadequate, despite what I said at Second Reading. I shall turn to the points made by the noble Baroness in a moment.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 35 is identical to Amendment No. 34, which I have responded to in part, in that it seeks to give all fire and rescue authorities the power. I have already made it clear that, in our view, the extension of the power is neither necessary nor warranted. We are not persuaded that the power of well-being should be extended to the combined fire and rescue authorities.
  One of the examples given by the noble Baroness referred to West Yorkshire hosting the games. It will be able to do this under Clause 5, once the Bill is passed, if it is ancillary or incidental to its functions. Clearly that would be the case. Smoke detectors, for example, can be purchased under Clauses 5 and 6. Seconding officers to other groups can take place under Clause 12.
  Let me give three examples of the use of the power of well-being. In regard to Gateway Employment Limited in the London Borough of Greenwich, the council has used the new power to set up a recruitment agency scheme to promote local employment. This has been established as a non-profit arm's-length company with the power to give financial assistance, enter into contracts and provide staff, good services and accommodation. The aim of the agency is to ensure better terms and conditions of employment, help to create permanent job opportunities and work with local employers to identify staff shortages. Savings to the council are projected to reach some £200,000.
  Hastings Borough Council has used the well-being power to promote safe sunbathing. This is a fairly crucial issue. A large number of people die from melanoma which does not stay only on the skin. It is a serious issue, as I know personally. A partnership between the council and a local manufacturer two years ago has led to lifeguards distributing suntan lotion, free of charge in the first year and then at a reduced price. The initiative promotes safer skin care as well as a positive image of the resort. So, as well as providing the council with new strategic opportunities, it is also a power to help people to stay well.
  Norfolk County Council—which I believe someone called "sleepy Norfolk" earlier—is plugging the gap in post office provision. Using the well-being power, the authority's economic development unit has developed an action plan in partnership with the Rural Shops Alliance, the Post Office and the Countryside Agency in a bid to help provide post office services. A pilot project planned will look at how mobile libraries can be used to plug the gap in some rural areas. The council

  GC 287
  plans to use its own computer network located in schools, together with a radio link, to enable mobile libraries to log-on to the post office network remotely.
  As I said, we believe that there is enough flexibility in the Bill for the fire and rescue authorities to do what they are doing, but not necessarily to the extent of the single-purpose authorities that I listed earlier. I hope that that is a satisfactory response. I do not want to be a wet blanket, but an enormous amount can now be achieved. Once the Bill becomes an Act, under the clauses to which I have referred the fire and rescue authorities will have the power to undertake those other activities for the well being of our fellow citizens.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. I am not sure whether it answers all the questions that we posed in our amendments but it gave much food for thought. We shall return to the matter as the Bill progresses. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Fire-fighting]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 5, line 27, leave out "life" and insert "people"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment gives me the opportunity to ask the Minister how extensive is the duty of protection of people? Clause 7(1)(b) refers to making provision for,
  "protecting life".
  I do not argue with that, but is the phrase an inherited one? How would an authority make a judgment as to whether there is a threat of injury—protecting limb as distinct from protecting life? I do not know whether there is anything in this matter, but I wondered when I read it. I apologise to the noble Lord. Sometimes when colleagues in the House talk of lawyers going on, I bristle; and they say, "No, not you. You're only a solicitor". I apologise on behalf of my profession if this question is completely unnecessary. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: I can give a succinct and I hope satisfactory explanation for this. The wording in Clause 7(1)(b) re-enacts in modern form the existing wording of the Fire Services Act 1947. The requirement that that places on the fire and rescue authorities is well established and understood and we are not aware of any difficulties that have arisen regarding its meaning. Furthermore, no representations have been received by the fire and rescue service to lobby for the wording to be amended.
  The interpretation of the word "life" has not to our knowledge been tested in the courts. There can be no question but that it covers human life. On the basis that the wording is a tried and trusted—although maybe not tested—formula on which the fire and rescue authorities
  GC 288
  have successfully operated for the past 50 years, and no one within the service is pressing for change, Amendment No. 36 is unnecessary.
  To ask a rhetorical question, does the existing duty cover protection from injury from fire? The answer is yes. To discharge the duty under Clause 7(1)(b) to make provision to protect life and property in the event of fire, a fire and rescue authority will need to consider a number of factors; for example, smoke inhalation, extraction from damaged buildings, and so on. That duty is there as well. I hope that that comprehensive answer will satisfy the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Hamwee: I will not seek to mend what ain't broken, but as the Minister was speaking, it occurred to me that life must be read to extend to animal life. There are issues that we will perhaps come to later about that—well, some people might think so. I make that point not wholly flippantly, because if there is to be a duty, there are issues about how extensive that duty should properly be.
  Lord Rooker: I can answer that. We do not need to come back to this. In terms of life of property, I accept that for a commercial person—such as a farmer—food production animals would be property, but for individuals, their pets, or companion animals would also be property. I hope that that means we do not have to have a long debate about burning pets and animals in the next stage of the Bill.
  Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 5, line 31, leave out "normal requirements" and insert "requirements which it is reasonable to anticipate, after taking into consideration any arrangements which the authority has entered into under the provisions of sections 13, 15 and 16"
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 would qualify what a fire and rescue authority must take account of when determining what constitutes the appropriate level of people, equipment and services to discharge its duty to extinguish fires and to respond to road traffic accidents.
  These two amendments deal with the same issue in relation to Clauses 7 and 8. The clauses require the authorities to,
  "secure the provision of the personnel, services and equipment necessary efficiently to meet all normal requirements".
  In the case of Clause 7, "normal requirements" relates to firefighting obligations, and in the case of Clause 8 it relates to road traffic obligations. "Normal requirements" seems a rather ambiguous term. These are probing amendments. They tighten up the language, and we wait with interest to see how the Minister reacts. Will he tell us that inserting the word in the amendments would result in something different from what is in mind when he uses "normal requirements"?
  It is important that account be taken of the arrangements entered into under Clauses 13, 15 and 16, which relate to the authority's re-enforcement

  GC 289
  arrangements, any arrangements that it has with third parties for providing assistance and, under Clause 16, any arrangement that it has entered into with other parties, third parties, or other fire and rescue authorities to discharge any of its functions. Clearly, the optimally efficient operation of the service overall requires that each authority makes the provision that is required after taking into account those other arrangements.
  We certainly advocate an approach that encourages fire authorities, where appropriate, to engage third parties, or work with other fire and rescue authorities, to deliver specialist services or services that require a critical delivery mass to make them economic and efficient. Part of the purpose of these amendments is to emphasise the importance of those arrangements, and to make it clear to fire authorities that the requirement to provide services, personnel and equipment directly will be reduced to the extent that they have entered into proper arrangements under Clauses 13, 15 and 16. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 qualify what a fire and rescue authority must take account of in determining what constitutes the appropriate level of people, equipment and services to discharge its duty to extinguish fires and rescue people from road traffic accidents and protect them from serious harm in the aftermath.
  Clause 7(2)(a) re-enacts in a modern form the existing wording within Section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947. This requires that a fire and rescue authority must make arrangements for securing the resources necessary— that is, people and equipment—to discharge its duty to deal with fires and to meet efficiently "all normal requirements". This structure is also repeated in Clause 8(2)(a).
  The decision to retain the word "normal" in the Bill is deliberate. Within fire and rescue authorities, it is regarded as a helpful formula for defining responsibility in terms of limiting potential liability. The inclusion of the word "normal" accepts that it is for an authority, considering all its functions, priorities and available resources and arrangements with others, to determine what is an efficient service on a day-to-day basis.
  The noble Lord may be seeking to establish a degree of greater clarity. We would argue that the effect of Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 taken together would weaken the duty. We shall come to the relevant clauses in due course but, for the record, Clause 13 places an expectation on fire and rescue authorities to enter into mutual assistance arrangements and Clauses 15 and 16 offer the authorities other routes to deliver services. Nevertheless, in our view, a fire and rescue authority should not be forced by statute to give them undue weight.
  We believe it is right that such matters should be determined locally, taking into account all the relevant factors—for example, the integrated risk-management plans. I am not aware of any clamour or pressure from the fire and rescue service to replace the word "normal", which enjoys wide recognition and support within the service, and it has operated in that way for
  GC 290
  the past 50 years. Therefore, I hope that that is a satisfactory explanation which will allow the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for those comments. We shall read what he has said in Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Road traffic accidents]:
  [Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 39:
  After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
  "EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE
  (1) A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of—

  (a) delivering emergency medical care to persons seriously injured by fire or the effects of fire,

  (b) delivering emergency medical care to persons injured in road traffic accidents, and

  (c) providing other emergency medical care,

  in situations where employees of the authority are first on the scene of an incident in relation to which the authority has functions under sections 7, 8 and 9.
  (2) The level of provision that must be made under subsection (1) is that which it is reasonable to make having regard to—

  (a) the number of such incidents to which the authority is required to respond,

  (b) the typical period of time during which the authority's employees are at the scene before the arrival or specialist medical or paramedical personnel, and

  (c) the conclusions of the consultation referred to in subsection (3).

  (3) A fire and rescue authority must consult each NHS ambulance trust which has responsibility for responding to emergency incidents within its area not less than once in every two years about the level of provision it is appropriate for the authority to make in accordance with subsection (1)."
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 39 touches on the issue of the first-responder and co-responder scheme and attempts to ensure that the fire service would be able to have emergency medical capabilities. The thinking behind that is that, if a fire appliance arrives at an accident before an ambulance, fire personnel are able to provide life-saving first-responder treatment. We hope that the proposal would encourage a proportion of fire officers to be trained in the use of defibrillators.
  Subsection (3) of the amendment requires that a fire authority consults the relevant National Health Service ambulance trust in its area to establish that the requirements contained within subsection (1) of the amendment are met.
  Much of the intent of Amendment No. 39 stems from the recommendations of the Bain report. Paragraph 6.26 of the report states:
  "The benefits to the public of First Responder schemes are immediate, direct and obvious. We recommend brigades investigate the potential for developing First Responder partnerships".
  Paragraph 10.16 comments:
  "We recommend that some firefighters are trained as first on the scene co-responders which would give them basic life support skills including training in the use of automated defibrillators. Currently there is no central guidance on or standards developed for co-responders. Rather than develop prescriptive central guidance, we suggest brigades will need to agree with their local Ambulance Service and NHS Trust what is expected and how appropriate training can best be provided".
  On 8 May 2003, in another place, the Deputy Prime Minister commented:
  "In some areas, there is flexible crewing or alternative shift patterns are in operation … In still others, firefighters are already using defibrillators and participating in co-responder schemes with the ambulance services, but elsewhere they are not. In too many areas, there are none of these things. Effectively, we have a postcode lottery for fire and rescue services, which is not acceptable".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/5/03; col. 858.]
  This amendment has its foundation solidly within the Bain report. We are not attempting to place increased burdens on the fire service, but merely acknowledging the modern environment that fire authorities now operate in. To us, it seems entirely sensible for the fire service to have the ability and the resources to offer immediate emergency assistance in the event that they are first on the scene in an accident.
  This amendment does not seek to replace the ambulance service, but to support it. Firefighters would not be replacing paramedics, but would use simple-to-operate, automatic defibrillators, following standard training in their use. The aim is that firefighters could stabilise, say, cardiac arrest victims, until trained paramedics arrived. Having defibrillators on some fire engines would mean that firefighters are better equipped to help people at fires and other incidents. As the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister touched on, it would additionally bring a much-needed uniformity in the provision of immediate emergency assistance across the country.
  I notice a recent ballot for industrial action taken by members of the FBU in Tower Hamlets against plans to introduce a trial lifesaver co-respondent scheme in the borough. I find this quite bewildering. This amendment would therefore effectively bypass the legitimacy of the FBU to take action on these grounds—something I hope that all members of this Committee would support. The amendment is not prescriptive; it leaves it as a possibility that this could be done.
  We would all say that in the circumstance where someone's life is in danger and there is a possibility that another organisation could be trained to deal with that—in an emergency situation where they are likely to be the first people on the scene—this would be a sensible measure. It is one that I would have thought that a number of firefighters would not be adverse to being trained to carry out. I beg to move.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: We mentioned the issue of co-responder schemes at Second Reading. I very much support what the noble Baroness has said, not least because it is in the expectation of the public these days that all emergency services should be able to undertake
  GC 292
  what we have come to see as fairly basic care and assistance. We probably should not, because that may mean that we are devaluing what they provide.
  At a time when there is talk of defibrillators being made available in aircraft, at railway stations and so on—a blue light service—the public can now reasonably expect to be moving in this area. I realise that there will be some potential problems in this, because once one starts down this road, it is expected that all response vehicles will be equipped and that there will be one officer on each of them who is able to carry out the treatment. When one starts to think about this, one wonders whether they cannot all do it and whether people will worry about being sued for negligence if they do not. One has to consider the insurance problems that arise from all that. I think that it is not necessarily straightforward. Therefore, if I say "reasonable", I do not mean to make it sound easy. But I believe that we should take the opportunity provided by this legislation to encourage the process that the public are coming to expect.
  Lord Rooker: This is an important issue, and I fully take on board the noble Baroness's point concerning what the public have come to expect in this regard. The new clause is clearly intended to create a new duty on all fire and rescue authorities to make provision to deliver emergency medical assistance when the fire and rescue service is first on the scene.
  Each fire and rescue authority would have to judge what provision it was reasonable to make under the new clause, taking into account the likely number of incidents attended and the period of time before the arrival of specialist medical staff. In determining what constitutes "reasonable provision", a fire and rescue authority would be required to consult the National Health Service ambulance trust operating in its area at least once every two years. While we recognise the spirit in which the new clause has been tabled, we think that it is unnecessary and, at present, unhelpful to extend the duties of the fire and rescue authorities as proposed.
  The aim of emergency service response is, of course, to reduce the number of deaths and the number and severity of injuries. Increasing co-operation with other emergency services and adapting new ways of working can greatly improve the service provided to the public. For example, as has been said, the carrying of defibrillator equipment on fire appliances in some fire and rescue authorities has helped to save lives. We know that. Therefore, we made it clear through the draft Fire and Rescue National Framework that fire and rescue authorities should explore the benefits of working with others, including by implementing first and/or co-responder schemes.
  In our view, such schemes are to be commended and encouraged where fire and rescue authorities and their local ambulance trusts consider them appropriate. We are giving fire and rescue authorities the power under Clause 11 to equip for, and respond to, a range of scenarios, and co-responder initiatives could form a part of that response. However, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to make this type of activity a

  GC 293
  core function. We need to see how the schemes which are already in existence develop and bed in before going further.
  In our view, this combination of policy expectations, backed up by intervention powers and supported by appropriate legislative underpinning, provides the right balance. In other words, not accepting the amendment means that there is no barrier to the duty being undertaken in the future, as it currently is in some areas. In our opinion, imposing a new core function, which would have significant implications for the fire and rescue service in terms of resources and training, is not warranted or helpful at present.
  In terms of training staff, it is the case that, for their own health and safety purposes and those of their colleagues, firefighters have first-aid expertise, which encompasses life-saving skills—for example, resuscitation techniques. Clearly, firefighters use those skills, where appropriate, on members of the public who are injured at the scene of an incident. No doubt, such assistance often proves to be important in the successful treatment and recovery of those who are injured and, indeed, in saving their lives.
  Making it a core function in the Bill at the present time is not warranted or helpful. That is not a criticism. We commend such schemes where the fire and rescue authorities and their local partners consider them appropriate. We give them all possible support. However, we do not see that being a requirement of a new core function in this legislation.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. It is worth raising this matter as it is an important aspect. I do not know much about the London ambulance service but I am conscious of its reorganisation in having paramedics. One sees the yellow Rover cars travelling around containing paramedics who are first on the scene and they act before the ambulance arrives. That is now an enormously important part of the ambulance service's response to problems and it is enormously effective. It means that people are treated immediately. It seems neither wrong nor out of order to expect another public service to be in a position to do something similar—something that will help all the other public services—and stabilising people much more quickly so that far less harm is caused to them.
  I understand what the Minister says, although I have a question for him, but he may not know the answer at the moment. There is an understanding that there is a permissive nature that enables fire authorities to do such things at the moment. If that is correct, do they carry out such procedures under legislation or do they act through their own goodwill? If they are not required to do that, there may potentially be difficulties—as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, has just said to me sotto voce—in relation to legislation if someone does not take action when expected to. Having such a provision in legislation would ensure that it was rational for them to perform in that way.
  Lord Rooker: We shall return to this matter and I want to give as much information as I can. My point
  GC 294
  is not unimportant. I understand that defibrillators are legally carried on fire appliances at the moment for the use of the firefighters. They are covered. Making use of them for the general public is fully consistent. but they are one of the appliances primarily for the legal use of the firefighters themselves. There is no legal gateway for carrying them for the general use of the public.
  I was not happy with the answer that I gave, although it was a legitimate answer. I am not knocking what I have just said in answer to the debate. but we shall have to return to this area. We are trying to modernise the fire service in many ways and getting the services to work as partners. We are turning the service into a fire and rescue service, which is important. That is an important aspect. On the other hand, there is the aspect of training and the legal requirements about the position, and about who does what first. Next we shall be asking ambulances to carry fire extinguishers in case they arrive at the scene first. One has to be careful about this. I am sure we shall return to this point.
  I am happy to announce that the Bill gives clear authority to carry such equipment on fire appliances for the use of the general public. I am making a case and saying that such situations apply in some authorities and we think it is a good idea that services should work in partnership. We commend such a move. On one visit to the Fire Service College with the Deputy Prime Minister this issue was raised in relation to the appliances there. The legal aspect was drawn to our attention. However, the Bill gives legal authority in Clause 11. Clause 11 appears to be an important clause as I have referred to it many times today. I hope that that extra information will clarify future debates on this matter in relation to the current legal position.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Baroness comes back on that point, I wonder whether the Minister can also announce that Clause 11 gives clear legal authority to fire and rescue authorities to undertake training and administer treatment. I am getting a nod from behind the Minister.
  Lord Rooker: If that is the case, I am certainly happy to do so. Clause 11 seems to be a very widespread clause. Needless to say, I did read the Bill, but a long time ago. It is a power to respond to other eventualities. That is part of the original definition that we discussed earlier. A fire and rescue service is not only a firefighting service; it goes far wider than that.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister. I assume that the power is under subsection (2)(a). I am looking for someone to check or nod. If it is not there, I do not see where it is. I am not disputing that it is there; I simply want to clarify where it is.
  Lord Rooker: I confirm that the noble Baroness has correctly identified the power as being under Clause 11(2)(a).
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister. It is a permissive power to enable the carrying of

  GC 295
  defibrillators. At some stage, perhaps, we may come back to that briefly in order to see how it can be included in regulations or guidance—or the framework, if nothing else—so that it can be made clear that this is a perfectly reasonable thing for fire and rescue services to do. Frankly, I do not know much about defibrillators but I do not believe that it takes a million years to learn how to use them. However, I think that technical or insurance matters may arise as a result of their use. I believe that the discussion we have had will shorten the debate at the next stage of the Bill. I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 9 [Emergencies]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 40:
  Page 6, line 24, at end insert "but such an order may only be made with the consent of each authority in the area of which such functions are to be discharged"
  The noble Lord said: Clause 9 deals with the fourth category of responsibilities—an unspecified category relating to emergencies—to be placed on fire and rescue authorities. Those responsibilities are to be defined by order. The Secretary of State has the power to specify a function for which a fire and rescue authority will have responsibility other than the functions that Clauses 6 to 8 already confer. The power to confer that function over a wider area than that of the authority is significant because, unlike in the draft order, it does not necessarily have to be done in a uniform way across all authorities. We are concerned about a situation in which a Secretary of State would confer functions on an authority to be discharged over the area of many authorities.
  Amendment No. 40 specifically provides that the recipient authority in whose area the function was to be discharged should consent to the discharge of the function by the other authority. We acknowledge that there is a perfectly sensible case for extra-territorial functioning by fire and rescue authorities but it must be based on consent in a planned and agreed way. However, the clause goes much further and allows the Secretary of State to make asymmetric arrangements without the consent of the recipient authority. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on this matter. However, I believe that the circumstances in which we see the authority acting outside the authority area are such that the noble Lord will probably see the sense of what I am about to say.
  We have supplied a copy of the draft order to those who spoke at Second Reading as an indication of what the fire and rescue authority will be required to do in the event of emergencies such as flooding or a
  GC 296
  chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear incident. The Government's intention is that a fire and rescue authority which is required to act outside its own area could potentially carry out those functions anywhere in England. As the noble Lord explained, the amendment would require the consent of all fire and rescue authorities in England.
  Besides the practical problems that it would present, in our view, the amendment would undermine any duty to respond outside a fire and rescue authority's area. One purpose of the clause is to ensure resilience in the event of a major emergency. So far as we are concerned, it does not make a great deal of sense that if a terrorist attack took place, for example, in Surrey, a neighbouring authority, such as London, would be unable to assist unless Surrey's fire and rescue authority had consented to an order requiring London to act in the Surrey area. I am sure that people waiting to be decontaminated, or those needing to be rescued from collapsed buildings, would prefer to know that the authority with the most appropriate equipment and experience could respond to the emergency that had arisen.
  It may also help if I explain how we see that working. In the event of an emergency, the regional control rooms would direct the most appropriately equipped fire and rescue authority to supply equipment and/or personnel to the area where the incident had occurred. That would be no different to a control room directing the most appropriate fire and rescue authority to attend a fire, except that, for reasons of national resilience, they would be able to direct across boundaries.
  I am sure that the noble Lord will see the sense of this measure. It is about being practical in the circumstances and ensuring a swift and flexible response. Obviously the niceties of boundaries must be understood but, where there is a regional commitment and a regional need, it seems to us that having this inflexible barrier could act only to obfuscate, delay or prevent the service doing what it is there to do and would weaken national resilience.
  Lord Hanningfield: I take note, in particular, of what the noble Lord said in relation to emergencies. Obviously one has some fears about other occasions, but I shall look carefully at what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Rooker: In view of the phenomenal progress that we have made today, this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday 11 May at 3.30 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday 11 May at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at eight minutes before seven o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Drumcree Marches
  Northern Ireland: Drumcree Marches
  Ulster-Scots Agency: Budget 2004
  Ulster-Scots Agency: Budget 2004
  Republic of Ireland: Official Languages Act
  Republic of Ireland: Official Languages Act
  House of Lords: Grand Committees
  House of Lords: Grand Committees
  Belfast: New Cultural and Educational Facility
  Belfast: New Cultural and Educational Facility
  Passports
  Passports
  Abortion: Cleft Lip and Palate
  Abortion: Cleft Lip and Palate
  Higher Education Bill: Scottish Implications
  Higher Education Bill: Scottish Implications
  Iraq: Deaths of Civilians Employed by British Forces
  Iraq: Deaths of Civilians Employed by British Forces
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Iraq: Depleted Uranium Contamination
  Iraq: Depleted Uranium Contamination
  Joint Combat Aircraft
  Joint Combat Aircraft
  Licensing Act 1964: Section 77 Certificates
  Licensing Act 1964: Section 77 Certificates
  Subtitling, Signing and Audio Description
  Subtitling, Signing and Audio Description
  Anti-doping Agency
  Anti-doping Agency
  Inland Revenue: Outstanding Taxpayer Debt
  Inland Revenue: Outstanding Taxpayer Debt
  Abortion: Costs
  Abortion: Costs
  NHS: Working Time Directive
  NHS: Working Time Directive
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Foot and Mouth Disease
  Electric Shock Dog Collars
  Electric Shock Dog Collars
  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Integrated Administration and Control System
  Tidy Britain
  Tidy Britain
  Vital Villages
  Vital Villages
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Disapplication of Part IV for Northern Ireland Parties, etc) Order 2001
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  Last year the Government announced a review of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (Disapplication of Part IV for Northern Ireland Parties, etc) Order 2001.

  The order, made under Section 70 of the Act, exempts the Northern Ireland political parties from the requirement to comply with Part IV of the Act for four years. Part IV regulates donations to parties so that foreign and anonymous donations are prohibited.

  After consulting with the Northern Ireland political parties, political parties in Ireland, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the Electoral Commission, and taking into consideration the changed political landscape since the order was first made, the Government are now minded to let the current order expire in February 2005.

  The Government recognise that the current funding arrangements lack transparency and that they are open to abuse. Moreover, the current regime creates clear differences between political parties in Northern Ireland, on the one hand, and those in the rest of the United Kingdom and in Ireland in terms of their access to funds.

  However, the Government are fully aware of the special circumstances which exist in Northern Ireland both as regards the continuing fear of intimidation of donors and given Ireland's special role in Northern Ireland's political life, as set out in the Belfast agreement. Any new arrangements, therefore, will have to take these important issues into account.

  Equally, however, there is a reasonable demand in many quarters for greater transparency and accountability. The Government are, therefore, inviting views on what new arrangements might be made within those objectives, and will aim to announce their decisions by the end of the year. Parties or individuals willing to comment should, therefore, do so by 30 June 2004.

  I will, of course, report back to the House in due course.

  Jamaica: Debt Relief
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Hilary Benn) has made the following Statement.
  WS 68
  Debt repayments totalling £9.45 million owed by the Government of Jamaica on past loans from the UK have been cancelled by the Department for International Development (DfID). This sum comprises the following:

  Relief under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative (CDI) for all repayments due in 2004–05: £3.53 million

  Relief of loan repayments due to the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) in 2004–05: £2.91 million

  Reimbursement of loan repayments made to the CDC during 2003–04: £3.01 million.

  Part of the debt held by the Commonwealth Development Corporation was transferred to DfID in 1999, when the CDC was transformed into a public limited company. This debt is now managed within the CDI process.

  The Commonwealth Debt Initiative, launched in October 1997 by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, aims to provide additional relief in respect of government-to-government loans to low and middle-income countries in the Commonwealth which are committed to achieving the millennium development goals, promote transparent and accountable government, and pursue economic policies that encourage sustainable development.

  Approval of debt relief for Jamaica follows a detailed assessment by the Governments of Jamaica and the UK against these criteria. The assessment considered the effects of Jamaica's high level of debt and its impact on pro-poor expenditure, and the high levels of crime and violence. It also considered the steps taken by the Government of Jamaica to modernise the public sector, which is central to economic recovery and growth, to develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime and violence and promote security, and to develop a medium-term socioeconomic policy framework, which will provide a coherent framework for policy decisions which promote growth, security and the reduction of poverty.

  Effective Inquiries
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
  I have today, with the agreement of the Public Administration Select Committee, published a consultation paper which sets out the Government's response to the Issues and Questions paper published by the Public Administration Select Committee on 20 February 2004 as part of its inquiry into Government by Inquiry.

  The consultation period will run until 29 July 2004.

  The Government believe that there is a strong case for considering what steps could be taken to improve the arrangements for inquiries called by Ministers, to ensure that the benefits of their recommendations can be obtained more quickly, and economically. On 25 May I will be providing oral evidence to the committee. As well as consideration by the committee, the Government feel that matters discussed in the memorandum merit wider comment.
  WS 69
  I have placed copies of the consultation paper in the Libraries of the House and it has been published on the Department for Constitutional Affairs website at: www.dca.gsi.gov.uk/consult/confr.htm.

  Armenia and Azerbaijan: Export Licence Application
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  Her Majesty's Government remain committed to the OSCE arms embargo against both Azerbaijan and Armenia, which we interpret as covering all goods and technology controlled under entries in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (commonly known as the military list).

  In April 2004, the Government approved an export licence application for demining equipment for the HALO Trust for demining operations in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

  The decision was made in accordance with our practice occasionally to make an exemption to our interpretation of the embargo by approving exports of non-lethal military goods to humanitarian, media or peacekeeping organisations where it is clear that the embargo was not intended to prevent those exports and there is a strong humanitarian case for them.

  Buckingham Palace: Security Commission Report
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has today published the Security Commission's report on the implications for security of the activities of the Mirror reporter, Ryan Parry, at Buckingham Palace. He announced, in another place on 19 November 2003 that he expected the review to cover all aspects of the process of checking those who form part of the Royal Household. He also said that one of the strengths of our democracy is that such breaches are open to scrutiny, that we can learn quickly from them, and nothing is swept under the carpet.

  We therefore welcome the Security Commission's report on this incident and applaud the thoroughness with which it has approached its task.

  The recommendations are clear and pragmatic and include the creation of a post of Director of Security for the Royal Households, the development of a wide range of checks that can be carried out on employees of the Royal Households and the creation of an annual plan to be agreed and implemented by the Households, together with the police and the Home Office.
  WS 70
  We are happy to note the progress that has already been made in the intervening period to improve security within the Royal Households and we look forward to the implementation of the report's recommendations. The appointment this week by Buckingham Palace of a Director of Security is particularly welcome, as this new post will oversee the security vetting process across the Royal Households reporting to the Queen's Private Secretary.

  It is clearly welcome to note the commission's finding that the existing framework for dealing with the security of the Royal Family is considered sound and provides an appropriate strategic structure for the oversight of security vetting and related work. Responsibility for delivery will accordingly continue to be shared: policy and funding responsibility to rest with the Home Secretary; operational responsibility to lie with the police; and the Royal Households having overall responsibility for personnel security and for procedures within royal residences. The commission recommended a tightening of the arrangements for day-to-day delivery of these procedures within the Royal Household through the creation of the Director of Security post, a new annual security plan and a regular process of review. Overall responsibility, as the House would expect, will continue to rest with the Home Secretary with the constituent parts of the system being responsible for delivery in their areas.

  The commission also met the authorities of the Palace of Westminster, in order to discover whether similar issues might arise in relation to Parliament. On reflection, the commission felt that the differences require a separate review, but none the less made a number of suggestions. The report will therefore be copied to those undertaking the existing security review of the Palace of Westminster announced by the Leader of the House of Commons last month. None the less, the commission endorsed recent changes to security at the Palace of Westminster, including the decision of the House of Commons Commission to construct a security screen around the public gallery on the recommendation of the Director General of the Security Service.

  Hutton Inquiry
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  The estimated cost to the Government of the Hutton inquiry is £2.54 million, of which £1.68 million was incurred by the actual inquiry itself.

  Lottery Young People's Fund
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Arts (Estelle Morris) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  WS 71
  I am pleased to inform the House that on 5 May I formally issued the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) with policy directions in connection with the new Lottery Young People's Fund. We announced our intention to establish such a fund, initially funded with £200 million from NOF's balances, in the National Lottery funding decision document published last July. It was specified as a new NOF initiative in the New Opportunities Fund (Specification of Initiative) Order 2004, which came into force on 23 January 2004, following a resolution of each House of Parliament.

  The policy directions I have issued to NOF will allow it to take forward development of the fund within a framework that supports key priorities for the Government and the devolved administrations. The
  WS 72
  focus of the Young People's Fund will be on projects promoting youth inclusion, specifically by providing facilities and activities, both after school and in holiday periods. In England, the development of the fund will be closely aligned with the aims and principles of the Green Paper, Every Child Matters, published last September. The fund will address the particular problems faced by young people at risk of social exclusion and provide a welcome new focus for lottery funding for this age group. Plans for the fund will be developed in consultation with representative groups of young people. Young people will also be involved in the design and development of project proposals, decisions on which projects are supported, and the implementation, management and evaluation of projects. I have placed a copy of the policy directions in the Libraries of both Houses.