Sitting of 10 May 2004

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

    Asylum Seekers (Benefits)
    Mr. David Kidney: If he will exempt from the arrangements for withdrawal of benefits from failed asylum seekers those whom his Department fails to remove from the UK within a reasonable time. [171316]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): The Government do not believe that failed asylum seekers should be provided with benefits or support from the state. Failed asylum seekers have had every opportunity to make their case and, importantly, have exhausted the legal process, but have been found to have no right to remain in the UK. Providing support to those who are not removed within a certain time would act as a perverse incentive for failed asylum seekers deliberately to frustrate removal. However, those failed asylum seekers who are destitute
    2
    and unable to leave the UK immediately for reasons entirely beyond their control can seek the provision of accommodation under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and it is a pleasure to see him in the position that he now has.
    When the Select Committee reported on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, it said that the priority should be the removal of failed asylum seekers. Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no official encouragement for the view that taking away benefits is a good enough job done and that removals are still the priority? If he does not like the incentive that I have suggested, is there one that he thinks is better?
    Mr. Browne: I thank my hon. Friend twofold—first, for his welcome, and secondly, for his question. He is right to place an emphasis on removal. After all, as I said in reply to the substantive question, those who have failed in their claim for asylum and who have had the opportunity to make their case have been found to have no right to remain in the United Kingdom. The Government's approach to support is part of a package of measures that are designed to improve our ability to be able to remove those failed asylum seekers. We have had conspicuous success in that regard, with removals now running at about twice the level that they were in 1997 and increasing.
    Alistair Burt: I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position. I have known his predecessors well.
    As the Minister knows, I paid a visit to the Yarlswood detention centre last week and saw a number of detainees and immigration officials. I was staggered by the number of pieces of paper and claims from detainees about the wrongful advice that they had received from those who had allegedly been advising them, whether in relation to

    3
    benefits, their status or anything else. Does he share our concern about that, and will he say how he intends to tackle the issue now that he has the opportunity?
    Mr. Browne: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. In the short time that I have been in the job, I have already had constructive discussions with him about matters relating to his temporary constituents, as I trust they will be, at Yarlswood. I know that he has recently visited there.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the damage that is done not only to the system, but to individuals' expectations by inappropriate, improper and often misleading advice. Indeed, I am struck by the number of reports that I have heard from removal centres of not only legal advisers but others raising false hopes in the minds of the people detained. He will know that, with the help of the Legal Services Commission, we have been able to make significant improvements to the quality of the service that has been provided. He will also know that there are provisions in the Bill that is currently before the other place in relation to legal aid, which is an important part of the process. If those provisions are enacted, they will improve the quality of that advice.
    Mr. Stephen McCabe: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) that we need the rapid removal of failed asylum seekers. Is not the real sense of grievance and outrage directed at the judges who persistently seem to favour those who seek to thwart our entitlement rules at the expense of the very people in this country who have to pay for it all?
    Mr. Browne: My hon. Friend makes a point in relation to criticism of our judiciary to which I do not think he would expect me, as an Executive Minister, to respond from the Dispatch Box. My responsibility as a Minister is to ensure that we are properly equipped to make our arguments before the courts, to explain the law as passed by Parliament and to ensure that it is enforced. For so long as I have these responsibilities, I will seek to discharge them.
    David Davis: May I crave your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and welcome the Minister to his position? I hope that it is not too harmful to him to say that, the instant that he was appointed, I was approached by Lord Brooke, the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to tell me how intelligent, straightforward and energetic the Minister is. He will need all those attributes in his new task.
    To return to the question, the confusion of the policy is unsurprising given how the Government create policy. One category of asylum seekers are those from eastern Europe, who are now covered by a new set of regulations that were laid before Parliament only days before they came into force on 1 May. The relevant Committee of the House of Lords said:
    "The need for these regulations has been known for some time: the decision of the Government to open United Kingdom borders to workers from all Accession States from 1 May was announced in December 2002. In view of this, the House may wish to invite the Government to explain why the regulations were not laid sooner."
    What is the Minister's answer?
    Mr. Browne: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome, which he coupled with remarks by Lord Brooke. That delighted me even more. Lord Brooke is someone with great erudition, humanity and humour. Indeed, he may have been exercising his humour when he phoned the right hon. Gentleman. If Lord Brooke's regard for me is high, it is surpassed only by my regard for him. However, with the pleasantries over, let us go to battle.
    First, the right hon. Gentleman consistently conflates the two issues of immigration and asylum. I am never sure whether he does that deliberately or accidentally, but the more he does it, the more I am persuaded that he does it deliberately. If that is the case, it is dangerous for social cohesion in this country.
    Secondly, there is no second category of asylum seekers. The right hon. Gentleman well knows that people were seeking asylum in this country at the point of accession and we are obliged to continue to process those applications in relation to the convention and our laws if they do not wish to withdraw them. They will be treated in exactly the same way as all other asylum applications.
    Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the timing of the regulations in relation to the workers registration scheme. As he knows, the most important thing about turning up for a play is to be there when it starts. In this case, the play did not start until 1 May and the regulations were fully in place.
    David Davis: It is unsurprising that the Minister has learned the habits of the Home Office quickly and did not answer the question. The late delivery reflects the complete shambles of the Government's immigration and asylum policy. It is such a disaster that their own Social Security Advisory Committee said of the regulations:
    "We recommend that the proposals in their current form should not be proceeded with."
    How does the Minister explain this disaster?
    Mr. Browne: If the right hon. Gentleman writes his supplementary questions before he hears the answer, he has the problem that they bear no relationship to the answer. I answered every part of the question that he asked me. If he checks the record tomorrow, he will see that that is the case.
    On the package of regulations, of course the Social Security Advisory Committee had the opportunity to consider the benefits regulations and to have an opinion on them. The House had the final opinion, however. If it is the right hon. Gentleman's view that the regulations are as set out in the Social Security Advisory Committee's report, he knows exactly what he should do about it.
    Glenda Jackson: Is it not the case that the speed of removal of a failed asylum seeker is not exclusively the responsibility of the Home Office, but relates also to the fact that the receiving country's officials are extremely slow to undertake their paperwork? In both instances, the failed asylum seeker has no responsibility whatever. Surely it is

    5
    wrong to penalise not only the asylum seekers but, most markedly, their children by removing support and possibly shelter.
    Mr. Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to explain that we do not remove support in those circumstances. She is right to point out that our ability to remove asylum seekers, especially to their countries of origin, is often a function of our ability to get those countries to redocument them to enable them to travel. That is why the Prime Minister is today discussing that very issue with the Premier of China.
    Mr. Mark Oaten: I also welcome the Minister to his new post. If he has a chance, will he look again at the Government's plans to remove benefits from the children of asylum seekers, planned under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill? Given last week's U-turn on the right to appeal, is it not also right to have a U-turn on this draconian measure? Given that the right to appeal has gone, the removal of this measure may enable him to get cross-party support for the Bill.
    Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I have read the record of the debates on this issue, which was recently debated in the other place, and I know that he understands the Government's position. If an asylum application has failed, people should return to their home if they are free to do so. It would be a dereliction of our duty to those people whose asylum applications succeed and move on to refugee status, and to our ability to provide that level of refuge in future, if we did not have rules about the cut-off point.
    Let us take as an example those people whom the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) chose to question me on, whose countries are now members of the European Union and have reached the threshold in relation to human rights that allows them to join the European Union. What does the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) want the Government to do about them? He wants us to remove them. If the impediment to the removal of those people is their own behaviour, why should the taxpayers of this country support them?

    Abandoned Cars
    Syd Rapson: What plans his Department has to encourage the police to deal with abandoned cars. [171317]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): As part of our Together initiative on antisocial behaviour, which is one of the No. 1 issues for the people of this country, we have tackled abandoned cars by introducing stronger, tougher measures, including the opportunity to remove cars within 24 hours. We are working to improve that by supporting trailblazers to share best practice and show that the police, along with other agencies, have a key role to play.
    Syd Rapson: I thank the Government for ensuring that, at last, we have good legislation that benefits areas
    6
    such as mine, but there is a problem. Will the Minister consider giving the police extra powers to deal with cases where an unscrupulous driver abandons his vehicle in somebody's private driveway? The local authority ignores such vehicles because they are not on public land and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will not get involved because they are not on the highway, so the police end up having to do something. The owner of the private driveway, who is innocent in all this, has to pay £30 to have the vehicle removed. The issue seems to be going round in circles. Can we close that loophole and make our good legislation better for everyone?
    Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend makes a good point about some of the problems caused by vehicles being abandoned on private land. The first is establishing whether the vehicle has been abandoned. The local authority can put a notice on the car and if, after 15 days, it has not been claimed it can take action to remove it. Other measures are available if the car is claimed by the owner: it is possible to use powers provided by environmental and waste legislation and, in certain instances, antisocial behaviour legislation. I ask my hon. Friend to get in touch with me about the particular problem that he mentioned, and I will ask the antisocial behaviour unit to look into it. We are cracking down on such behaviour wherever it occurs, and we know that that is important because our people tell us so.
    Mr. Robert Key: Does it not depend on what one means by "abandoned" and "deal with"? Will the Minister call for a report from chief constables on a practice that is causing distress throughout the country? I refer to cases in which a vehicle is stolen and then abandoned many miles away, the police then telephone a company to remove the vehicle from the highway, and the company then charges the person from whom it was stolen. In normal circumstances, the police would phone up the owner, who would then go and get the vehicle, but in these cases many people are being treated very harshly by the police.
    Caroline Flint: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The police should be sensitive to these issues and we should investigate whether insurance would cover the costs. I think that he would acknowledge, however, that in dealing with abandoned or stolen vehicles and those without tax or insurance we are using antisocial behaviour powers from legislation that the Liberal Democrats voted against in its entirety—and we are investing money that the Conservative Opposition plan to take away. By using automatic number plate recognition and other measures we are making sure that the people who drive on our roads are safe and that they are legally entitled to do so.
    Brian White: My hon. Friend will be aware that action taken by a parish council in my constituency to remove abandoned vehicles was thwarted because a member of the local authority said that the land in question was public open space, not highway, so the parish council had to return the abandoned vehicles to the site. What advice is the Home Office giving to councils so that jobsworths cannot prevent the strong action that is required to deal with abandoned vehicles?
    Caroline Flint: We are providing local authorities with a number of powers to deal with that problem. We have extended their access to the DVLA registration database and we have given them powers, including wheel clamping, that were once the preserve of the DVLA. We are saying, "Here are the powers. It's a no-can-do situation. Get on with it."
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister make it plain to the police and local authorities which of them is responsible for removing abandoned vehicles? I have certainly had cases in my constituency in which the police say that it is the responsibility of the local authority and vice versa. I understand that, two years ago, local authorities removed almost 300,000 abandoned vehicles. Will the Minister give the House the latest figure and confirm that it is likely to rise considerably when the appropriate EU directive comes into force in, I think, 2006?
    Caroline Flint: The responsibility lies with many agencies, which is why we have given powers to take action to local authorities as well. The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 give the police the power to remove any vehicle that is in breach of local traffic regulation orders, causes obstruction, is a danger to the public, is broken down or is abandoned. We have brought local authorities into the partnership and they, too, can take action. It is part of the national policing plan to ensure that police understand the issues surrounding antisocial behaviour, including graffiti, abandoned cars and the dispersal of groups of youths who are causing intimidation and harassment. That is all part and parcel of policing today, but we have a wider police family to help us to achieve the end results.

    Domestic Violence
    Vera Baird: What his plans are to tackle domestic violence and to bring more perpetrators to justice. [171318]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): Domestic violence is an horrific crime, which affects one in four women and causes the death of two women each week. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill is the biggest overhaul of domestic violence legislation for 30 years. It includes a range of measures that will provide additional protection and support for victims and help to bring perpetrators to justice.
    Vera Baird: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate him on the Bill. Is he aware of the work of local domestic violence advocacy services, which attach a worker to every domestic violence sufferer who rings the police to help that person through benefit changes and all that can follow a complaint, and to support that person through the justice system, upping the courts' success rate quite significantly and very cheaply? Will he consider piloting such services more widely?
    Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her positive welcome for the Bill. I congratulate her and other members of the all-party group on domestic
    8
    violence on the tremendous work that they have done to bring such issues to the attention of the House. Following February's joint inspection report, we are looking closely at the role of local advocates: we see that the idea has merit, and we want to assess it further. I fully endorse her comment about the need to support victims of domestic violence through the whole process. The practice and philosophy of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police has been transformed in recent years, so that victims of domestic violence are much better supported than they used to be.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: How many convictions were there last year and the year before, and how many does the Minister think there will be once the legislation is in place?
    Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman needs to be slightly more precise about which charges he is inquiring about. We will implement a range of measures under the Bill, including extending the availability of restraining orders and non-molestation orders and making common assault an arrestable offence. Such measures will bear down on domestic violence and make sure that its perpetrators are dealt with severely. I hope that those on both sides of the House will support that approach.

  Community Support Officers
  Siobhain McDonagh: How many community support officers there are. [171319]
  Dr. Nick Palmer: How many community support officers are operating.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): At the end of April this year, we had more than 3,500 community support officers in 38 police force areas. They provide complementary support with the uniformed police. whose number has risen by 6,000 in the past year alone. They concentrate on the low-level violence, antisocial behaviour and nuisance behaviour that blight the lives of so many of our constituents. They make a vital contribution to the provision of high-visibility and high-accessibility patrols, free police officers for other duties and give reassurance to communities.
  That record flies in the face of the claims that the policy would be a failure, that forces would not take it up, that the police would not welcome it and that local communities would reject it. Those claims were simply untrue and the Opposition parties, in particular the Liberal Democrats, were entirely wrong—as they usually are.
  Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I concur with him on the benefits provided by police community support officers in my constituency and. I am sure, in every constituency that is lucky enough to have them. Lucy Heddon, chair of Glebe Court tenant management organisation, said today that, in the short time that they have been in post, her local PCSOs, Mick and Terry, have transformed her life and that of other people on her estate because they

  9
  are available at night, they are a high-visibility presence, and they are there to tackle the small misdemeanours that were ignored in the past.
  The problem in outer-London, however, is that PCSOs are paid outer-London weighting, while just up the road, they receive £1,500 more for inner-London weighting. Those rules do not apply to ordinary police officers. Surely that could be extended to our PCSOs, because we need to retain the likes of Mick and Terry currently working in Mitcham.
  Mr. Blunkett: I concur strongly with my hon. Friend's example. There must be a boundary in terms of outer and inner zones and payments, and although an additional £1,350 is paid to officers in Merton, that does not compare with what is paid in the inner boroughs. I appreciate that that is a real challenge. The good news for my hon. Friend and her constituents is that another 10 community support officers are coming out of training at Hendon and will be employed in Merton in two weeks' time. That will be a considerable improvement and a great tribute to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned vigorously on this matter and against antisocial behaviour in Mitcham and Morden.
  Dr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in Broxtowe we are extremely enthusiastic about our CSOs and we hope that the application for further CSOs made by Nottinghamshire police will be successful? Does he share my concern that other parties might seek to abolish this post? Will he consider creating a good long-term career structure for police community support officers, because those to whom I talk hope in the long term to work in the police force? I am a little concerned that the best people in the CSO force will be promoted to the point at which they are no longer working on the beat. Will he try to ensure that we provide a good career structure so that that does not happen?
  Mr. Blunkett: I, too, hope that we can add to the 62 CSOs currently employed in the Nottinghamshire force, and the third round is being evaluated at this moment. I share the challenge to ensure that people who are recruited can have a long-term career path. Many choose to become uniformed officers, which is good in terms of diversity because the number of people of ethnic minority origin and women coming through from the CSOs is much greater than in recruitment to the police service as a whole. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it would be a terrible tragedy if, for instance, a party cut more than £660 million out of the Home Office budget, and if community support officers were done away with as a result.
  Mr. James Gray: The Home Secretary, of course, repeats an oft-quoted error by suggesting that any such cuts will be made by the Conservative party when it comes into government in about a year from now. Will he comment on the funding of community support officers? I am the first to support the community support officer who is doing good work in Chippenham, and I hope that the chief constable will recruit the second one for whom she is currently advertising. However, is not the difficulty that the funding from the Home Office lasts for a total of only four years, and after that contributions from town
  10
  councils and parish councils across the patch will be required? The cost of community support officers will be transferred from the Home Office to the unfortunate council tax payer, who is already screaming.
  Mr. Blunkett: Let us be absolutely clear: a whole range of individuals and organisations have joined together to supplement the amount that has been provided, both through direct funding for CSOs and through the general police grant. We cannot have two different versions of the same budget from the Opposition. Either the Treasury spokespeople for the Conservative party are right or they are wrong when they say that there will be necessary pain in reducing budgets. When that budget is applied across the board, other than to schools and the NHS, it is inevitable that there will be cuts. Under our proposals, however, and under the forthcoming spending review, there will be additional resources to pay both for additional CSOs and for the continuing rise in the police service, which has shown an increase of 6,000 in the past year alone. With a Conservative budget, cuts would be bound to occur in every part of our service and every part of our country.
  Mr. James Paice: The Home Secretary knows full well that a Conservative Government will add 40,000 police officers. What is more, we will tell police authorities that they can choose whether to spend the money on CSOs or on real police officers. That is real local accountability.
  Can the Home Secretary tell us about training for CSOs and how much they have had? Can he confirm that the length of training can vary from just one week to five weeks or more, whereas basic training for real police officers is being cut from 15 weeks to 12? Is it any wonder that people suspect that the Government have a hidden agenda to de-skill policing and use CSOs on our streets to replace real police officers?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am very happy to let the hon. Gentleman into a secret: we do have a hidden agenda. It involves providing thousands more CSOs and thousands more police officers at the same time, and decentralising training from the current residential arrangements so that people can be nearer to home and get more into the three months' training for uniformed officers. That is being welcomed by the Police Federation and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
  We have heard the comments of the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), on the budget for the 40,000 extra police officers. That was to come from the abolition of the immigration and nationality directorate, but when we announced a month ago that we were going to reduce headquarters costs, the right hon. Gentleman said that that was an outrage and a disgrace. He will not even help us to reduce the administration costs, let alone switch the whole budget into paying for the police force.
  Mr. Martin Salter: The Home Secretary will know that the Police Federation objected vehemently to the introduction of community support officers. Wherever I go, I hear police officers saying what a valuable task CSOs perform on the streets of their

  11
  areas. Has the federation formally withdrawn its objection, or has it eaten a little bit of humble pie recently?
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend will forgive me: as I am to visit the federation in two weeks, I shall not ask it to eat anything. I shall, however, ask its members to join us in welcoming the extra police officers, the extra CSOs, the extra powers against antisocial behaviour, the introduction of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000—all the elements that we are putting into a jigsaw to provide the powers, legislative backing, resources, and manpower and womanpower to make it possible to clean up our streets and give people safety in their homes.

  Children (Sexual Exploitation)
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: What his plans are to combat the trafficking and sexual exploitation of children within the UK; and if he will make a statement. [171320]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): The Sexual Offences Act 2003, which came into force on 1 May, includes offences that criminalise trafficking into, within and out of the country for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The offences carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The Act also introduces comprehensive offences covering the sexual exploitation of children.
  Mr. Woodward: The provision of safe accommodation for children who are victims of this appalling trade is essential if we are to break the cycle and protect children more. It is also essential because a trade that is estimated to be worth $7 billion a year requires us to do all that we can. Given the Government's commitment to establishing a safe house, and the establishment of Integrated Care's first safe house for these children, what proposals have the Government to support them further and to expand the safe houses service?
  Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his determined pursuit of this issue. We know of the new safe house established by Integrated Care and believe that it provides an important service to which all local authorities can refer children. It is for local authorities to decide how best to discharge their responsibilities to children in need under the Children Act 1989—some choose services of this kind, while others opt for foster care or other provision—but I am certain that the safe house will be a useful resource for social services departments to consider when dealing with trafficked children. Our new legislation will ensure that children in such circumstances are given better protection.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for joint working to take place between the immigration service, the police and social services at every port—and I mean every port in the country—to ensure that children who may be being trafficked are identified at that crucial
  12
  stage, that they are given all possible help, and that all possible work is undertaken to deal with those who are trafficking them into the country? Will she have further discussions with the Minister for Children to ensure that that crucial aspect of joint working goes ahead based on the best practice available?
  Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend, and I note his continued commitment to the issue. I think that, like me, he will welcome the additional work that has come out of the Sexual Offences Act 2003: tough new offences, better collaboration between social services and immigration, action to prevent the problem by working with source and transit countries and, as he pointed out, other appropriate support for victims. We are working across key agencies at principal entry points to identify children at risk. Operation Paladin has just been concluded. It involved a range of different authorities dealing with unaccompanied children, or children accompanied by someone other than their parents, to see what situation they are coming to and what the child protection issues are. We will be learning the lessons from that. Child victims of trafficking are likely to need welfare services and, in many cases, protection under the Children Act 1989. We look forward to working with our colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that that happens.

  Prison Capacity
  Ross Cranston: What assessment he has made of the impact of the long-term prison population projections on prison capacity. [171321]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): It is estimated that a continuation of recent trends in the use of custody would result in a prison population of 93,000 by the end of the decade. The reforms that we are making should enable us to rebalance the system and achieve a stable and lower population. As a result of the investment that we are making, there will be 79,500 available prison places by 2006.
  Ross Cranston: I know of my hon. Friend's personal commitment to prisoner welfare. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 means that there will be more robust community sentences and a reduction in the number of short sentences, which are ineffective in reducing wrongdoing. but there is concern out there that the increase in the number of prisoners and the small number of new places coming on stream make the situation unsustainable. Can he give an assurance that that pressure will be relieved in the near future?
  Paul Goggins: My hon. and learned Friend is right to point to that pressure. We will continue to expand the capacity of prison places. By next year, we will have 77,600 prison places. By 2006, we will have 79,500 places. He is right to point out that many very short prison sentences are a waste of time. They are long enough for people to lose their homes and jobs but not long enough to do the resettlement and educational work that such

  13
  prisoners need. It is far better for non-dangerous offenders, particularly first-time offenders, to be dealt with in the community with a robust community sentence.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given the projected increase in the prison population and the urgent need to cut recidivism, the hon. Gentleman will certainly agree, as he has just indicated, that prison education must be a top priority. In that context, what proportion of people currently leaving prison still can neither read nor write and what is the Government's public service agreement target for improvement in that regard?
  Paul Goggins: What I can say to the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that he will be pleased to hear this, is that, as this has been an area in which the Government have invested, we have seen a significant increase in the number of people who learn to read and write while in prison. The most salient point is that, last year, 50,000 basic skills qualifications were gained in our prisons. Those prisoners can now read and write, take their place in society and reform their behaviour.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: My hon. Friend will know that one of the key objectives of the National Offender Management Service was to reduce the projected figure from 93,000 to 80,000 by the end of the decade. Can he tell us exactly how he expects NOMS to do that, because it is not NOMS that will be in charge of sentencing policy, but the Sentencing Guidelines Council?
  Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is right. In the end, it is not politicians or legislators who send people to prison, but sentencers. That is why the role of the Sentencing Guidelines Council will be central to our reforms. The chief executive of the National Offender Management Service has a key role to play in informing the council about what is effective in sentencing. The NOMS will provide, for the first time, effective management of offenders through the whole system, joining the bit of the sentence served in prison with the bit served in the community. By doing that, we believe that we will further reduce reoffending rates.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The Minister is responsible for planning for the prison population. So serious is the overcrowding in our prisons that 64 per cent. are over the limit for keeping prisoners in decent conditions and 15 are over the danger line for safety as we speak. There are more suicides and self-harming by prisoners and the justice unions report increases in acts of organised indiscipline, hostage situations and threats. What is the Minister going to do about this shambles of Government policy? Will he speed up the prison building programme, or will he rebalance the programme by letting more and more prisoners out early to join the 1,100 who have committed further crimes while under curfew orders?
  Paul Goggins: Those figures are not correct, but I welcome the hon. Lady's concern for the welfare of the people in our prisons. For example, it is welcome that she is concerned about the number of people who committed suicide in our prisons last year. I hope,
  14
  therefore, that she will join us in supporting the strategy that I put in place for reducing self-inflicted deaths in custody. But services such as that cost money and given she and her colleagues want to wipe £700 million out of the budget of the Home Office, where would that money come from? I have set out our prison-building programme and the extra places that we intend to provide, but that costs money. We will provide it and she would not.

  Designated Public Places Orders
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of designated public places orders. [171322]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): The effectiveness of DPPOs is being monitored and evaluated in the trailblazer areas that are focusing on tackling the antisocial street scene. Those areas are Camden, Westminster, Brighton and Leeds. As of March, around 100 authorities have been operating the system successfully. This indicates that they have been found useful.
  Mrs. Campbell: What would my hon. Friend say to the Liberal Democrat leader of Cambridge city council who, despite petitions requesting DPPOs totalling thousands of signatures, has refused to use the legislation on the grounds that it is, he says, impractical and illiberal?
  Fiona Mactaggart: I would say that he was a hypocrite. I have noticed the eagerness with which his Liberal Democrat colleagues in election campaigning have said that they would crack down on the yobs. We know from the British crime survey that 44 per cent. of all victims of violent crime describe their assailant as being under the influence of alcohol at the time. Yet, in practice, when we provide effective tools to deal with exactly that problem, they fail to use them. Typical.
  Jonathan Djanogly: Has not the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) provided a first-class example of how the Government's proposals to control violent and drunken youths—while perhaps well meaning—have failed because the cost, red tape and hassle involved in getting antisocial behaviour orders, curfew orders and now designated public places orders mean that, despite the Government's spin, most councils do all they can to avoid using them?
  Fiona Mactaggart: The world that the hon. Gentleman describes is not the one in which I live. I have noticed how our efforts to ensure that we slim down the things that need to be done to obtain an ASBO—as well as our work on the availability of interim orders—have meant that, where there is a dynamic and effective partnership between the local authority and the police, the order is a useful tool for dealing with antisocial behaviour. At last, we have the methods to tackle the problem, but I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members are determined to put it down. They are wrong; they should

  15
  welcome these powers, like the people of Britain in the communities that are the victims of antisocial behaviour.
  Mr. George Howarth: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Inspector Frank Firth in my constituency, who has successfully used those orders on several occasions to great effect, which has been welcomed by local residents? Does she agree that the one further development that would be welcome would be the courts underpinning those orders by using custodial sentences to reinforce them when necessary?
  Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I apologise to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), whom I should have welcomed to his new place. I got carried away and I hope that the House will forgive me for my enthusiasm on this occasion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) pointed out that, in his constituency, that power is being effectively used because of the determination of his local police service. Where there is effective collaboration between the police and others, it is a very useful power indeed. I agree with my hon. Friend that it depends on the effective use by courts and sentencers of their powers, and I am glad to see the participation of magistrates and others in some of the academy events and other "Together" events that are being organised to support the antisocial behaviour strategy. They are part of a partnership to deliver an effective clampdown on antisocial behaviour and drunkenness in our communities.

  Binge Drinking
  Mr. Ben Chapman: What measures he proposes to combat antisocial behaviour caused by binge drinking. [171323]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): On 15 March, we launched our alcohol harm reduction strategy. Taken together with the new slimmed-down antisocial behaviour orders, the dispersal and curfew powers and the ability to levy fixed penalty notices, we believe that the new clampdown by Paul Evans, the head of the standards unit in our Department, will help to tackle head-on under-age drinking, binge drinking and chronic drinking. He will be able to assist us with all that from his experience as police chief in Boston, where he had tremendous success in turning a city with a major problem of violence and alcohol abuse into a city that is now, as I found when I was there at the beginning of March, easy, fit and clean to walk in.
  Mr. Chapman: Notwithstanding all the measures that have been put in place, antisocial behaviour by young people, fuelled by alcohol, remains a major problem in Wirral, South. It causes mayhem, from the knocking off of car badges to the knocking down of gravestones and the wilful destruction of bus shelters and telephone kiosks. That all creates a climate of fear and, in effect,
  16
  no-go areas at night for some of my constituents. What further measures could be put in place to free my constituents from that scourge?
  Mr. Blunkett: I do not disagree at all with my hon. Friend: this is a scourge. About one third of those who are arrested in town and city centres have been involved in alcohol abuse and more than two fifths of those involved in violent crime have been indulging in the overuse of alcohol. That is a major scourge. However, it is not only the legislation or enforcement measures that I have already enunciated that are crucial; also crucial are the partnership with the industry that produces and retails alcohol and a change in the education process, along with the sensible use of family pressure. We also need to give a message to those who give planning consent for large volume, or vertical drinking, establishments, to get across that there is a need for social responsibility from the business and commercial community as well as from everyone else—[Interruption.] Yes, vertical drinking often leads to horizontal sleeping and, unfortunately, too many people stagger out on to the street to cause mayhem before they do fall asleep.
  Mr. Mark Field: In the blizzard of announcements and initiatives in the Home Secretary's answer to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), there was no mention of the Licensing Act 2003. How does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the introduction of 24-hour drinking under that Act will improve the Government's record on binge drinking and antisocial behaviour?
  Mr. Blunkett: The guidance that we have established between the Home Office and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport makes clear the powers that are available and the restrictions that should be put in place and, under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, there is now the ability to close establishments immediately there is a problem. The lessons learned from Scotland and the evidence from across the continent were the driving force behind the Licensing Act, and I thought that there had been varying degrees of support from all parties in the House for the experiment of trying to ensure that people drink sensibly over a longer period. I would also advocate that they eat more while drinking at the times of day when drinking is most likely to cause abuse, inconvenience and damage to other people. [Interruption.] To judge from some of the heckling, it sounds as though one or two people probably indulged a bit at lunch time.
  Judy Mallaber: Binge drinking and social disorder in town centres as a result of drinking were among the major issues raised in a big conversation event concerning community safety that I held last week. Two specific issues were raised, one about planning and the proliferation of licensed premises, and the other about the responsibilities of licensed premises, some of which have totally irresponsible promotions such as, "All you can drink for £10" and "Two drinks for the price of one." Is there anything that could be done about the responsibilities of the drinks industry?
  Mr. Blunkett: Following the announcement on 15 March, the Prime Minister established a forum in

  17
  which representatives of the industry are being invited to come and talk through the measures that the industry is prepared to take to act responsibly. In the end, of course, if it does not do so, and if those very large premises, and the consequent antisocial behaviour that spills out on to the street, persist, we shall inevitably have to seek further powers. It is therefore in the best interests of all those involved in the industry, tourism and entertainment to be prepared to make themselves available as partners rather than opponents and ensure that we all gain from sensible drinking and entertainment and from city and town centres that are free and secure to walk in at night.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Following the Home Secretary's trenchant comments on the retail sector, can he explain why, since 1997, an average of only 12 prosecutions a year have been brought against landlords for maintaining disorderly premises?
  Mr. Blunkett: First, the powers for immediate closure were not available, so the bureaucracy that has been referred to in other contexts this of afternoon often got in the way of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service when they tried to pursue such matters. With the new measures, including those involving licensing and planning, it will be possible for both the police and environmental health departments to intervene. Local authorities that become licensing authorities will be able to respond to their local communities, so it really will be up to local councillors—including Liberal Democrat councillors who so vehemently rejected the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, but who are so keen on putting out leaflets to pretend that they did not—to take action on behalf of their local electorate.

  Community Safety
  Huw Irranca-Davies: What assessment has been made of the impact of partnership working on community safety in police authority areas since 1997. [171324]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): Partnership working is essential for ensuring the safety of our communities. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, jointly with the Local Government Association, Ofsted and the social services inspectorate, have inspected agencies within community safety partnerships, as has the Audit Commission. It was confirmed that substantial progress had been made. More needs to be done, but we are helping to reduce crime.
  Huw Irranca-Davies: Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest achievements of the Government is that we have extended community safety beyond mere policing to the wider community? Does she therefore share my dismay that when I attended the Nant-y-Moel neighbourhood watch the other evening, the more than 25 people there were not aware of the great powers that we have passed to them? Does she agree that, to paraphrase Citizen Smith, we have given the power to the people but some of them do not know about it?
  Caroline Flint: It is always distressing to hear of such things. My hon. Friend had a visit not so long ago from
  18
  my noble Friend Baroness Scotland and I understand that the partnership in his constituency is working better. However, there is no excuse for those involved in such partnerships not making themselves aware of the powers available. We have produced good practice guidelines and a new unit is looking at performance and support to ensure that the highest standards can be reached everywhere. We will consider intervening in areas that are not using the powers that are clearly available to them. This is an important issue and people deserve to have such powers used on their behalf.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister will perhaps agree that the expression "the impact of partnership working on community safety" is pretty meaningless. What is important to my constituents—particularly those in South Wigston, which is the least well off part of my constituency—is that youngsters engaged in binge drinking, to whom the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) referred a moment ago, are kept out of shops selling drink and off the streets. For the second time in five years, I shall address a conference in my constituency on antisocial behaviour. What we would like—I hope that the Minister can help us to achieve this—is more police officers patrolling the streets of South Wigston and more community support officers. They provide a uniformed presence and deter youngsters from misbehaving in public places.
  Caroline Flint: I am glad to hear that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made it to his constituency twice in five years. He argues for more police and community support officers, but this Government have delivered in that regard. What are required are resources and an attitude that recognises that tackling crime today is not only a matter for the police. It is also a matter for local authorities and, where drugs are concerned, for primary care trusts and others involved in that issue. We want more police officers, community support officers and others, but we will get them under a Labour Government and certainly not under a Conservative one.

  National Offender Management Service
  Mr. David DrewWhat assessment he has made of the likely budgetary impact of the creation of the National Offender Management Service. [171325]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The National Offender Management Service will become operational on 1 June with an overall budget of £3.5 billion. As with all other areas of public expenditure, the current spending review will determine funding levels for 2005–06 to 2007–08.
  Mr. Drew: As my hon. Friend will be aware, several hon. Members will address a mass lobby of probation officers tomorrow. Those officers are worried about the rush to introduce the National Offender Management Service and the apparent lack of local accountability and genuinely concerned that an element of back-door

  19
  privatisation seems to be involved. Will my hon. Friend give me a message to pass on to those probation officers that will at least ease some of their fears?
  Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, in which he takes a keen interest. Today's probation service has been transformed from the service that existed when we took in office in 1997. There are 5,000 additional staff and a further 2,600 staff will be recruited in the next two years. My message to it is that we will continue to invest in the important work that it does and that we understand the pressure it is under. As the Minister with responsibility for such matters, I want to engage in a constructive dialogue with the probation service and the Prison Service to ensure that we introduce the National Offender Management Service effectively.

  Identity Cards
  George Osborne: If he will make a statement on his plans to introduce identity cards. [171326]
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne): As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced last November, we intend to build
  20
  the base for a compulsory identity card scheme and on 26 April we published for consultation plans for identity card legislation. The Home Affairs Committee will undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of that Bill, which I welcome. If the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) can keep his eyes open without discomfort, he will doubtless make a significant contribution to such scrutiny.
  Mr. Osborne: Since the abolition of ID cards in the 1950s, Home Office officials have tried to persuade successive Home Secretaries to reintroduce them. Why does the Minister think that this Home Secretary is the first one gullible enough to produce a White Paper on them?
  Mr. Browne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary advises me that a previous Home Secretary did produce such a document on that matter. However, the point of the hon. Gentleman's question is not who produced it, but gullibility. The hon. Gentleman should test the temperature of the hour and understand the view of the people of this country who need secure identity and security of their borders. The people are overwhelmingly in favour of developing this policy, but they want it done carefully and delivered appropriately. That is exactly what the Government will do.

Iraq: Security/Mistreatment Allegations
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Geoffrey Hoon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would first like to bring the House up to date in relation to the current security situation in Iraq. Recent weeks have seen British forces, our coalition allies and the Iraqi police facing violent attacks in southern Iraq. This weekend saw the most violence so far, with more than 100 engagements between violent insurgents and coalition forces. Eleven British soldiers and one Dane were injured in those clashes. Our forces have captured a very large quantity of arms and ammunition from the Muqtada militia. The insurgents are armed with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, and a wealth of automatic weapons. We have captured 10 multi-launch rocket tubes, 300 mortar rounds and three wire-guided missiles just over this weekend.
The upsurge in violence appears to have followed calls at some Friday prayers for attacks against the coalition. Many of those who responded have a violent and criminal background that pre-dates the arrival of the coalition in Iraq last year. They are thugs, not freedom fighters. They do not enjoy the support of the majority of people in Iraq, who welcome the strong security action that we are taking. These attacks against Iraqis and Iraqi institutions are a challenge to the rule of law—an attempt to disrupt reconstruction efforts and deliberately to damage the transition to a democratic Iraq. No sensible person can condone these attacks: everyone should support our effort to deal with them in the interests of the Iraqi people.
The situation in both Basra and al-Amarah remains tense, but the Iraqi police are patrolling and are engaged in other security tasks. Further violence cannot be ruled out in the coming days, and British and Iraqi forces will continue to confront such challenges. As ever, they will do so with the minimum necessary use of force and with great care to avoid unnecessary impact on the wider population.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for the armed forces made a statement about allegations of abuse by UK forces in Iraq. I would like to deal with developments since that statement. There have been further details and images of abuse by US forces, and further claims against British soldiers, published mainly in the Daily Mirror. Last week my right hon. Friend made it clear that if the allegations are found to be true, those responsible for damaging the otherwise excellent reputation of our armed forces will be rooted out and dealt with. The unauthorised actions of a very few must not be allowed to undermine the outstanding work of tens of thousands of British soldiers and civilians who have served with distinction, compassion and sensitivity in Iraq now for over a year. We regret the shadow that has been cast across the excellent work being undertaken, under very difficult circumstances, to establish security and to rebuild Iraq.
The United Kingdom requires its forces to act at all times within UK law, which means that they must comply with the Geneva convention and international humanitarian law. Allegations of improper behaviour will be thoroughly investigated. We are not in any way complacent about such allegations. The 33 cases of Iraqi
22
civilian deaths, injuries and ill treatment, which my right hon. Friend mentioned last week, which have been or are under investigation testify to our determination. As he mentioned, 15 have already been resolved as having no case to answer and a further six are proceeding.
Those investigations were not begun in response to the International Committee of the Red Cross, to Amnesty International or, indeed, as the result of any pressure through the media. We investigate through the Royal Military Police special investigations branch immediately evidence is brought to hand. In those investigations, it is essential that the integrity of the criminal justice process be maintained. That can involve detailed and lengthy processes, but those are crucial to allow the necessary impartial evaluation of the evidence. I can confirm today that two cases have reached an advanced stage with decisions on prosecutions pending.
Obviously, it is important that the legal processes should be completed independently, but I want to say on behalf of the British Government that we unreservedly apologise to any Iraqis where the evidence shows that they have been mistreated, whether that is, as Amnesty International has set out in recent correspondence, during the general interaction between British troops and Iraqi citizens on the ground, or in the more specific issues raised by the ICRC about Iraqis detained in British-controlled facilities.
The confidential report from the ICRC to Ambassador Bremer in February dealt with detention issues. We have always maintained a close and constructive relationship with the Red Cross in Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the armed forces had a meeting with Dr. Jacob Kellenburger, the ICRC president, in May last year, and officials from the Ministry of Defence met the ICRC in April. It has been the practice of the ICRC to keep such reports confidential, not only to maintain a positive working relationship between Governments and the ICRC, but to protect those mentioned in them. It is important that that confidentiality is respected. Roland Hugenin-Benjamin of the ICRC said at the weekend:

"We usually do this in direct confidential contact with the detaining power. We do not believe very much that there is a lot of interest for the prisoners themselves of having those kind of issues exposed in the public domain."

The interim report in February dealt with ICRC visits to coalition facilities between March and November last year. It raised three specific concerns in respect of British forces' treatment of prisoners and internees. Since those issues are already in the public domain, it is appropriate for me to comment further.
The first issue is in respect of the death in custody of Baha Mousa, also known as Baha Maliki, last September. A Royal Military Police investigation was launched at the time. The case has featured frequently in the media since then and was raised by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) during an Adjournment debate in January. It was the subject of an Amnesty International letter-writing campaign. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the armed forces wrote to Amnesty about the case on 11 November 2003 and again on 27 January. It follows, therefore, that by the time the ICRC referred to the case in its interim report in February, a thorough investigation was well under way and the Government had made frequent public comment on it.

23
The second concern raised by the ICRC in relation to the United Kingdom was in respect of the routine hooding of prisoners. That practice had already ceased in UK facilities from last September, and that change had been confirmed publicly.
In the third case, a detainee had claimed that his car was confiscated. We were not able to shed light on that case. The individual was briefed on our claims procedure and provided with a claim form. Nothing more has been heard from him.
The interim ICRC report was not seen by Ministers until very recently. That is because it was an interim report to Ambassador Bremer, passed to the United Kingdom in strict confidence. A follow-on, UK-specific report was, in any event, anticipated, and in the cases relevant to the UK armed forces, the action necessary to address the ICRC's concerns had been taken some five months before the report was actually issued. In February, therefore, officials at the permanent joint headquarters judged that there was no action that Ministers needed to take, at least until any further reports were received. Essentially, all the material the report contained dealing with issues relevant to the United Kingdom had already been dealt with.
Since the programme of ICRC visits last year, we have opened a new divisional temporary detention facility in southern Iraq. The ICRC visited the site before it opened and has visited it twice since, in February and April. It is due to visit again next week. We remain committed to consultation with the ICRC and to complying fully with ICRC requests for access. The ICRC has yet to submit a formal report to the Government in respect of the two visits carried out, but it has provided working reports to our forces in theatre. It is fair to say that the ICRC is generally satisfied with our approach and describes conditions of internment as "fairly good".
We will obviously continue to work closely with the ICRC to ensure that prisoners' concerns are addressed. In the light of recent publications, we judge that if the ICRC were willing to publish its report, the United Kingdom Government would have absolutely no objection.
In addition, recent representations have been made by a number of other groups, including Amnesty International, making allegations about incidents, including some of which the Ministry of Defence was not previously aware. Those incidents do not involve allegations about detainees. We will always take such credible allegations seriously. As a consequence, at the beginning of March, we began a thorough trawl of the records of units produced in Iraq since the commencement of operations last year. That is a considerable task, and we expect it to last a few more weeks. I assure the House that if it reveals further examples of incidents that merit formal investigation, investigations will follow. In turn, if British forces are found to have acted unlawfully, the appropriate legal action will be taken. That has happened in every single case so far.
Those thorough and detailed investigations have also been necessary in relation to the photographs published by the Daily Mirror some days ago. Those photographs
24
are central to accusations concerning the behaviour of British troops, in particular, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. I can tell the House that as a result of those further investigations the SIB has informed me that there are strong indications that the vehicle in which the photographs were taken was not in Iraq during the relevant period. Additional lines of inquiry are being pursued to corroborate that fact.
The SIB has interviewed at length the soldier described by the Daily Mirror as "Soldier C". We are grateful to "Soldier C" for coming forward. However, I can assure the House that the allegation at the centre of his evidence, which is once again the case of Baha Mousa, has already been investigated and the case is currently with the Army legal services for consideration. When interviewed by the RMP, "Soldier C" did not have any new evidence to add to what was already known as a result of our investigations. Indeed, as I have already mentioned. those allegations were widely covered in other newspapers many months ago. I leave it to the House to judge why they have been recycled in that way.
In conclusion, we are determined to see through the task in Iraq according to standards of behaviour set out in the Geneva convention and international humanitarian law. We will not hesitate to act where those high standards are not followed, and we will investigate when serious allegations are brought to our attention. But we should not lose sight of the fact that thousands of our service personnel continue to serve their country with great distinction in Iraq and around the world. We are appalled by the allegations made against an unrepresentative small number, but that will not diminish our admiration of, respect for and pride in those who continue to serve their country with such distinction.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for providing an advance copy earlier today. Nothing should detract from the fact that we on the Conservative Benches have the highest confidence in, and admiration for, the professionalism, courage and skill of the men and women of the British armed forces serving in Iraq and elsewhere.
Will the Secretary of State agree that, as the coalition seeks to bring democracy, stability and freedom to the broken country of Iraq, the promotion of the rule of law in the chaotic and disastrously ill-planned post-conflict environment must come first? Will he further agree that the military do not see themselves as being above the law and that the hard lessons of earlier counter-insurgency operations have been well learned by the British Army?
The House will be aware that Britain ratified the additional 1977 protocols to the 1949 Geneva conventions and that article 75 of the first protocol specifically prohibits

"outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment … and any form of indecent assault".

As I said in the House last week, if the recent allegations against British soldiers are found to be true, they must be proceeded against with the full rigour of military law.
I understand that Amnesty International has reported to the MOD on several occasions since May of last year, alleging that abuses by British soldiers were

25
taking place in Iraq. When did the Secretary of State first see those reports? What steps did he then take and what actions were taken by the chain of command to deal with them? If he did not see those reports, who in his Department did and what did they do about them?
In respect of the ICRC, is the Secretary of State really being serious in telling the House that neither he nor any other Minister in the MOD was made aware of the ICRC report until very recently because it was given to the British Government in confidence? For goodness sake, who on earth is running the MOD? Who is authorised to see important and confidential documents from the ICRC?
The Government's failures in that regard must lend further credence to the view that they have lost their grip on their policy in Iraq. If the Secretary of State did not know about the document, he most emphatically should have done and he is unacceptably complacent and negligent in not having done so. Even if he did not see it himself, when exactly was the ICRC report received by the MOD and who dealt with it? When were investigations commenced into the assertions that it made?
When precisely did the Secretary of State himself see the report and did he ensure that a copy was passed to the Prime Minister? And if not, why not? As the document has been published today, will the Secretary of State officially publish the ICRC report in full on this side of the Atlantic? Surely, there can now be no reason for him not to do so.
How can the Secretary of State account for the reply of the Minister of State for the armed forces, given to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) in the House last Tuesday, that:

"To date, I have received no such reports, but some may be in the process of being compiled"? —[Official Report, 4 May 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1216.]

Does that not show that at the very least the Minister was in dereliction of his duty, or had the Secretary of State or his officials simply forgotten to tell him? Was it just the Government's continual, serial complacency?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that the ICRC brought its concerns to the attention of the coalition forces on several occasions, orally and in writing, throughout 2003? When were British commanders in MND—multinational division—south-east first made aware of the alleged abuse of prisoners by British forces?
In the light of these allegations, how many members of the British armed forces have been investigated and how many are currently being investigated? How many Iraqis are currently in British detention and how have they been graded? Given the seriousness of the cuts by the Government in the military training programme, is the Secretary of State himself entirely satisfied that British troops deployed to Iraq, including members of the Territorial Army, were given a full and detailed training package on handling prisoners and on their obligations under the Geneva conventions? Did the British servicemen who took part in investigations at Abu Ghraib make complaints at any time about maltreatment and irregularities at the prison?
The Government are causing a great deal of unwanted and unnecessary uncertainty by their persistent and wilful failure to give substantial answers to clear questions on those matters. At one moment, the
26
Prime Minister claims that he is in discussion with the Americans over further troop deployments; yet within hours his spokesman denies it. At one moment, the Minister for the armed forces comes to the House to claim that he has not received the ICRC report, only for it to be announced yesterday that the MOD received that report in February this year. The Government's handling of these events is part and parcel of their fundamental and tragic incompetence and failure in the post-conflict planning for Iraq.
The Government must now set to and set out with clarity their plans for the remaining 51 days—only 51 days—leading to the transfer of power, and deal in detail with the many questions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been asking, but which remain as yet unacceptably, and for the Government embarrassingly, unanswered. Today, the Secretary of State has a chance to come clean.
Finally, there are no circumstances under which the brutal and disgusting humiliation of disarmed and helpless prisoners can be excused. The replaying of those images day after day throughout the middle east and indeed the wider world has the potential to undermine the significant gains that have been made towards the goals of peace, stability and freedom in Iraq. Furthermore, the apparent ignoring of the Geneva conventions invites our enemies to do the same and increases the existing dangers to our servicemen and women.
The Government's greatest and most immediate task is to restore the confidence of the British people and the people of Iraq both in what we are seeking to do in that country and, most especially, in the reputation and good name of the British Army.
Mr. Hoon: I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman uncharacteristically failed to listen to my statement; otherwise he would have noticed that I had answered all the questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—that he set out in his bluster, but I will repeat them. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not allow anyone to shout down the Secretary of State.
Mr. Hoon: I will repeat the answers so that the hon. Gentleman can hear them, yet again, having had the benefit of reading the statement. Unfortunately, he obviously prepared his bluster before he came into the Chamber.
Amnesty International has written a number of letters to the Ministry of Defence about allegations concerning British troops, but, as I set out in my statement, most of those allegations—indeed, all but one letter—concerned the general interaction between British troops on the ground and Iraqi citizens, as British soldiers have gone about their security tasks in Iraq. That is obviously important. I am in no way condoning any manner of illegality by British troops, but that is quite different from the nature of the allegations made in relation to detainees. As far as I am aware, Amnesty International wrote one letter to the Department specifically about the concerns that it had last May, a year ago. That was replied to, and investigations were undertaken by the Ministry of Defence into those allegations. I have not received any further letter from Amnesty International

27
about those allegations. Indeed, a letter was received today and I saw a letter from two weeks ago—neither of which mentioned those early, year-old allegations, which, as I say, have been thoroughly investigated.
As for the ICRC, again, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the armed forces said that he had not read that report. Again, I set out very carefully the reasons for that. That was an interim report in February, and by the time that it had been considered in the Ministry of Defence, each and every allegation—the three allegations specifically dealing with the role of British troops—had already been dealt with. That was the judgment of officials in the permanent joint headquarters, having dealt with those matters already, as a result of action by Ministers. I make no apology for saying that. Ministers instructed that those investigations should take place. Those investigations were continuing and continue today because, obviously, it is not a matter for Ministers to decide whether soldiers should be prosecuted. It is however a matter for Ministers to decide whether investigations should be properly pursued. That is precisely what happened.
The further point that I made in my statement was that this was an interim report, pending a further specific report from the ICRC in relation to the United Kingdom's responsibilities to detainees. As I set out in that statement, it clearly indicates that, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the ICRC is generally happy with the steps that we have taken at our facilities. The material that has been put before the ICRC and the consultation that we have had on regular basis with it has satisfied it that we are imposing proper standards and proper procedures in those areas for which we are responsible.
I mentioned as well that 33 cases had been the subject of investigation—going back to the more general matters, not matters concerned with detainees. I indicated to the House that 15 of those had been resolved without there being any case to answer and that a further six were still being pursued through the system.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I welcome the statement and thank the Secretary of State for early sight of it. I know from my experience that the vast majority of armed forces measure up to the highest possible standards of professionalism and conduct and are a credit to our nation, but wrongdoing, if proven, must be punished. So may I ask the Secretary of State about the Red Cross report? That report clearly refers, as he accepts, to UK forces, including the death in custody of one individual. That report should have been brought directly to the attention of UK Ministers and to Parliament. Why was it not? If the Minister of State for the armed forces has not read the report, did he know of its existence?
The Red Cross says that it notified UK officials at Doha of potential problems in April 2003. Can the Secretary of State now confirm that? If UK military advisers in the region were informed of potential problems, why did they not pass on those concerns to the Government? It has sometimes been suggested that the UK Government wield little influence with the coalition, but can it really be the case that a report from
28
the Red Cross that directly referred to the role of UK forces was given to coalition authorities, including Paul Bremer, but that he did not bother to tell UK Ministers?
Can I ask about the report from Amnesty International? Did the Secretary of State see this report last May when Amnesty says that it sent it?
On another specific matter, last week, I asked the Minister for the armed forces about a fusilier who was arrested last year after developing photos apparently showing the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. What charges have been brought against this man? Will the Secretary of State say?
This House of Commons voted to send our troops to war. If there is any doubt whatsoever about their actions, it is this House of Commons that should be told immediately. Why were we not?
Mr. Hoon: A common thread runs through each of the three examples that the hon. Gentleman has raised. In each of those cases, there was a thorough and proper investigation the moment those allegations were notified to the Ministry of Defence. Let me make it clear. They were not notified to the Ministry of the Defence by the ICRC, by Amnesty International or by the press. They were notified as a result of the proper procedures that are undertaken to safeguard the Iraqi people and, indeed, our own forces from these kinds of allegations. Not all of the allegations will be founded. A thorough, proper investigation took place in each of the examples that he has cited. Therefore, it was not necessary to act upon the ICRC recommendation five months later after the investigation was under way.
In a similar respect, the so-called Amnesty International report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned was a letter. I have dealt with the letter already. It was sent a year ago, and it was investigated properly and thoroughly. Amnesty International has not subsequently raised those cases. Similarly, with regard to the fusilier that he mentioned, that soldier is the subject of a process that could lead to criminal prosecutions.
In conclusion, I say in relation to each of the three examples that the hon. Gentleman cites that he would not wish Ministers, Members of Parliament or anyone else in a position of political authority to be interfering in a proper legal process to determine whether those individuals are or are not subject to criminal prosecution.
Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have supported action to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein since the 1990s. As he also knows, I was appointed as special envoy to the Prime Minister on human rights in Iraq in May 2003. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explain why his officials failed to show me the ICRC reports when they arrived?
Mr. Hoon: I am in exactly the same position in answering my hon. Friend's question as I was in answering questions from the Opposition. As far as officials were concerned, the interim report contained material about the United Kingdom that had already

29
been resolved. Therefore, there was no need, as far as the interim report was concerned, for Ministers to be involved.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Of course, the Secretary of State is right to say that the overwhelming majority of British troops are doing what they have to do properly in Iraq, but they are likely to come more into harm's way as a result of these exposures and also because of the way in which we went into this conflict in the first place. Many of us said that it would make us look much more like an army of occupation than an army of liberation. Can the Secretary of State just clarify what General Sir Michael Walker meant at the recent Defence Committee sitting when he said that we fight with the Americans, but not as the Americans?
Mr. Hoon: General Sir Michael Walker was responding to a specific observation from—if my memory serves me well—General Sir Mike Jackson and he was saying that the way in which British troops are trained, organised and deployed particularly on peacekeeping operations is not precisely the same as that of the United States or, indeed, of any other country. Each country rightly maintains its own discipline, ethos and way of committing forces into operations.
Mr. Robin Cook: My right hon. Friend has clearly now had an opportunity to read very carefully the Red Cross report. Can he therefore confirm to the House that the Red Cross report is not just about individual cases, but concludes that there was a consistent pattern of brutal behaviour and that the abuse and humiliation of detainees was systematic? If his case is that this is not relevant to the UK because it was carried out by US service personnel, can he tell the House what concerns and protests were expressed to the US authorities about the report? Does he accept that brutality by any member of the coalition forces is bound to increase the resistance and the risks to all members of the coalition forces? In retrospect would it not have been wiser and more effective for those protests and concerns, if they happened, to have been expressed at the highest ministerial level and not at some operational level?
Mr. Hoon: I do not disagree with my right hon. Friend, especially in his closing comments. Obviously, the report, passed by the ICRC to Ambassador Bremer, an American, was for American consideration, just as it was for British consideration. As I have repeatedly said, the United Kingdom carefully considered the cases that the report raised which affected the position of British troops, and we had already dealt with those matters, specifically as far as the UK was concerned.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Why was not Operation Stewart implemented as planned last autumn? The Secretary of State will know that had it been so, the arrest warrant issued by the Islamic court against Muqtada al-Sadr would have ensured that he was lifted at a time both of a relatively benign security environment and of our choosing, so avoiding much chaos later.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to go into precise operational detail I can, however, say
30
that he is right: an opportunity was being considered for the most appropriate occasion on which to execute the arrest warrant. That appropriate occasion has still to arise.
Mrs. Helen Liddell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the morale of the families of serving troops will be badly affected by the allegations, and that will not have been helped by the opportunism of some Opposition Members. Will he confirm that UK troops are given training and are aware of their obligations under the Geneva convention and of their other international responsibilities, and that every allegation is investigated rapidly?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her observations. I assure her and the House that appropriate training is given to our armed forces on their legal obligations. There are appropriate people at each level to give appropriate advice. In this conflict, perhaps more than in any other conflict, lawyers have been close to the front line providing up-to-date information and advice on the obligations that British forces have in international law.
Mr. Alan Duncan: War tends to magnify anyone's personal qualities. The good can become heroic, but the bad can become sickeningly depraved. Will the Secretary of State confirm that nothing reported to him so far about the British Army in any way compares with the seemingly bestial conduct of some elements of the American army?
Mr. Hoon: I have to say that there have been some allegations about British troops which, if they stand up, are not allegations that any other member of the armed forces would want to be engaged with. That is why it is so important that we deal with these matters vigorously. That is the assurance I give to the House: when any allegations have been made, they are properly and seriously investigated. If appropriate, they are handed over to an independent authority to determine whether charges should be laid. There are actions that involve British troops which, once resolved—if they are resolved—against the individuals concerned, would worry us extremely, which is why I gave the apology that I did.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I have the utmost respect for the professionalism of the British forces, as does every hon. Member. I include my son in that, who is serving in the Royal Marines and was in Basra for the invasion. Last week, however, a mother of a recruit at Catterick garrison came to see me with allegations of what he and his comrades had to endure. They were made to parade naked in front of their superiors while they made fun of their private parts. When they tried to cover their private parts, they were punched in the face if they did not uncover them. That needs to be investigated, but it shows that the problem is endemic in the British forces and needs to be rooted out at home.
Mr. Hoon: I do not for a moment accept that it is endemic. I know that my hon. Friend has raised the problem with the Minister for the armed forces and

31
there will be a thorough and detailed investigation. Those allegations will be considered in the same detail and treated with the same concern as the investigations of those cases that I dealt with today.
Mr. Michael Weir: Whatever the truth or otherwise of the allegations against British forces in Iraq, the reputation of the UK's armed forces has been undermined by the constant drip of allegations. Does the Secretary of State accept that, to bring the matter to a head, we need a clear, independent investigation, rather than one conducted by the Royal Military Police? Only then can we be satisfied that justice has not only been done but been seen to be done.
Mr. Hoon: That is precisely what happens: there is an independent investigation conducted by those who are expert in and knowledgeable about military procedures. It is important that we give them our confidence in recognising the abilities that they bring to bear in looking at these cases. Moreover, if they judge that a case has proceeded sufficiently far, it is then handed over to an independent prosecuting authority to determine whether charges should be laid, so there is a significant degree of independence in the system that we already have.
Mr. Clive Soley: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, having won the war, we are in acute danger of losing the peace, mainly because of the lack of a coherent peacekeeping policy by the United States? Does he accept that, in the context of any allegations against British soldiers, we need to be particularly visible in conducting our judicial processes? One thing that the people of Iraq know, and which we need to remember, is that far worse actions happened daily under Saddam Hussein, but those never got in the press or were raised in a court or anywhere else. The crucial difference in this situation is that we must be seen to be doing something about these allegations in a proper, judicial and public way.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right in his conclusion. I would not in any way want to condone any unlawful mistreatment of Iraqi civilians by British soldiers simply because it was less bad than that perpetrated against the Iraqi people by Saddam Hussein. We cannot at any stage afford to depart from the high standards that we have set.
Mr. John Maples: The Government simply have to realise the devastating effect that the allegations are having on our policy, our reputation and our effectiveness in the middle east, and the only way of solving the problem is by ensuring complete openness.
I refer the Secretary of State again to an Amnesty press release from last Friday, which said:

"Last July Amnesty raised allegations of torture and ill-treatment of Iraqi detainees"—

not just people whom they met on the street, but detainees"—

"in a memorandum to the US Government and the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq."

32
When did the Secretary of State first see that? Is he saying that it was only very recently? It seems that he did not see it until allegations started to appear in the newspapers, whereas we would have expected him to have got a personal grip on the situation the first time that any such allegation was mentioned, to make sure that it did not happen again. It has happened, again and again. We want to know when the Secretary of State saw that information, and if he did not see it until about eight months after it was delivered to the CPA, why that was.
Mr. Hoon: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is confusing two different reports. I made it clear in my statement that, this time last year, there was a letter from Amnesty International making certain allegations about UK treatment of detainees. That was responded to and indications were given to Amnesty that there would be, as there was, a thorough investigation. Since then, Amnesty has raised a number of further cases; indeed, in a long memorandum submitted in April, repeated in a letter that arrived shortly before I left the Ministry of Defence this afternoon, it set out a considerable number of cases concerned not with detainees but with the interaction of British troops on the ground. Each of those cases has been thoroughly investigated.
Other cases brought forward by public interest lawyers have raised one or two matters that we were not aware of, but as I indicated to the House in my statement, a thorough search of all our files is under way to establish whether those are genuinely new cases or matters that have previously been investigated.
Helen Jackson: Does the Secretary of State understand the depth of feeling among civilians in Iraq and their affront at the humiliation and torture that has been going on in their country in the name of the coalition forces? What will he and the US coalition forces do, from now, to reassure the civilian population in Iraq? Does he accept that an independent organisation such as Amnesty International is needed to start to rebuild any confidence among that population about what we are there to do?
Mr. Hoon: I broadly agree with my hon. Friend. She is right. I share the revulsion at the allegations and we need to investigate them thoroughly. However, may I give her an assurance? She says that we need to deal with matters now, but from the moment that any of the allegations were raised, the same process of thorough investigation has gone on—the same detailed co-operation with the appropriate independent organisation, which incidentally, is not Amnesty International, but the International Committee of the Red Cross. We have co-operated consistently with the ICRC and we will go on co-operating with its staff—providing facilities, allowing them to enter facilities, receiving their recommendations, and acting on them, where appropriate. However, the fact is that, by the time the ICRC's interim report was received, in each of the cases affecting British soldiers and British civilians, action had already been taken months and months and months previously. That is what I expect the House to hear from Ministers, and that is what I am saying.
Mr. John Burnett: Do the events that have given rise to today's statement and the Secretary of State's experience in office lead him to the conclusion that there should be an immediate extension in the period of basic training given to Army recruits?
Mr. Hoon: A substantial review of training is under way. I recognise as a result of recent experience and of allegations of failures in the training system that we still have more work to do in that respect. If there is the slightest suggestion that British, forces are not adequately trained to deal wish the sometimes increasingly complex legal issues in international law, that must be addressed.
Jeremy Corbyn: The Secretary of State made it clear in his statement that the ICRC report was sent to Paul Bremer in February this year. Was that information shared with Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was his deputy? To whom was it passed in the Ministry or Defence or the armed services here? What has happened to those who apparently concealed the information from the Secretary of State or other Ministers, which has led to the disgraceful impasse we are in today?
Mr. Hoon: May I make it clear that there was no concealment? The report to Ambassador Bremer was passed to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, then to the military representative in Iraq, and from there to the Permanent Joint Headquarters.
Dr. Andrew Murrison: Last Tuesday, I asked the Minister for the armed forces whether he had received any reports from the ICRC. He replied:

"I have received no such reports".[—Official Report, 4 May 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1216.]

He said "received", not "read", as the Secretary of State appears to be saying now. Will the Secretary of State clarify what the Minister of State meant? For the report to have been given to Members today by journalists seems most extraordinary, given the Minister of State's previous comments.
Mr. Hoon: I have set out the process very clearly and I have just answered the specific question on how the report was received by Government. I stand by my earlier point: there was no detailed analysis of the interim report specifically because officials judged—rightly—that each and every action affecting British soldiers had already been dealt with.
Mr. Doug Henderson: The morale of our troops in Iraq, who are overwhelmingly committed, loyal and determined, will undoubtedly have been dented by the events of the past 10 days, but does the Secretary of State accept that their real problem is that the task is unclear and they are bogged down in the political basement, having entered without a clear strategy and with almost no exit strategy? Cannot our international reputation be restored only by going back to the United Nations and
34
making it clear that, with the Americans, we will carry out a phased withdrawal of troops if the UN establishes a force to try to bring security and stability to Iraq?
Mr. Hoon: I simply do not accept my hon. Friend's premise that the task is not clear. As I set out in the opening part of my statement, dealing with current events in Iraq, there is a determined effort, supported by the overwhelming majority of Iraqi people, to resolve the security situation in Iraq. If my hon. Friend is seriously saying that we should abandon that effort and simply leave Iraq to the mercy of those with the biggest weapons and the most powerful guns, I think that he is wrong.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Secretary of State consistently misrepresents his own position, and he misrepresents the Minister of State. He never answered the question about which words were employed last Tuesday in this House. The Minister of State said that he had "received" no such material, not that he had not read it. When did the Secretary of State receive it? Downing street tells us that it received it in February. Therefore, at what time did he discuss it with the Prime Minister, and when did he respond and read it? Furthermore, is this not just another example of his not being accountable to anyone or responsible for anything?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically unfair and unkind. He misrepresents several points, not least what Downing street said about receiving the report. What Downing street said was that Government received it. It was indicating in the broadest sense that Government had received the report, and that officials, as I indicated in my statement, had acted on it. Officials made a proper consideration of the content of that interim report, which was analysed and dealt with, not least because, previously, appropriate action had properly been taken. If the hon. Gentleman were saying to the House that Ministers had failed to take action, I might just understand his criticism. The truth, however, is that Ministers dealt with the issue and made sure that appropriate action had already been put in hand.
Joyce Quin: Given the seriousness of the prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib jail, and in view of the statement by Secretary Rumsfeld that it occurred on his watch, is it not important, in order to show Iraqi civilians and the Arab and Muslim world our determination that these events should not recur and our revulsion at them, that at the very least Secretary Rumsfeld should resign? Nothing short of a dramatic signal of contrition at this stage will do.
Mr. Hoon: The Defence Secretary in the United States has set out his position. I know that there will be a thorough US investigation. What I am saying to the House is that at each stage, when proper allegations have been made, there have been thorough investigations of any such allegations. If such allegations require further action to be taken, that will be dealt with.
Adam Price: The Secretary of State has just confirmed that hoods

35
were used on detainees in Iraq between April and September last year? Does he not accept that prolonged use of hoods on detainees can itself constitute degrading treatment? Putting a hessian sack on someone's head is often the first step in the process of dehumanising a victim. Is he aware that following the publication of the Parker report on allegations of torture in Northern Ireland, the then Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath, gave a solemn undertaking in the House that the British Army would never again use hoods as part of its interrogation purposes, which was enacted through a directive issued to the British Army by the Attorney-General? When did the policy change, and why was the House not informed?
Mr. Hoon: The policy did not change, and it was stopped.
Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the difficulty in the American sector is not only the lack of training and lack of knowledge of the Geneva convention, but the apparent use of private security consultants, who appear to have egged on some of the abuses that have gone on in the American sector, and who are outside military discipline and military accountability? Will he assure the House that no such use is being made in British sectors of such personnel?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which I know is the subject of the US investigation. I give her the assurance for which she is looking.
Mrs. Angela Browning: In view of the fact that the report has been so widely leaked, will the Secretary of State publish the ICRC document and put it in the Library, so that we can all read it?
Mr. Hoon: As I set out in my statement, and as Conservative Front-Bench Members should be aware, one or two of them having previously been Ministers, the ICRC is an independent body. The ICRC made it clear this weekend that it regrets the publication of its report. In the course of my statement, I said that I am certainly willing, in the light of what has been published, to write to the ICRC and say that the Government have no objection whatever to the further publication of the report dealing specifically with the United Kingdom. Ultimately, it is a matter for the Red Cross, since it is its report, and it asserts confidentiality. Both the former Ministers on the Opposition Front Bench—the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), and especially the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who had responsibility for events in Northern Ireland, where the Red Cross has from time to time intervened—who are waving reports that have been leaked as if a leaked report having been published proves anything, really ought to grow up.
David Winnick: Much more needs to be done about investigating the serious allegations against British military personnel. No distinction is made in the Arab world between the
36
United States and us where the Iraqis are concerned. When we see these sickening and degrading photographs of all the abuses that have been perpetrated, how is it possible to believe that such practices took place without the knowledge of senior people, right up to the United States Defence Secretary? How can we take his apologies of last week seriously when he clings so pathetically to office? If those apologies carry any credibility he should go, and go quickly.
Mr. Hoon: I hear my hon. Friend's words. I have made it clear that the United Kingdom will consistently conduct proper investigations whenever allegations of this kind are made.
Mr. Edward Leigh: The Government were warned repeatedly before the war that invading a Muslim country would make terrorism worse, not better, and that the country was virtually ungovernable. The Secretary of State mentioned the wider security position. Can he tell us any more about his strategy? Are more troops to be sent? Are existing troop numbers adequate? What is the Government's eventual strategy for extricating us from this morass—or are they just hoping for the best while our troops are put in more and more danger?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the wider security position, which is what I tried to do at the beginning of my statement. It is important for the House to understand the complexity and difficulty, from time to time, of the security position. That is why we keep the question of sending more troops under constant review There have been occasions on which we have sent more troops to deal with specific problems, as and when the commanders on the ground judge it to be necessary. Obviously we will respond accordingly if that happens, but no decisions have yet been made to that effect.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does the Secretary of State not understand that we are part of a collective enterprise—that he and the Prime Minister have taken credit in the past for what the United States has done, and that now we must take responsibility for what it has done as well? In doing that, will he answer the question put earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)? What representations, in detail, have been made to the Americans about the sickening and proved allegations that have been made in recent weeks?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. and learned Gentleman may suggest that we have taken credit. I do not recall his giving us any credit. While I accept that we are part of a coalition, we have direct responsibility, as should be the case, for the conduct of our troops. That is why I have expressed so clearly and emphatically our determination to ensure that the highest standards of British troops down the ages will be maintained in this Iraq operation.
Mr. Robert Key: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, regularly and as a matter of routine, every British serviceman and woman of

37
whatever rank is taught not only about the rules of engagement but about the provisions of the Geneva convention?
Mr. Hoon: That is absolutely right, and it is central to training. As I said earlier, however, if training turns out to be insufficient in the light of the increasing complexity of modern international law, we shall certainly look at that again.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Does the training include a proper reporting mechanism for our troops and for civilians? Does my right hon. Friend agree that persons reporting on matters in the public domain need to use very temperate language in the interests of our serving troops? As he knows, the Cheshire Regiment is in Iraq at the moment.
Can my right hon. Friend throw any light on the use of black-and-white photographs by the Daily Mirror? It was an unusual choice of medium.
Mr. Hoon: As I have said, further investigations of the Daily Mirror photographs are continuing. As I have also said, it does not appear that the truck used in the photographs was in Iraq during the relevant period. Obviously, the investigations would include investigations of the photography and, indeed, the use of black-and-white photography. That may have surprised my hon. Friend; it certainly surprised me.
As for my hon. Friend's first question, it is important to have an appropriate reporting mechanism in which people can have confidence. I apologise for repeating this so often, but it is vital for us to have an effective investigatory system.
Mr. Paul Marsden: On the eve of war last year, the Prime Minister promised that a war would bring about an end to

"The brutality of the repression—the death and torture camps, the barbaric prisons for political opponents, the routine beatings for anyone or their families suspected of disloyalty".—[Official Report, 18 March 2003; Vol. 401, c. 772.]

When does the Secretary of State expect such brutality to end under the coalition's jurisdiction, and is not it time that we understood that such brutality is giving succour and encouragement to would-be terrorists around the globe?
Mr. Hoon: I resisted earlier the suggestion that, because Saddam Hussein treated his people appallingly, that was an excuse for anyone acting on behalf of coalition forces to behave in a similar manner, but I invite the hon. Gentleman to think carefully—perhaps he will look at what he has just said in tomorrow's Hansard—and ask whether he is comparing the activities of British troops with those of Saddam Hussein. I am sure that, when he looks at his words, he will regret having said them.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: The Secretary of State did not answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Cook) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Marshall-Andrews), so may I put the question to him again? We are in a coalition. We know that part of that coalition
38
has been torturing, humiliating and killing prisoners in custody. That not only corrupts them; it corrupts us in the eyes of the world. Is not it time to go back to the United Nations, to get a credible force in there to help to secure the country, and to pull our troops out immediately?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend will be aware that the United Kingdom is determined to see a further United Nations Security Council resolution and that we are already in discussions with other members of the Security Council and of the United Nations to determine a resolution that will provide further legal authority for our forces in Iraq.
Mr. Edward Gamier: My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) asked the Minister of State for the armed forces a direct question on 4 May: had he received any external or other reports? The Minister of State responded without equivocation, "I have not". It is at column 1216 of Hansard—it is being shown to him now. That was, in the light of what we have heard today, a confusing answer. What was the time lag between external reports arriving in the Ministry of Defence and landing on Ministers' desks, and what was the time lag between the reports leaving Ministers' desks and going to the Army legal service, the Crown Prosecution Service or the Attorney-General? We need the answers.
Mr. Hoon: The hon. and learned Gentleman is far too expert in matters of law to need me to suggest to him that there are no specific dates for the time scale between each of those separate events that he has described. It is entirely a matter for those investigating a case how long the investigation should be before the case is put before the authority deciding on prosecution. It is then for the prosecution authority to decide how long it should take and indeed whether it requires any further investigation or evidence to determine whether charges should be brought. I did indicate in my statement that, in two cases in particular, we are close to that point.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Can we seek the agreement of our coalition partners that, as far as possible, all Iraqi deaths, whether in custody or not, should be registered, recorded, counted and where appropriate investigated?
Mr. Hoon: I would like to be able to agree with my hon. Friend; it would certainly make my life easier in answering questions of that kind. In the course of military operations, it is extraordinarily difficult to identify casualtie—swhether an individual has been seriously wounded, lightly wounded or killed. Unfortunately, that information is simply not always available. Clearly, where it is available, we try to record it, but there is a risk in recording it of under-recording the number of casualties.
Mr. John Redwood: Did Ministers at any point discuss the conduct of our guards of prisoners and the way in which intelligence was extracted from Iraqis? Did they ever send out any instructions about how they wished those things to be

39
conducted? Would it not have been better if Ministers had read the ICRC report and responded to the general allegations in it as well as the specific ones?
Mr. Hoon: Ministers did respond to the general allegations—one of which, as I said in my statement, concerned the practice of hooding, which by then had been stopped. It was not specifically related to the United Kingdom, but was taken as a reference to a previous practice that had been ended. Ministers and officials responded to the criticisms in the interim report, as they should have.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We now come to the main business.

Points of Order
4.30 pm
Dr. Andrew Murrison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister of State to mislead the House? In his statement last Tuesday, he said that he had received no reports from international organisations. That has been partly clarified but not fully. May I quote from a letter that I have just received—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to extend the questioning of the Secretary of State. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not."] I say that he is, and that is the important thing. He had an opportunity to question the Secretary of State; others did not. I ask him to refrain from extending his question through a point of order. I also point out to the House that there is a 10-minute limit on Back Benchers for the business that we are about to take. It is unfair to take any time out of that debate.
Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw your attention to the conventions of the House. I am aware of at least a couple of Members who stood up during questions on the Minister's statement last week but were not called and who stood up again today and were not called. Generally, it is a convention that that is taken note of and that those Members are given an opportunity to speak on future occasions.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is usually down to my fairness, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be called next time. He will be remembered; I will not forget him.
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is obviously important that our proceedings be held in public and that commentators and others outside should be aware of what is happening. I understand that there is a document in which the Minister of State explains why he made his remarks to the House last week when reports had been received. Is it possible to find a way in which this document can appear in Hansard?
Mr. Speaker: I do not have powers to do so. It is up to the Minister, who will have heard what the shadow Leader of the House has had to say.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could help the House. I have submitted a letter to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison), who raised the question last week, and I passed a copy to the main spokesmen of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties We tried to contact the hon. Gentleman by telephone today to tell him that the letter was coming; we could not do so. We faxed it to him and I personally put the letter on the board when I came to the House to try to make sure that he had it in advance of today's statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Put it on the record."] I am coming to that point. It has also been placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Heald:Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the great problems with documents placed in the Library is that they are not on the record. That is one of the practices in this place that has arisen on occasion. There used to be 200 "will writes"; there are now 2,000. Should not this important letter be on the record in Hansard?
Mr. Speaker:Order. Documents placed in the Library—[Interruption.] Perhaps I can answer without any interruption from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). Such documents are public records when they are put in the Library. Hon. Members can therefore use them in debate or in any other discussion.
Mr. Peter Luff:On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not always a fan of modernisation but perhaps it would be in order if you reminded the Minister of State of the existence of written ministerial statements.
Mr. Speaker:Order. It is not for me to remind the Secretary of State. It is for me to get on with the main business.

Orders of the Day

  Energy Bill [Lords]
  [Relevant documents: Ninth Report from the Transport Committee, Session 2003–04, on Navigational Hazards and the Energy Bill (HC 555); Evidence taken before the Transport Committee on 28th April and appendices thereto, relating to Navigational Hazards (uncorrected typescripts are available in the Vote Office).]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.34 pm
  Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt):I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill is an important step towards fulfilling the Government's commitment to a sustainable energy policy, which we set out last year in the energy White Paper and which is designed to deal with three major challenges facing our nation. The first is the challenge of climate change, the second is the shift from being a net exporter of energy to becoming a net importer, and the third is the need to modernise our energy infrastructure to cope with changing technologies and needs. The Bill implements proposals on renewable energy and on competition in the energy market that we made in the White Paper. It also gives effect to the commitments on managing nuclear energy that we made in the 2002 White Paper.
  Important though it is, this legislation is not the whole picture. Since the energy White Paper was published, we have been active on many fronts, set out fully in our first annual report two weeks ago. For example, we have agreed principles for a new framework treaty with Norway for a new gas pipeline capable of delivering 20 per cent. of our annual gas supplies by 2006–07. We have submitted our draft national allocation plan for the European emissions trading system to the European Commission. We have put in place stringent new social and environmental guidelines to help Ofgem—the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—to regulate markets, while making a sustainable energy supply more achievable.
  We have already given consent to, or have under consideration, applications for some 4.6 GW of new renewable capacity. Together with the existing capacity, that amounts to more than 60 per cent. of what is needed to achieve our 2010 target. The round 2 offshore proposals will add substantially to that figure. We have also lifted more than 750,000 vulnerable households out of fuel poverty through the Warm Front programme.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes:Does my right hon. Friend believe that taking this country into being a net importer of energy complies with part 1, clause 1, which states:

  "The Secretary of State shall have a duty to ensure the integrity and security of electricity and gas supply"?

  That seems a little strange to me.
  Ms Hewitt:My hon. Friend raises an important point, and I shall come in a moment to clause 1 as currently drafted. However, as he knows, because we have discussed it on other occasions, although the United

  43
  Kingdom has been in the fortunate position for some decades now of being a net energy exporter, most developed countries are not energy exporters, and that in no way damages their capacity for economic growth.
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard:Further to the previous intervention, when the Secretary of State comes to give that explanation to her hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), will she also explain what she means by saying in part 1 of the Bill that the Government should be required

  "to develop effectively sources of energy enabling the UK to avoid undue reliance on imports"?

  That chimes with what the hon. Gentleman said, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to expand on both those statements in part 1.
  Ms Hewitt:I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that intervention, and I shall return to that point in a moment.
  Before I do that, may I underline the fact that the Bill has already benefited from extensive scrutiny? The part of the Bill that creates the single wholesale electricity market for Britain, the BETTA—British electricity trading and transmission arrangements—system, was published for pre-legislative scrutiny in January last year. The draft Nuclear Sites and Radioactive Substances Bill, which contained provisions on the nuclear decommissioning authority, was published for pre-legislative scrutiny last June. I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members on the Trade and Industry Committee for their reports, which have been of great assistance in the preparation of this legislation.
  The Bill has also benefited from full and thorough debate in another place. Indeed, there have been 75 hours of debate on it already, and some valuable changes have been made as a result. For example, we have clarified the scope of and extended the time limit for appeals in part 4.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody:Before my right hon. Friend leaves the point about the amendments made in those 75 hours, can she assure me that her Department's position now is that it does not intend to make changes to clauses 100 and 101?
  Ms Hewitt:I shall come to that point in a moment. I shall deal with the amendments made in another place as I deal with each of the issues in the Bill.
  The Bill has three main themes—competitive markets that will deliver for consumers, renewable energy and nuclear clean-up—and I shall deal with each in turn.
  Norman Baker:The Secretary of State did not mention energy efficiency, which as she knows can play a major part in tackling climate change. Why is energy efficiency not a central part of the Bill, and why was the Government's target sunk last week?
  Ms Hewitt:Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I are acting to ensure that we achieve the substantial
  44
  improvements in energy efficiency that are necessary, and which we set out in the energy White Paper. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, in his review of building regulations, is considering what more needs to be done to raise standards of energy efficiency in homes and offices.
  The first central issue in the Bill is competitive markets, and how they will deliver for consumers. Security of supply is a major concern for domestic consumers, for business and for Government. The current law places obligations relating to security of supply on me, as Secretary of State, and on Ofgem as the independent regulator. As hon. Members would expect, those duties are taken extremely seriously.
  I believe that the existing regulatory framework is best placed to deliver security of supply—a properly functioning market framework rather than command and control, or intervention by the Government.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt:While the right hon. Lady is making clear the value of the competitive market, will she also tell us that that competitive market has lifted far more people out of fuel poverty than her Warm Front initiative?
  Ms Hewitt:The significant fall in electricity prices resulting from our reforms of the previously rigged market have indeed helped many low-income households out of fuel poverty, as have the substantial improvements in low-income families' incomes resulting directly from benefit improvements and the tax credits introduced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All that is in addition to the Warm Front programme.
  Let us consider what happened last winter. The House will remember that at the beginning of the winter, just before Christmas and subsequently, we continually heard from various prophets of doom that there would be a winter of black-outs.[Interruption.] No, we did not hear that from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), but we heard it from many people who were extensively quoted in the press.
  What actually happened was that early in the winter, National Grid Transco signalled its prediction of the plant margin that might be available. The result of that clear information was that generators brought mothballed plant back, in response both to the NGT signals and to rising prices. Capacity increased, the lights stayed on and the scaremongers were proved wrong.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill:My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on getting the mothballed plant into place, but the only problem—or perhaps I should say the advantage—was that it was never tested, because last winter was a good winter. It cost money for the companies to hold that hitherto mothballed plant in readiness for dramatic drops in temperature. How can we encourage them to do the same next winter? I hope that, again, it will not be cold, but the companies will still have the expense of keeping the kit ready for immediate switch-on.
  Ms Hewitt:My hon. Friend makes an important point. As that mothballed plant, which had been

  45
  withdrawn in response to low prices, was brought back on stream, the margin was about the same as it had been in previous winters. That was the market operating properly.
  I am concerned that as drafted, clause 1, which was introduced in another place, undermines the principle of properly working markets and independent regulation. We are therefore working with the energy industry to determine the best way forward. Members may have noticed a letter of 26 April to the Financial Times from the chief executive of Centrica and the managing director of British Gas. They said that what is certain is that if the Government change the rules now, regulatory risk would increase and potential investors in new capacity, including British Gas, would reconsider.
  Ms Joan Walley:Irrespective of the changes and the discussions that my right hon. Friend is having on clause 1, can she assure the House that she will speak to the Association for the Conservation of Energy, which is obviously very concerned about this issue?
  Ms Hewitt:If ACE has not already been part of those discussions, I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance.
  Part 4 of the Bill contains a number of provisions to promote competition in the energy market. Chapter 1 establishes a single wholesale electricity market for Great Britain—British electricity trading and transmission arrangements, or BETTA—which will provide access to a larger market for all generators. That is especially important to those in Scotland, where capacity already outstrips demand by 70 per cent., and where many of the new renewable generation projects are being built. But the new system will also help consumers: we estimate that Scottish customers' electricity bills should fall by some £13 a year on average.
  Chapter 2 implements European electricity and gas legislationߞ
  Paddy Tipping:Prices have fallen in real terms for many years, but the renewables obligation, the need to rewire Britain, emissions trading and energy efficiency will all add to costs. Is it not true that the days of relatively cheap power have gone, and that we need to think through the social, economic and political cost of increasing prices?
  Ms Hewitt:As my hon. Friend says, energy prices have fallen very significantly; in most cases, they are at a 20 or even 30-year low. We have to ensure that a market framework is in place—the White Paper made this case in some detail— that gives proper signals about the cost of environmental pollution, which is why we are so committed to the principle of the European emissions trading scheme. We also have to ensure much more investment in, and emphasis on, energy efficiency, which we all accept is by far the cheapest and most effective way of achieving our environmental, fuel poverty and security of supply objectives.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell:Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Hewitt:I shall give way one more time on this point and then I will make some progress.
  Mr. Stunell:I am very encouraged to hear the Secretary of State's comments on energy efficiency, but can she explain, therefore, why the energy efficiency targets published last week reduced the original figures, rather than maintaining or increasing them?
  Ms Hewitt:I have already dealt with our determination to ensure that we make progress on energy efficiency, in response to an intervention from the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker).
  Chapter 2 implements European electricity and gas legislation and, crucially, ensures fair access for third parties by extending the current licensing regimes to the electricity and gas interconnectors that will become increasingly important as we diversify and become dependent on imported gas supplies. Chapter 3 provides for an energy administration regime to be available in the event of the actual or threatened insolvency of a protected energy company.
  Chapter 4 provides for a mechanism for appeals to the Competition Commission against decisions of the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority—a key outcome of our consultation with industry. That will deliver greater accountability without unduly increasing regulatory uncertainty or delay. But the mechanism is tightly constrained to prevent trivial and vexatious appeals, involving a tightly defined process to ensure a swift outcome. The remaining clauses in chapter 4 and part 5 cover a number of smaller market-related items.
  I return to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) made about clauses 100 and 101, which deal with shipping. We do indeed intend to retain the substance of those clauses. We are considering whether they need to be amended to make them work in practice, and we shall of course reflect on the Transport Committee's recommendations.
  The second main area of the Bill deals with renewable energy. Every developed country is turning to renewable energy technology to deal with the increasingly urgent problem of climate change. Renewable energy undoubtedly offers huge business opportunities, as well as being a way of addressing an urgent environmental imperative.
  Mr. Michael Jack:I was personally delighted to discover the terms of clause 128 on renewable transport fuel obligation, because the clause reflects exactly the line that I put to the House a year ago when I spoke about the development of a biofuels industry. Does the Secretary of State have any intention of exercising the powers in the clause, according to which, she

  "may, by regulations, introduce a renewable transport fuel obligation."?

  Is it her intention so to do?
  Ms Hewitt:In association with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and her colleagues, we are looking into that matter. The right hon. Gentleman made an important point last year, and we certainly believe that there is the possibility of that power being extremely valuable in future. We are looking further into the detail at present.

  47
  I stress that, although we are making progress on renewable energy, we start from a very low base, particularly by comparison with some of our European colleagues. In 2002, less than 2 per cent. of the UK's electricity, was generated from renewable sources, so hitting the target of 10 per cent. by 2010 will require about 10 GW of renewables regeneration capacity.
  Dr. Desmond Turner:There has been intense debate about the performance and innovation unit report and the White Paper. The expectation in many quarters was that the legislation arising from that would make considerable advances in the deployment of renewable energy. I have to say that, per se, this Bill contains little that will contribute to the more rapid deployment of renewable energy. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether the Bill represents the last word on Government policy, or can we look forward to a further Bill that will actually drive renewable energy?
  Ms Hewitt:As I explained earlier, the Bill is not all that we are doing in respect of renewables or other aspects of the White Paper. The renewables obligation itself will build up by 2010 to be worth support of £1 billion a year. We have also extended the obligation to 15.4 per cent. by March 2016, so that investors can have no doubt at all about our commitment to renewable energy in the longer term. Indeed, we now have the first large-scale offshore wind farm at North Hoyle, which is already generating electricity. By the time it is fully operational, it will be capable of powering 50,000 households. Scroby Sands is under construction and consents have been given to a further 12 projects around the coast.
  The effect of clause 120, however—it was also inserted by the other place—will be to take combined heat and power out of the renewables obligation base. That will mean either less renewable energy or, if compensating measures were in place to keep the obligation level, additional costs to electricity consumers of some £90 million a year by 2010. We continue to look for practical ways to support combined heat and power, which is facing particularly difficult times with high gas prices and low electricity prices, but we should not do so at the expense of renewable energy. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services will therefore seek to reverse that provision later in the Bill's passage.
  Brian White:My right hon. Friend will be aware that many renewables companies, such as Powergen and British Sugar, have said that support for the combined heat and power industry is necessary. They believe that use of the renewables obligation is the right way forward because the state of the industry requires such a step forward. Will my right hon. Friend take into account the views of those major renewables companies that are pressing for the clause to remain?
  Ms Hewitt:We have worked extremely closely with the CHP industry but we do not want to support CHP at the expense of the renewable electricity sector or the renewables obligation itself.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan rose—
  Mr. Bob Blizzard rose—
  Ms Hewitt:If hon. Members will forgive me, I intend to make a little more progress.
  Part 3 creates the right legal framework to support future renewable energy developments further offshore, beyond the UK's territorial waters. It will pave the way for developments that could harness wave and tidal power, as well as wind, and it makes provision for new transmission networks to connect groups of developments to the shore. Part 3 will also allow us to move to a UK-wide system of tradable certificates for renewables electricity, once certificates can be issued in Northern Ireland and once Northern Ireland has implemented a corresponding system of mutual recognition.
  The Bill provides for new arrangements for nuclear clean-up. The nuclear industry makes a significant contribution to our economy, but the liabilities of waste and decommissioned plants that date right back to the 1940s add up to some £48 billion, and they will need proper management well into the next century. Our White Paper in 2002 spelled out how we would manage that nuclear legacy safely, securely and cost-effectively in a way that ensures protection of the environment. Chapters 1 and 2 of part 2 implement that commitment.
  Sir Robert Smith:As the Secretary of State said, nuclear clean-up is a long-term commitment. The Government have insisted on a segregated account for that, rather than putting the money into a separate fund. Why do the Government feel they need a segregated account to allow flexibility when that will undermine confidence in future generations that the money will definitely be there? A segregated account will make it easy for future Chancellors to decide not to allocate money.
  Ms Hewitt:The arrangements that we are making will make it quite clear, and transparently so, that the resources being dedicated to managing the nuclear legacy are used for that purpose.
  The Bill will establish a non-departmental public body, the nuclear decommissioning authority, to manage those liabilities better, and that will be operational by April 2005, subject to the Bill's safe passage. The NDA will have further strategic control over all public sector civil nuclear liabilities. It will operate clearly and transparently, and by fostering competition for the management of sites, it will ensure that the best skills and expertise deliver the highest standards of clean-up most efficiently.
  Chapter 3 modernises the existing policing arrangements for the nuclear industry, transferring the current UK Atomic Energy Agency constabulary to a newly created civil nuclear police authority, which will have responsibility for it. Chapters 4 and 5 include more minor updates and amendments to nuclear legislation, dealing with our international obligations in the event of a nuclear accident, and security of equipment and software relating to uranium enrichment and sensitive nuclear information.
  Mr. David Drew:In order to meet our international obligations, we have to maintain the basic integrity of our nuclear industry. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Bill underlines the need to train and upskill the existing work force and to get younger people into the industry? If it does not, with the best will in the world, it will never fulfil its potential.
  Ms Hewitt:My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which we underlined in the White Paper. Since we published the White Paper and made our commitment to working with the nuclear industry to sustain and grow the skills it needs, we have established a sector skills council, Cogent, which is moving forward on that matter. Quite apart from any issue about new nuclear build, the nuclear decommissioning and waste management operation will offer extremely interesting, well paid and highly skilled jobs for a very long time to come. The industry therefore offers wonderful career opportunities for young engineers and technicians.
  Mr. Michael Weir:Before the Secretary of State moves on from chapter 5, will she tell us something about the thinking behind clause 82 and the extra expenditures allowed by the Government to buy out nuclear power stations that may have been sold on to third parties?
  Ms Hewitt:I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services will deal with that point when he winds up.
  I stress that we all appreciate the world-class scientific, professional and engineering skills of the people who work in our nuclear industry. I can also confirm to the House that the chosen location for the NDA is west Cumbria. I hope that there, and in the other places where the NDA will have responsibility for sites, we will develop even stronger clusters of nuclear business and talent. We will also give the NDA a statutory function to encourage and support the socioeconomic life of local communities and to work in partnership with people in those communities. It will have a key part, therefore, to play in the strategic taskforce for west Cumbria that is led by the Northwest Development Agency and which we announced in December last year.
  Dr Jack Cunningham:My right hon. Friend has been generous in allowing interventions. As she is talking specifically about my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham), it is appropriate to say that we applaud and appreciate her decision to locate the headquarters of the NDA in west Cumbria and to set up a strategic taskforce to provide some joined-up thinking across Whitehall on the future of west Cumbria. However, there is a sting in the tail. To our great pleasure and the satisfaction of local authorities and the work force in the industry, the Secretary of State took that initiative in November last year, but the taskforce has not yet met. Can she tell us why?
  Ms Hewitt:I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the work that he did in bringing together some of the key partners in Cumbria to visit me, so that we could discuss
  50
  exactly what was needed. My understanding is that the Northwest Development Agency is already in discussions with the local councils in Cumbria and that we are awaiting proposals from them. If it is not making satisfactory progress, I will make inquiries and ensure that progress is made because, like my right hon. Friend, I understand its importance to his constituents and the community.
  I stress that the energy industries contribute 4 per cent. directly to the gross domestic product of this country and they power all the rest of our economy. There is no issue that is more fundamental to our economy, to the quality of our lives and to sustainable development and our environmental future. In the White Paper, we set out a 50-year vision of sustainable energy and how that could contribute to the shift to a low-carbon economy. It was a 50-year vision, but action started immediately. The Bill will move us even closer to the cleaner, secure and affordable energy that our people and our businesses all depend on. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.3pm
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien:This is a Bill of modest ambitions in the context of even the White Paper, especially when measured against the burgeoning resources of the Department responsible for drafting it and, even more importantly, against the context of our country's medium to long-term security of energy supplies—an issue from which the Secretary of State and her Department continue to shy away.
  The Bill, which started its passage in the other place, contains some positive provisions, not least because it was improved enormously by some constructive amendments from my colleagues in the other place and some from Liberal Democrats and Cross Benchers. I pay tribute to their success and I am sure that the House will recognise the great and, in some cases, incomparable experience that some noble Lords bring to such matters.
  It is invidious to single out one contribution, given the first-class team, ranging across shadow departmental briefs, that the official Opposition put together to work on the Bill, but the House will wish to join me in thanking warmly Baroness Miller of Hendon for her steadfast, indefatigable and insightful leadership and outstanding work on the Bill in the other place. We shall not, therefore, seek to oppose the Bill, but we will want to continue the excellent work commenced by our colleagues to improve it in Committee and beyond.
  A Government spokesman in the other place said that the Bill

  "provides … solutions to a number of legislative problems related to parts of our energy strategy." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 834.]

  With a few qualifications, I do not dissent from that view, other than its pretence that the Government's policies amount to an energy strategy taken—to use a Blairism—in their totality. My main concern is that the Bill represents a missed opportunity, which we may all shortly come to regret, to set out a coherent and realistic strategy to ensure secure, safe, sustainable and affordable low-carbon energy supplies to UK domestic and business customers in the medium to long term. That is particularly regrettable since, when all is said and

  51
  done, it is hard to conceive of a more basic responsibility for any Government than to create the framework and enable conditions whereby the market ensures that the nation's lights stay on.
  It is not the presence of the Bill that I object to, but the absence of a different energy Bill that addresses the big and pressing problems at a time when a nexus of factors combine to make the matter an acute national consideration. The reasons for that are familiar, but I shall summarise them again. To put it bluntly, there is a looming black hole in the nation's energy mix. Taking breakdowns into account, normal operative standby energy capacity is more like 16 per cent. than the 21 to 23 per cent. habitually claimed. That scenario has prompted Professor Dieter Helm of Oxford university to remark:

  "We are very close to the margins, when this is something we should really be very risk averse about…The costs to everybody of any failure are so enormous. If there's a catastrophic failure in the shoe industry, nobody suffers very much. If electricity goes wrong, everybody is in big trouble."

  Meanwhile, we are committed to reducing our carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050. We are becoming increasingly reliant on gas supplies, just as we are set to become net importers of gas for the first time—primarily through pipelines, as well as by shipments of liquefied natural gas—at a period when global terrorism and geopolitical instability show little sign of receding. Nuclear power's share of electricity generating capacity is in steep decline. It is expected to fall from 21 per cent. today to just 2 per cent. in 2023—just under 20 years. In addition, in the absence of so-called clean coal technology, coal-derived energy remains in decline and we shall also see an imminent decline in domestic oil supplies from the North sea. The latter has less to do with energy production and more to do with powering transportation and commercial and domestic heating.
  There is an enormous weight of expectation about the planned major expansion of renewable energy and energy efficiency. That is, of course, to be relentlessly encouraged, but the expectation, created by the Government, is that that will fill the looming gap in our energy supply. However, the Government have just had to revise downwards both their energy efficiency and carbon emissions targets. They are expected to miss their combined heat and power target for 2010 by about 20 per cent. Likewise, experts do not expect the Government to come close to meeting their ambitious target of 10 per cent. of power being generated by renewables by 2010, even when the loosest definition of "renewables" shows that we have remained stubbornly between 2 and 3 per cent. since 1997.
  We should keep a beady eye on the Government's definition of renewables. Changing the definitions is the surest way to avoid admitting a series of missed Government targets. It does not take a genius to see that if nuclear power were replaced by renewables, no carbon emissions reduction would be achieved by such a mere substitution. Only 11 days ago, the Department of Trade and Industry told the Financial Times:

  "Plainly, our policies on energy efficiency, emissions trading, renewable sources, transport and others will need to deliver more in future."

  52
  Energy policy cannot simply rely on the hope that the Government's policy will miraculously start to deliver more at some unspecified date in the future. It is too important to be determined by the aspirational target setting in which the Government specialise.
  That is why I am delighted that Conservative peers tabled an amendment that will require the Government to make specific progress reports on the development of new energy sources. I am also pleased that they succeeded in securing a separate amendment to clause 106, which strengthens the Government's insubstantial policy on energy efficiency by allowing energy produced by CHP to be exempted from the renewables obligation. As we have seen, without such incentive the Government are currently on course to fall well short of their targets. I was disappointed to hear that the Secretary of State wants to amend that. The £90 million that she claims as a fiscal cost has to be seen in the context of the fact that offshore wind turbines currently receive a subsidy of £117 million. So this is a matter of choices, rather than absolutes.
  We welcome the use of biofuels. The use of biodiesel and bioethanol can result in the reduction of carbon emissions. I have a very fine example in my constituency—e-diesel, produced by Stephen Whittaker. We welcome the fact that the Treasury is currently consulting on the fiscal regime. The Government must report their plans to the EU by July 2004, and we await the report with interest. The development of biofuels is expected to produce long-term benefits for the environment and can certainly bring economic gains for agriculture.
  Mr. Jack:Does my hon. Friend think, however, that there is a need for greater clarity of leadership on biofuels, given that the Treasury currently sets the fiscal regime, that the Department for Transport is dealing with the consultation paper on the introduction of biofuels in transport, that the Department of Trade and Industry deals with matters connected with biofuels and energy and that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs deals with the agriculture side of the issue?
  Mr. O'Brien:I am glad that my right hon. Friend has demonstrated how one can be joined up in opposition, even when that is not apparent in the Government. I very much hope, therefore, that the Government will consider his joined-up approach and deliver a package that can give him the. confidence to report positively to his constituents and the interests that he represents on an important initiative in biofuels.
  Mr. O'Neill:Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are some dangers in going overboard in this respect? Only a limited amount of timber is available, and a number of timber processing plants across the country, such as the one in my constituency, convert wood into timber for the construction industry. If there were an undue demand for such wood, it could affect the availability of timber for house building and the like, thus producing the opposite effect in terms of doing the business.
  Mr. O'Brien:I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry for raising that

  53
  point, because it must be recognised that we are talking not just about timber but about rape seed and other matters. We must consider encouraging a package of contributions to renewables, rather than banking on any particular approach, because it will be enough of a struggle to meet not just the Government's renewables targets but any substantial, worthwhile renewables targets in the overall energy mix. We must be extraordinarily careful and not simply talk about timber, as that would be a distortion.
  Mr. Richard Page rose—
  Mrs. Dunwoody rose—
  Mr. O'Brien:I give way first to my hon. Friend, and then to the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Page:After you.
  Mrs. Dunwoody:I am doubly honoured that both hon. Gentlemen have given way.
  May I put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest? Recently, while questioning a member of a very powerful environmental lobby group, we were informed that we should insist that people take only six flights a year, and that if they insist on taking more they should plant a tree every time they do so. On that basis, judging by the number of flights taken by the environmental groups, the United Kingdom would soon be reforested.
  Mr. O'Brien:I most grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. We work closely on a non-party basis as, I hope, friendly neighbours in our constituencies, and I now look forward to the border between our constituencies being marked by some impenetrable forests, although I do not think that either of us would welcome an airport at Nantwich.
  Mr. Page:My intervention will not be as amusing as the hon. Lady's, but perhaps a little more serious. May I ask my hon. Friend not to press so quickly for a biofuels obligation? We do not have the production plants in this country to convert and produce the necessary biofuels. In that respect, the only thing that we do effectively is to process used fish and chip oil, whereas the Government should be developing plants to use timber and other products as biofuels. Let us get the production plants first, and then have the obligation.
  Mr. O'Brien:My hon. Friend raises a very important issue, which will be fully explored in Committee, as hon. Members on both sides of the House find it interesting. On the pace of introduction, which is dealt with in clause 128, the expectation is that such things should be phased in. That should give him some assurance and comfort, but the principal issue is to consider the vast variety and mix, even of the initial raw materials.
  My constituent, Stephen Whittaker, has taken redundant vegetable fats from cooking oils and produced the extraordinarily successful product of e-diesel, which I am glad to say is now being used by the lorry fleet of one of the large supermarket chains.
  54
  In addition to all the great environmental benefits, it has the attractive smell of almonds when it emerges from the exhaust.
  Mrs. Shephard:I hope the House will not be misled into thinking that the only sources of biofuel production are used fish and chip cooking oil and timber: rape, sugar beet and cereals can also be used. Is not the only reason that we do not have any plants the fact that we do not have a Government policy, let alone Government action, despite their oft-repeated statements in support of their environmental commitments?
  Mr. O'Brien:I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I know that she has taken a long and distinguished approach to this subject on behalf of her constituents. She underlines the point about the multifarious sources that can lead to a successful biofuels policy. Signals from the Government are required and I hope that she will have the opportunity to develop that point if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I shall now move from biofuels to the wider issue at stake, which goes to the heart of everything that is or is not in the Bill—the responsibility of Government to provide strategic leadership and to make the hard choices that inevitably lie ahead. Indeed, I am reminded of the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who observed in The Guardian recently:

  "The Britain that will fail is the Britain that would duck the hard choices."

  I suggest, in a similar fashion, that the Government who would duck the hard choices are the Government who will fail, let people down and let the lights go out.
  That is why my colleagues in the other place inserted the security and supply amendment that formalises in statute a fact that is already implicit and well understood, not least by politicians, the energy industry and the wider public and the electorate. If, beyond a catastrophic act of God or a few hours of temporary or partial geographic failure, the lights go out, the fact cannot be ducked that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services would have to resign. The Government of the day would have to take the urgent steps to enable the lights to be put back on again by the market. That is why it is plain wrong to suggest that the amendment is in any sense radical or that it represents a material shift in the role of the state in a competitive and liberalised energy market. It is categorically not an invitation to renationalisation.
  The Secretary of State surely recognises that she has duty to

  "maintain the reliability of our energy supplies",

  not least because that is the phrase used in the White Paper that she signed off last year. Furthermore, the logic of the amendment is no different from that of clause 153, which records the commitment that Ofgem has already made to being guided by best regulatory practice. No one is suggesting that that this confers greater regulatory powers on Ofgem; it just acknowledges those that already exist.
  It would be wrong to suggest that the amended clause is a prelude to interventionism. In codifying the de facto position today, it delineates the Government's duty and

  55
  places on them the responsibility to create the framework that enables the conditions whereby the market can deliver security of supply.
  Paddy Tipping:Does the hon. Gentleman accept that clause I now gives the Secretary of State the duty to intervene? Does he also accept that it is the market that will produce the energy? Is there not a danger that, by giving the Secretary of State the power to intervene, long-term investment from the private sector will be turned away?
  Mr. O'Brien:I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. As I have just explained, the amendment codifies the current de facto position, not least in respect of the Norwegian gas pipeline. It takes Governments, by treaty, to negotiate the framework and conditions that enable the market to deliver the security of energy supplies. That is precisely what the amendment sought to do and, it can be argued, has achieved. I have made it crystal clear that the intention is not to be interventionist in the way that the hon. Gentleman implied. I do not think that the amendment can be interpreted in that way.
  With that clear statement, the Government's stubborn opposition to the security of supply amendment tabled in another place is a surprise and reflects their failure to apply themselves to the creation of a sustainable and long-term framework in which markets can deliver energy supplies. Since then, we have had the undignified and somewhat stealthy approach by the DTI, which has apparently urged, behind cupped hands, certain members of the industry to contact us on its behalf to drop the amendment. As it happens, my team and I heard not a word before the debate from the Secretary of State or her Ministers. There has been no attempt to forge a sensible dialogue in the national interest. Why? Perhaps the Government are afraid of tabling an amendment so that they cannot be held responsibility for delaying the Bill, which needs to be on the statute book to create the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements and the nuclear decommissioning agency by the summer. It is clear that amending the security of supply may engage the hostility of their lordships—there is certainly a good argument to be had—and risk delaying the Bill. The Secretary of State may want to take the opportunity to clarify that, but it seems that she does not.
  It has been suggested that the Bill is a misnomer and that it would more properly have been called the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill or even the waste Bill. That is because its objectives—not in themselves invaluable—relate in large part to creating an effective framework for cost managing the nuclear legacy at the same time as ducking the debate on whether we are to have a nuclear future. As we just heard from the Secretary of State, that would take the form of the nuclear decommissioning authority and, appropriate at a time of heightened security needs, the creation of a civil nuclear constabulary.
  Subject to appropriate scrutiny in Committee, I have no overriding objections to either provision, although my colleagues will look closely at the arrangements by which qualified companies can apply for contracts to
  56
  manage NDA sites as the legislation progresses. In relation to the civil nuclear constabulary, I reiterate the calls, repeatedly made from Opposition Benches, for a Minister for homeland security, who would be responsible for providing overarching strategic leadership on all security issues.
  Another important feature is the establishment of the new British electricity trading and transmission arrangements. The creation of a competitive wholesale electricity market, based on the same rules throughout England, Scotland and Wales, is rational given the interpenetration of power companies across borders. I wonder whether the Government considered the possible difficulties of implementing such legislation when they drew up their eye-catching devolution initiative on the back of an envelope. Has the Secretary of State stopped to consider what will happen if the democratically elected MSPs in the Scottish Parliament do not agree to the provisions? How then—if at all—should Scottish MPs in this House vote?
  Part 3 deals with wind power and renewables. I accept fully the reality of climate change and the importance of low-carbon energy supplies. The issue, however, is establishing the appropriate response to that challenge. The Government have placed renewables, in particular onshore and offshore wind energy, at the heart of their policy. It is clear from the Bill that they are prepared to subsidise wind power, which costs about three times as much as conventional power. Leaving aside the structural confusion of having a regulator who tries to promote a competitive energy market and a Government whose ambition is to promote distorted markets—whether through the climate change levy or by subsidising renewables, possibly to the tune of £1 billion a year by 2010—taxpayers will quite properly wish to know whether the Government are spending their money wisely or whether they are making the most giant mistake about windmills since Don Quixote. To rely heavily on wind and, for that matter, on wave and tidal energy to be a major contributor to the long-term energy mix, when renewables contribute just 3 per cent., and to do so in the absence of a plan B, is a high roll of the dice.
  Let us not be hoodwinked. That 3 per cent. was derived in 2002 from 1.41 per cent. from biofuels, 1.26 per cent. from hydropower and a mere 0.33 from wind. To increase production without warning customers of the inevitable rise in energy costs is even less forgivable. I am indebted to Lord Jenkin of Roding for his successful amendment to clause 157, which requires transparency in the way in which consumers are properly informed of the financial ramifications of subsidising renewable energy sources. The Royal Academy of Engineering's report two months ago demonstrated that the costs per kilowatt of wind generation, including stand-by capacity, is almost three times the cost of the average power produced by coal, gas or nuclear.
  Wind energy is not without its drawbacks. Onshore, wind turbines are a blemish on the landscape. Do the Government not realise that they will be held to blame for the terrible despoliation and blight that they will inflict on Orton fell in Cumbria if, through subsidies for wind turbines and their proposals to change planning guidelines—I refer specifically to planning policy statement 22—they force that ugly scar of a scheme through?

  57
  Offshore, wind turbines can interfere with and disrupt ships' essential navigation systems. Again, I note that my colleagues have already secured important amendments limiting the siting of wind farms in shipping lanes and acknowledging the cumulative dangers posed to navigation by offshore wind farms. What is the Secretary of State's answer to the points raised by the British Chamber of Shipping in its letter to MPs just three days ago on clauses 100 and 101? I was glad to hear the response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), which is that the Government propose to retain the substance of the amendments. However, with so many interests at stake and with such expertise available, I urge the Government, for once, not to table amendments late; we need plenty of time to consider them in advance of the Committee, where, I assure the Secretary of State, they will be explored in detail.
  The White Paper points out that the Ministry of Defence has objected to one third of all recent proposals, both onshore and offshore, because they would interfere with its operational needs, including training and radar monitoring. Wind turbines cause environmental damage, affecting birds, fish and livestock, increasing damaging noise and being an unnatural intrusion in some of our most prized environmentally sound settings, not to mention being unsightly.
  Finally and most importantly, we must remember that wind turbines are only an intermittent source and thus cannot be relied on to provide a stable baseline source of supply. Denmark, where at 18 per cent. of energy production the proportion of wind power is the highest in the EU, has found that at any one time it has roughly 13 per cent. of its turbines out of commission. The Danish Government have recently announced that they are ending all subsidies to new wind power installations. Should not this Government be avoiding the same mistake?
  The Government's zealous support for wind power is matched by confusion and indecision about the future of nuclear energy, which emits no carbon dioxide and, according to the Royal Academy of Engineering, is more cost-efficient than wind. It is no surprise that every time the word "nuclear" is uttered, the knee-jerk response from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who is not in his place, is that those who utter it are obsessed.[Interruption.] I refer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) who, on the occasion in question, was dealing with energy matters. Ducking the hard choices is a speciality of the Liberal Democrats, as is their reliance on wind.
  As the Government's chief scientific adviser, Professor David King, said on the Today programme in 2002:

  "Those who are opposed to nuclear on environmental grounds have to weigh up this difficult balance … Are we going to continue with global warming or are we going to mitigate it?"

  Let me say for the record that we have an open mind on the future of nuclear energy. Its environmental benefit is its technology, which emits no CO2 or other greenhouse gases during generation, but of course there are concerns over cost, decommissioning and long-term storage. Its long-term use will depend on Government policy now—it cannot be postponed because signals have to be given—on the economies of the new lower-
  58
  cost, safer plant, often from France; on the pace of deliverable research on renewables; on making nuclear fusion a reality; and on the progress of the international market.
  Mr. Russell Brown:Many Labour Members are in favour of the nuclear option being far wider than at present. I am not aware of any company or organisation that is falling over itself to build nuclear reactors. Is that not at least partly a result of the failure of British Energy, which is yet another failure of privatisation?
  Mr. O'Brien:The hon. Gentleman encapsulates a number of issues that are highly relevant to the debate. The first is that, leaving aside decommissioning, which is of course what the Bill intends to do, nuclear does not receive subsidies in the same way that wind farms do, so it has to be said that the economics of new nuclear plants are not particularly attractive. The hon. Gentleman's points are more of an operational nature. The key issue is that Government policy should give signals about the expectation for the fuel mix for the delivery of our energy supplies. That cannot be postponed because the industry and providers need that knowledge, in proper time, to inform the decisions that they have to make on basic commercial and economic grounds.
  Mr. Nigel Evans:Some people think that anything to do with nuclear is bad. Is it not bizarre that, although some Members say no to nuclear in any form, they are only too happy to import electricity from France, which draws 70 per cent. of its power from nuclear energy?
  Mr. O'Brien:I agree—in fact, I think that the proportion is larger, at about 80 per cent. More to the point, because the French have been able to retain a vibrant nuclear industry, they have developed a nuclear energy capacity that is as safe, if not safer, more efficient, and even cheaper for the purpose of production.
  My final point in response to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) is that he should remember that nuclear-derived energy is subject to the climate change levy, despite the fact that nuclear produces no carbon dioxide emissions.
  Mr. Bill Tynan:The document "The Cost of Generating Electricity" has been mentioned. The hon. Gentleman says that nuclear energy is not economic at present. Does he not accept that, according to the costs set out in that document, it is very competitive with any other energy source?
  Mr. O'Brien:I am happy to confirm that position.
  Mr. Robathan:My hon. Friend knows that I am a great supporter of wind energy, but may I suggest an option for plan B if wind energy does not come up to expectations? If—God forbid—Labour were to win the next election and put in place a plan B that consisted of enhancing nuclear plant, what would my hon. Friend's reaction be?
  Mr. O'Brien:That is an interesting speculation, which I might have explored later in my speech.

  59
  As I understand it, Ministers are—perhaps unsurprisingly—involved in a deep ideological argument on the subject of nuclear that has the potential to do a lot of damage both to themselves and to the industry. On the one hand, we have the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who last month told a newspaper that the prospect of new nuclear is

  "not valid … come back in another generation".

  The breathtaking arrogance and irresponsibility of that statement beggars belief. On the other hand, in December last year, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services told the all-party nuclear energy group that

  "we need the possibility of new nuclear build",

  and only last Thursday, in response to Lord Tombs's unstarred question, which was supported by my expert and senior colleagues, DTI Minister Lord Sainsbury of Turville said,

  "The first question is whether we should consider nuclear as part of the…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."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 6 May 2004; Vol. 660, c. 1268.]

  While Ministers continue to argue, nuclear generation's present 20 per cent. contribution to our power is declining, and it is expected to be as little as 2 per cent. by 2023. At the same time, our nuclear expertise is dwindling. It is simply not good enough for Ministers to postpone the debate until 2006. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) suggested, that might have something to do with the timing of the general election. The White Paper states that

  "even without new build the nuclear fuel cycle, power generation and environmental restoration sectors are likely to need around 19,000 graduates and skilled trades people"

  However, a parliamentary answer in the Official Report of the other place records that

  "no universities currently offer undergraduate courses specifically in nuclear science and engineering."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 2003: Vol. 650, c. WA42.]

  There are consequences to ducking the hard decisions today and coming back in another generation, as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs says we should do. We must find a way to make progress, because if the Government do not come out from under the covers, the House, the industry and the country will not be able to judge the desirability and doability of future nuclear build based on proven fission technology.
  It is unacceptable that the White Paper clearly states:

  "In the long term, nuclear fusion could provide power generation from an abundant fuel source with zero carbon emissions and without the problems associated with long-term highly radioactive waste",

  when the DTI's most recent departmental report reveals a cut in funding for research into nuclear fusion from £15 million a year to zero for the foreseeable future. Either the Government believe what the White Paper says, in which case they should make the appropriate
  60
  investment, or they do not, in which case they should state once and for all that the nuclear option is now closed—and wrestle with the consequences of that as a policy. At present, the official position stated in the White Paper is that "The initiative" for any nuclear build "lies with the market". That statement is somewhat cynical, as Ministers are fully aware, especially as the White Paper concedes openly that competitive markets cannot deliver some wider policy objectives.
  That approach merely reaffirms the importance of our security of supply amendment in attempting to ensure that the Government do not shirk the tough decisions. At the moment, it seems, the only direction on which the Government are clear is signing up to an EU constitution that threatens to include an energy chapter, which, against the UK's national interest, would bring responsibility for security of supply under the control of Brussels rather than Parliament. Or is it just part of the tidying-up exercise? Taxpayers expect leadership on energy policy, but all they get is a mixture of high aspirations on renewables, low cynicism on the future of nuclear, blazing ministerial rowing, which has been kept largely behind closed doors, and a bloated and bureaucratic research and skills structure.
  Science research councils have an enormous budget of £2.5 billion, yet for several of them administration costs represent 50 per cent. of income. Much of the energy research is being directed into renewables, and, as I mentioned, funding on nuclear fusion has been cut altogether. Meanwhile, the inordinate rise in the DTI's resource budget has been matched by bureaucratic proliferation of the various research and funding channels for energy, which now include the science research councils, the new sector skills councils, the Sector Skills Development Agency, the Learning and Skills Council, the regional development agencies, the Small Business Service and the Carbon Trust. A report entitled "Science and the RDAs" published last week by the Select Committee on Science and Technology in the other place concluded:

  "The main message of our Report is the need for coherence, longer term perspectives and reduced bureaucracy".

  I wholeheartedly concur with that conclusion.
  This Bill, as now hugely improved by their lordships, is worth supporting subject to the detailed scrutiny and further improvements that we hope to secure in Committee, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). But, to substantiate the arguments that I have outlined, has the Secretary of State taken the time to study the serious, important and timely PricewaterhouseCoopers global survey published four days ago, in which security of supply is now seen as the leading strategic aspect of the power market? It states:

  "Last year security of supply barely rated as a concern among European and US Companies in our Movers and Shakers survey. It is now top of the industry's agenda. The blackouts have raised serious questions about the adequacy of transmission facilities, and whether the right signals are being given to the market in relation to ensuring sufficient investment in the required infrastructure."

  British businesses are not alone and are right in highlighting security of supply as a key issue facing them, whereas the Government, in whom responsibility lies with the Secretary of State, are deliberately putting

  61
  their heads in the sand over the future of the UK's secure, safe, affordable and sustainable energy supplies. As the fourth largest economy in the world, we have a right to expect the right signals from the Government and the regulator to create the conditions whereby the market can deliver security of supply and reassurance, for businesses and consumers alike, that there is a sustainable long-term strategy for the future.
  It is about time that the Department discovered its focus and started delivering some bang for its bucks—all £8.2 billion of them—starting with setting out its medium to long-term strategy for the future of our energy supplies. It would be politically cynical in the extreme to put that off until after the general election, not least as price signals and investment decisions must be made now—as I said in response to an intervention from the Labour Benches—to stop the black hole becoming too big to fill or too high a risk of a gap between supply and demand. It is the responsibility of the Government of the day, and if they will not come forward with a policy on medium to long-term UK energy strategy, or at least a transparent debate in front of the people of this country, given the huge resources and access to expertise that they have at their disposal, which is not available to the Opposition, they should make way for a Conservative Government who will do so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord):Order. Before I call the next Member to speak, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now.
  5.38 pm
  Dr Jack Cunningham:Twelve thousand or more people work at British Nuclear Fuels' Sellafield plant in my constituency. What is in the Bill—and, equally importantly, what is not in the Bill—is therefore of huge importance to them. It is important to the future social, economic and environmental well-being not only of them and their families but of their communities in Copeland and Allerdale.
  Tony Cunningham:I thank my right hon. Friend for including my constituency in his remarks. Does he agree that what is needed is a sense of responsibility from both the nuclear decommissioning authority and the Government towards the communities of west Cumbria, because many of those people have spent their entire working lives in the nuclear industry?
  Dr Cunningham:I agree, and I shall return to that theme shortly.
  Those workers are dedicated, skilled, mature, reliable men and women, who safely manage, on behalf of the nation, hugely important nuclear installations. They deserve our support and gratitude.
  I especially welcome part 2, which would create a nuclear decommissioning authority. For many years, Governments of both parties have failed to address the issue in a coherent, long-term way, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on making progress with it. What I regret—here I agreed with at least part of what the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. OBrien) said—is the absence of a long-term commitment to the inclusion of nuclear energy in the nation's energy strategy.
  62
  The International Energy Agency estimates that $10,000 billion of electricity-generating capacity will be required worldwide in the next quarter of a century. Energy demand in that time is forecast to increase by 66 per cent. Global population growth, global economic growth, global warming and the Kyoto accord, and our obligations that flow from those things all indicate the need for long-term thinking about secure energy supply. The Bill, I regret to say, misses an opportunity to address those important issues.
  In the United Kingdom market, doubts about regulation, about emissions trading and about the EU's future commitment to emissions trading after 2007 affect long-term investment, as do doubts about aims for wind power. When we look at energy investment we are looking at very long-term projects, whether they involve wind power, nuclear power, coal, gas or anything else. Planning, too, must be long-term, and if we fail to make decisions when they are due we shall risk problems with supply for the future. I have no problem with the Government's commitment to wind power, but I do not think we should get too carried away by the contribution that it can actually make.
  If the Government's objectives are to be fulfilled, we need to build 20 times 2 MW of capacity every week in this country, from now until 2020, in the hope that we shall produce 20 per cent. of our electricity. That is an heroic assumption. Moreover, wind power is by definition an intermittent source of supply. It cannot supply base load electricity and must be backed up by conventional generating capacity. Estimates suggest that the UK's electricity infrastructure requires some £70 billion of investment over the medium term. Against a background of uncertainty, achieving that seems unlikely.
  The UK consumes about 2.5 per cent. of world energy. That figure will fall as we see continued growth in the People's Republic of China, India and other developing countries. UK renewables will meet 0.3 per cent. of world energy demand if we reach all our renewables targets by 2020. In other words, our renewables efforts have a minuscule impact on world energy supply, and therefore a minimum impact on carbon production globally. We should bear that in mind.
  We can set against that the fact that we as a country are supplying coal-fired generating stations to developing countries. By contrast, the Governments of countries including China, Finland, France, India, Japan, Russia, Sweden, South Korea and the United States have recognised that nuclear generating capacity for the future is essential. Our Government should accept that reality to ensure that the same is possible for the UK.
  Nuclear power is a zero-carbon electricity source. It should be exempt from the climate change levy and should be included in renewables targets for generators. Simply to say that the nuclear option is being kept open is not sufficient—we have to do something to keep the option open. Last autumn, the Government's report on research and development said that the industries that invested most in R and D were the most successful. It is the same for economies: the economies that invest most in R and D are the most successful. I would like us to invest more not simply in R and D on nuclear power, but

  63
  in R and D on clean coal technology and combined and heat power systems, because they, and only they, with gas, are capable of generating base-load electricity. For all their merits, renewables cannot do so.
  I strongly support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's decision not only to create a nuclear decommissioning authority but to establish its headquarters in west Cumbria. I cannot understand the pusillanimity of the civil service about the exact location. The West Lakes science and technology park already hosts a cluster of nuclear-related industries and is about 10 miles from Sellafield, where 60 per cent. of the nation's legacy is. It seems a no-brainer to look at any other site for the location of the headquarters. I hope that eventually people will see the sense of that. I warmly welcome those decisions.
  The work force in west Cumbria have the skill, experience, commitment and trust of local communities to deliver the decommissioning and remediation work, which it is broadly estimated has a value of about £50 billion. I want the Government to ensure that the west Cumbrian economy benefits from the changes that British Nuclear Fuels and others will be obliged to grasp. British Nuclear Fuels has established the British Nuclear Group. The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority should not be overlooked. Both organisations have considerable experience in successfully decommissioning major nuclear facilities.
  West Cumbria very much depends on the nuclear industry for employment. The people who work in the industry support the policy objectives set down for their industry by the Government. Ironically, however, because of the delay in British Nuclear Fuels bringing forward its near-term work proposals, there are already strains in the supply chain, reflected in the threat to jobs in west Cumbria, even before the nuclear decommissioning authority has come into existence. I urge the Secretary of State to look urgently at those problems. It would be ironic in the extreme if, in looking for and supporting a way forward to deal with that national legacy, the west Cumbrian economy, far from benefiting from the changes, were to suffer damage. That would be unacceptable, and those communities' commitment and support for the future of the industry would be lost.
  BNFL and its suppliers have had massive inputs into the west Cumbrian economy in salaries and through the supply chain. Those problems need to be addressed urgently, as does the length of contract that the NDA will award when it comes into being. We have so many objectives already on work programmes at Sellafield—some of those objectives have been imposed by the nuclear installations inspectorate. It would be bizarre, not to say reckless, to have a hasty, short-term contractual approach to these matters that would threaten some of the existing objectives.
  In looking at the future, we need to consider skills. The nuclear skills academy should be located at West Lakes science and technology park. We need to look at the work of the taskforce that the Secretary of State has rightly established, not least because, as we speak, 7,000 vehicle movements a day take place at Sellafield, yet the Department for Transport is talking about de-trunking the only trunk road in west Cumbria. That is an obvious
  64
  example for the Secretary of State's taskforce to grasp. It should say, "We simply cannot do that, especially at a time when there are proposals to bring low-level nuclear waste by road from Dounreay to west Cumbria, adding to the burden on the roads." That simply is not something that I or the people in west Cumbria are willing to accept.
  5.50 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell:We welcome the fact that we have an energy Bill before us today. They do not come along very often; the last substantial Bill on this topic became the Utilities Act 2000. It is therefore with some regret that I say that the Bill misses some substantial opportunities and makes some provisions that we believe are mistaken.
  The Bill fails to set out any clear steps by which the Government's White Paper is to be implemented, and fails to increase the chances of them achieving their targets. As far as we can see, the Bill does nothing to reverse the increase in carbon dioxide emissions recorded in three of the last four years. On the other hand, it entrenches in law the huge bail-out for the nuclear industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) will say something about that if he catches your eye Later. Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill also extends the discredited new electricity trading arrangements.
  Dr Jack Cunningham:The hon. Gentleman talks pejoratively about the nuclear industry and mentions a "huge bail-out". Does he recognise that the overwhelming part of the nuclear legacy—established over 50 years in this country—has nothing at all to do with BNFL, but arises from the military programme carried out by successive Governments? It is a national legacy and liability, not a liability of the current civil nuclear industry.
  Mr. Stunell:The right hon. Gentleman is extremely knowledgeable about these matters and will recognise that the Bill provides for the purchase of existing civil nuclear power reactors by the nuclear decommissioning authority from the private sector and BNFL. Therefore, what I said was legitimate. I agree with him on the requirement that the NDA should have a social commitment to the local west Cumbria community. I was sorry to hear the Secretary of State indicate that she might want to reverse that in Committee.
  The Bill, as outlined by the Secretary of State, covers three broad and important areas, one of which is nuclear decommissioning. We broadly welcome the establishment of the NDA and the opportunity to separate the operation of that authority and the issue of decommissioning and waste disposal from the semi-commercialised sector in which it has been placed in the past. However, the Bill still provides no clear direction or long-term system for managing and disposing of nuclear waste, an issue that we will want to test in Committee.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) criticising the Government's failure to set out the future of the nuclear industry; he described it as a missed opportunity. He then quoted, at some length, from various Government documents

  65
  about their uncertainty about the future of the industry. He went on to say that he did not have an idea, or a Conservative policy, to put on the table. He was kind enough to outline Liberal Democrat policy, which is that the existing plants should continue in use for as long as they are safe and economic, but that there should be not be a new generation of civil nuclear plant built.
  I shall move on, appropriately, to deal with the second section of the Bill on which I wish to comment in detail: offshore renewables. Broadly speaking, we welcome the proposals in the Bill on this subject but, again, the Secretary of State has missed an opportunity to say how she intends to ensure that Government policy in relation to the White Paper, the Kyoto commitments and the Government's further commitment to have a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 is achieved to any significant degree.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes:I thought that the Secretary of State and the Government had made it clear: it will all be left to market forces, which will deliver everything that we could possibly want. Not only that, but there will be no problem with security of supply. I think that is what the Secretary of State was trying to say from the Dispatch Box.
  Mr. Stunell:That intervention is more welcome to me than it is to the Minister.
  The House of Lords has referred to the consideration of further technologies. Given the Government's targets, it is astonishing that, again, the Secretary of State seemed to say that she wants to backtrack on that in Committee. We shall try to prevent her from doing so.
  Thirdly, the Bill deals with the extension of NETA—new electricity trading arrangements—to Scotland. We have identified problems with NETA, some of which were drawn of the attention of the Secretary of State's predecessor during the passage of die Utilities Act. We have seen the shutting down of two thirds of the combined heat and power generating capacity in this country and the total collapse in investment in CHP for the future.
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms):The hon. Gentleman says that we have seen the shutting down of two thirds of CHP capacity. If he reflects on that, he will realise that that is not the case. Will he correct that?
  Mr. Stunell:I was trying to say that there has been a significant reduction in the amount of electricity contributed to the grid from the combined heat and power plant already installed because of the collapse that has taken place as a result of NETA.
  Mr. O'Neill:Is not it also the case that CHP plants are run on gas, the price of which has gone up greatly? Coal is cheaper and although it is environmentally less friendly, it is certainly more attractive to the accountants who often make the decisions.
  Mr. Stunell:Indeed. CHP plants, with an efficiency of about 70 per cent., are being shut down, whereas coal plants, with an efficiency of 35 per cent., are being
  66
  reopened. Those plants are only half as efficient, producing twice the carbon dioxide emissions for a given amount of electricity.
  The Lords have done their best to improve the original Bill and have made some important improvements. I was disappointed to hear that the Secretary of State intends to attempt to reverse every improvement made by the Lords on which she chose to comment. I hope sincerely that she can be talked out of that in Committee.
  My colleague in the other place, Lord Ezra, christened the Bill the Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which is pretty much what it has become. It is not the decisive move forward that is essential if we are to achieve the UK's Kyoto targets, the aspirations in the performance and innovation unit report or the aims of the White Paper. It does not even plug the gaps that were described to the Government during the passage of the Utilities Act four years ago.
  Mr. Evans:After eight minutes, I remain unclear as to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about wind power. I saw his party leader being interviewed by Jeremy Vine yesterday on "The Politics Show" and, quite frankly, he took a hammering. The accusation was that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of wind power generally, but not in specific cases. Would the hon. Gentleman care to say whether the Liberal Democrats are in favour of wind power?
  Mr. Stunell:We are certainly in favour of all renewables where appropriate. Our policy paper that was passed last year set out those terms, and I have previously referred hon. Members to the book I have written on the subject. The hon. Gentleman is welcome to read it.
  Year by year, step by step, little by little, the Government are backing away from the targets that they set. Carbon dioxide emissions are going up and the energy efficiency targets are being watered down: last week the target went down from 5 million tonnes of carbon to 4.2 million tonnes, a reduction of 16 per cent.
  Mr. Timms:The hon. Gentleman made that point in an intervention earlier. Although we said in the White Paper that we thought that there would be about 5 million tonnes of carbon savings from household energy efficiency, and we now think that there will be 4.2 million tonnes, that is more than made up for by the increase that we now expect in business energy efficiency savings compared with what the White Paper said. The total is now 12 million tonnes of carbon savings, rather than the 10 million mentioned in the White Paper.
  Mr. Stunell:That is a disappointing reply, because the domestic sector of our economy uses 30 per cent. of our energy. If we are not going to make a significant improvement in the efficiency with which we use energy in the domestic sector, the Government's chances of reaching their overall targets are considerably reduced.
  NETA has been a serious handicap to renewables, and it is sad that the Government now plan to extend it to Scotland. The Minister is well intentioned, and so were his predecessors, but the policies change and the intentions are not delivered. In seven years, we have had

  67
  five Energy Ministers and three different policies, and none of them have had any clout. There has been a long list of them, and it was only when the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) was Energy Minister in 1997 that we had a Minister solely dedicated to energy. He was followed by the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), who was Minister for Energy and Competitiveness, then the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who was Minister for Energy and Competitiveness, then the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who was Minister for Industry and Energy then for Energy and Construction. The current Energy Minister is doing his best, but his main jobs are supervising the closure of thousands of post offices and trying to wean the Child Support Agency staff off their pocket calculators as yet another Government IT project bites the dust. It has so often been the case that energy policy has been a hobby for the DTI.
  Mr. Jack:The hon. Gentleman talks about an energy policy. Given his party's support for the eventual closure of Britain's nuclear industry, and if that capacity were replaced by renewables, could he spell out to me in some detail how the base-load requirement for UK electricity supply would be met, against a background of the desire to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which has been the substance of many of his remarks so far?
  Mr. Stunell:I am more than happy to do that, although I do not know how far you want me to stray from the specific topics under discussion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My booklet is, I believe, available through the House of Commons Library.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes:The hon. Gentleman has done an injustice. Before he gave way to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), he said that the DTI treated energy like a hobby. That is unfair, because most people take their hobbies very seriously.
  Mr. Stunell:May I assure you that we did not practise this routine before we started, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  The DTI officials are only too happy to fill up this place's time with endless market meddling and technical fiddling. Rather than spending day after day on the difference between NETA and BETTA, we would be better in Committee, although the Minister's Department would be horrified, to turn the Bill into what it should be: the foundation of a long-term sustainable energy policy. Such a policy should be designed to implement the action needed to reach our Kyoto obligations by 2010—we are going in the wrong direction on that at the moment—to achieve the royal commission recommendations of a 60 per cent. reduction by 2050, which I understand the Government believe they are committed to, and to reshape our production and use of energy to achieve those aims. My hon. Friends and I will seek to do just that in Committee. We will vigorously defend the limited gains made in the Lords and push for further significant improvements to the existing provisions. We will also want to give the Bill some backbone and bottle so that
  68
  the half-dead energy mouse that the Minister has dragged into the House today can be taken back to the Lords with something of a roar.
  To do what is needed does not require a great deal of rocket science. It does not need a multiplicity of new technologies, it does not need miracles and it does not, funnily enough, need a great deal of money. Given that a quarter of our carbon dioxide emissions come from our homes and extra energy efficiency in that sector cuts fuel bills, increases home comfort and has major health benefits as well as carbon dioxide reductions, savings could be made if we invested in that field. I believe that to achieve an effective energy policy and a piece of legislation that reflects that policy, some wholehearted and full-time commitment is needed from the Government, with a conviction at the most senior levels of Government that a sustainable energy policy is a public good, an electoral asset and, on the bottom line, a big plus. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will do all that we can during the Bill's passage to persuade the Government of the urgent necessity to get their head out of the sand, to beef up the Bill and to give the United Kingdom a sustainable energy policy.
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Martin O'Neill:The Bill has been somewhat dismissed as a miscellaneous provisions Bill, but I remember asking for such a piece of legislation because I felt that it would be one of the quickest ways to meet a number of our urgent requirements. One of those was the need to secure a nuclear decommissioning authority, which was necessary to address systematically the legacy to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has already referred.
  We now have a different way of operating, because we tried in the past at Dounreay, Sellafield and other places to bring in outside contractors, and there was chaos in the mid-1990s as a consequence of the way in which that was handled. We now have a more rational structure, and a shadow agency will operate for a 12-month transitional period before the Bill takes effect, assuming that it passes all its stages. We can therefore foresee two outcomes. First, we will have a better way of handling nuclear waste and the nuclear legacy—the two are different—and secondly, that will be done in a way that is more commercially competitive but uses in many cases all the skills and capabilities that still reside in British Nuclear Fuels, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and British Energy.
  Dr Jack Cunningham:I support the legislation, as I have made clear, but does my hon. Friend recognise that it would be an error to rush into hasty decisions and short-term contracts in an industry as sensitive and critical as the nuclear industry? I beg him to think about the hasty rush into contractorisation in the railways, and remember its consequences. We should avoid that at all costs.
  Mr. O'Neill:I regret it if I have given my right hon. Friend the impression that we want to return to something akin to the bad old days of the '90s. We have to recognise, however, that there may well be other types of management approach to the activity necessary to do the job, and that although the people in BNFL, the

  69
  UKAEA and British Energy have a tremendous record across the world, they might not necessarily have all the skills and experience needed. The decisions that my right hon. Friend and I are discussing cannot be taken rapidly, but we have to start the process, and we must be far more systematic. Indeed, part of the burden of his remarks was that we have taken too long to get where we are now.
  In the background, there will be the debate about nuclear power. It appears that there are those who would like the Government to rush to a decision on nuclear power, even if they cannot make up their own minds—or, in the case of the Liberals, have totally closed minds. Before any decisions are taken about nuclear power, we must be satisfied that the European Commission is prepared to accept the support package granted to British Energy when it was in crisis. We must also show potential investors that the UK has the capability to build and run nuclear generation capacity, and we must choose the type of reactor best suited to our needs. At the moment, there is a South African, an American and a Canadian option. Any one of those could stand up to close scrutiny, but it would be a rash person who would rush to judgment on them.
  We also have to decide how many stations we want. The Conservatives built Sizewell and no more. They should have built more if they wanted a serious nuclear contribution, going on into what was then the next century. They had plenty of time, but they did not do it. Moreover, if we choose a reactor, we should commit ourselves to building several station—and if we are to do that, we need to win the support not only of investors but, more importantly, of the people in whose areas the power stations will be located.
  Such decisions cannot be taken overnight; they have to be taken over time. July is the earliest time for the European Union, and there is a succession of other factors. There will be a general election in between, but people should not make cheap political capital out of accusing the Government of indecision, because there are so many major decisions that need to be taken over time. I would be happy for decisions to be made earlier, but I do not want the wrong decisions to be made for the wrong reasons, and the reactors to be located in the wrong places.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson:I agree that careful consideration is needed, but as the next nuclear plant is due to close as soon as 2008, does the hon. Gentleman not think that the Government need to make their mind up about that plant, if nothing else?
  Mr. O'Neill:I am not talking about a piecemeal approach. The capacity of several of the Magnox stations is fairly small; their advantage is that they are connected to the national grid and that, by and large, they are in areas where there is a tolerance of their presence. We can come to decisions about them in the medium term.
  I do not have the time to go into my reasons now, but I think that 2012 is the earliest possible date when—with all the planning problems, if there are any, are overcome, and the construction has been dealt with—we could expect to see something beginning to be tested and run. It will be a close-run thing, but I do not see us being
  70
  able to do that any earlier. Perhaps this is a debate for another day, but it is important to have the wiring and the infrastructure in place in the United Kingdom, so that we can make the best of the assets that we have.
  That is why I welcome the establishment of the British electricity trading and transmission arrangements—BETTA. I do not know what planet the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) lives on, but some of us are concerned about the prices that people have to pay for their electricity. The pool system operated on the basis of prices 40 per cent. higher than they should have been, and driving down those prices was the achievement of NETA—the new electricity trading arrangements.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge—or at least, that is where she comes from. I think her constituency is—[Interruption.] Ah yes, it is Airdrie and Shotts, although my right hon. Friend actually comes from the other place. It is all very confusing; Lanarkshire is a complex area, and the geography is almost as difficult as nuclear power. As I said, I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) in her place.
  The achievement of NETA was to drive down electricity prices, not as much for the domestic consumer as we would have wished, but certainly a great deal, and now we want a trading system that covers the whole of the UK. Of course, there are problems. A number of my constituents work in Longannet power station, which produces 2,400 MW, and is one of the biggest in Europe. It has had considerable problems with the rapid changeover from NETA to BETTA, and I make a plea for some transitional arrangements that would soften the cost changes.
  The situation is somewhat complex, and I wish those who will serve on the Standing Committee well; they will be able to go into that matter in some detail. All that I shall say now is that although the cost of sending electricity generated in the centre of Scotland to the markets of England will have to be paid for, the change in price will probably be rather more dramatic than necessary unless some kind of transitional arrangements are made. I record that now as a constituency point.
  Some hon. Members have talked about combined heat and power. Large CHP plants are important, and those possibilities are not being properly addressed. ILEX has produced some research, and I know that the Secretary of State did not have much time, but I do not believe that she did that research justice this afternoon. Large CHP plants are highly efficient, and can make a contribution without the bedevilment of windmills and suchlike. They should be given some status in the context of the renewables obligation, because waste is a renewable facility.
  There is ill-concealed delight on the Opposition Benches that the revising capacities of the House of Lords have been exercised before we have even had the opportunity to say anything about the Bill. I am interested to see that the Secretary of State already has an obligation to keep the lights burning. Some of us who are a wee bit longer in the tooth can remember how one of the authors of that provision made a major contribution to our thinking on energy policy 30 years ago. That was probably the last time that Lord Jenkin made any such contribution—and it was not that the

  71
  Secretary of State should be responsible for energy policy, but that we should brush our teeth in the dark during the power cuts that resulted from the coal dispute in 1974.
  That refined obligation inserted at the beginning of the Bill is nothing more than mischievous. The provisions covering the role of Ofgem, the regulator, are clear, and so is the link between Ofgem and the Secretary of State. If the lights went out and there were problems, after the first 45 minutes it would not be the power companies but the Secretary of State who, regardless of political party, would get the blame.
  It is irresponsible to talk about Britain being in danger over security of supply—certainly for the next decade. My colleagues on the Select Committee and I have examined the nature of power cuts in recent years, and we have found that the problems were not akin to what took place in California or Italy. Mistakes were made, and there were maintenance problems, but scaremongering for simplistic political gain is irresponsible in such an important area.
  I would like to think that the Bill will be seen merely as a contribution to the jigsaw puzzle of a new energy Britain, which will not create the emissions, such as greenhouse gases, that we create now. I hope that we will be able to move on. We have set ourselves a target for 2050, and one piece of legislation will not do everything. The Bill, however, is a modest start, and I welcome it.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan:It is a great pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who speaks with real authority. I hope that he does not regard any of my remarks as scaremongering, because that is not my intention.
  A bright young researcher of mine—he has recently come down from Oxford—with whom I discussed global warming, agrees that climate change is taking place, but he questions whether it is man-made. In anecdotal terms, when the weather in February is warmer than that in May, it is obvious that something is happening to our climate. I was therefore pleased to be able to show my researcher a report published last week in The Times. It is an important report, given that there are still people in America, for example—perhaps even in the Bush Administration—who question whether man has any role in climate change. The report states:

  "This lack of tropospheric warming has long puzzled scientists, as it is predicted by all the major models of climate change. It has also been seized on by a small but vocal minority of scientists, who have used it to raise doubts about whether global temperatures are rising at all. The enigma, however, has been explained"

  by a report by the university of Washington in Seattle.
  I am not an expert on tropospheric warming, but it is now entirely clear that we must address man's actions. To that extent, I believe that climate change has been caused by our actions, and I applaud the Government's stated intention to tackle that issue in the Energy Bill, but I question whether the Bill and the White Paper will achieve their intention to reduce emissions, while at the same time securing our supply.
  72
  I do not wish to scaremonger, but anyone who saw the recent television programme "If … The Lights Go Out"—it was set, I think, in the 2020s—must be concerned, especially given that the topical trigger for the lights going out in Britain was a Chechen terrorist attack on a gas pipeline in Russia. Of course, yesterday the Chechen President was assassinated.
  The Government's concentration on renewables is laudable. I was keen on renewables long before I entered Parliament. I have a solar photovoltaic roof, which was supported by the Minister's Department, at great cost. I also have an anemometer on a farm behind my house—as Members will know, an anemometer measures wind speed—and I hope to be able to generate wind energy. There could be planning problems and I might lose a few constituency votes, but never mind—I believe in putting my money where my mouth is.
  The photovoltaic roof is very expensive, even with a Department of Trade and Industry grant, and I have so far found the electricity generated fairly disappointing, although it is being monitored. The wind energy generated is excellent, but of course, wind is intermittent and such energy cannot be the whole answer. Tidal and wave power—maritime energy—may have their part to play, but not yet. Hydrogen cracked from renewable sources and stored in fuel cells also has its part to play. The technological developments are very exciting, but they are for the future, not now.
  Most observers do not believe that the Government will achieve their target of 10 per cent. generating capacity from renewables by 2010. On the other hand, combined heat and power is a proven technology. The Government had two targets for that as well, the first of which was 5 GW generating capacity by 2000. We have yet to meet that target. The second target was 10 GW generating capacity by 2010, which to some extent is why our noble Friends in the House of Lords introduced clause 120.
  According to a briefing from the Combined Heat and Power Association, CHP can play a major role in achieving the Government's carbon reduction targets because it improves competitiveness by reducing energy costs. It is a highly efficient means of energy production that converts 70 to 90 per cent. of fuel into energy. Yet the Government are not on track to meet their election manifesto pledge. CHP output has remained stagnant in the past three years. The hon. Member for Ochil mentioned the independent study by ILEX, which I commend to the Government. It could help them to meet their carbon reduction targets by incentivising the CHP industry.
  Mr. Blizzard:The hon. Gentleman has professed his support for wind generation, but is he aware of the briefing provided to Members by the British Wind Energy Association? It states that clause 120

  "would disrupt the working of the renewables obligation…mean a lower demand for renewables obligation certificates and…a lower price, which would affect the income of renewable generators."

  It continues by stating that

  "the Association does not believe this is the right time to be making…changes to the RO…before the review".

  because doing so will simply bring uncertainty and unpredictability into the equation.
  Mr. Robathan:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I should point out that I do not accept everything that every briefing says. Apparently, 60 per cent. of UK renewables developers are in favour of clause 120, so there are two views in the renewables market. Before moving on from discussing the CHPA, I should point out that I am a vice-president of it, although sadly unpaid. So CHP is part of the answer, but it is not the whole answer. By forcing down prices, the new electricity trading arrangementsߞNETA—which was Government policy until recently, have scuppered CHP investment in the past two years. That is not what we call joined-up government.
  I turn to the energy mix, the excellent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and what is a major hole in Government policy. Renewables will not make up the 21 per cent. or so of our generating capacity that is currently produced by nuclear energy. By 2020, nuclear will supply only 7 per cent. or less of our capacity. As has been pointed out, no carbon emissions will be prevented by substituting renewable energy for nuclear; there is a hole, and it must be filled.
  I believe that, should this Government win the next general election—God forbid!they intend to announce a new generation of nuclear power stations, because that is the only way in which the hole can be filled. I find that distasteful, and any voters who might be influenced by such considerations would be surprised at that announcement. Such a policy might influence a campaign by Greenpeace, for example, in the run-up to the general election. Such actions are typical of this Government. I hope that the Minister will come clean and say how he intends to fill that hole. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), made clear his belief that further investment in nuclear is required. I look forward to an answer to that point in the winding-up speech.
  In terms of energy policy over the past five or six years, the views of the former Minister with responsibility for energy are interesting. In an interview for The Sunday Times of 17 August last year, the right hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, said:

  "Throughout my time as energy minister I was highly skeptical of the priority given by the regulator to driving down the generator price of electricity.

  Apart from anything else, by driving producers out of the market it became inevitable the price would rise later so any political gain is short term.

  Government has to some extent abdicated its power in this area by creating an independent regulator."

  I have a high regard for the right hon. Gentleman, and those points need to be mentioned. The closed-down generating capacity—the closed-down future supply—has largely been caused by Government policy, so they should take responsibility.
  Will the Government's policy as constituted in the Energy Bill work? In an article in The Times of 18 August last year, Sir Alec Broers, the president of the Royal Academy of Engineering, warned that renewable energy will not stop global warming or blackouts. He said that the Government's plan to generate 20 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by 2020 is unrealistic, and that investment in nuclear power is critical if shortages are to be avoided. So he obviously does not think that the policy will work.
  74
  I finish by referring to a paper published last week by PricewaterhouseCoopers—"Supply Essentials: Utility Survey"—which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury. It is a global survey, but the observations apply to the UK as well. It states:

  "Last year security of supply barely rated as a concern among European and US companies … it is now top of the industry's agenda.

  Renewable energy will not generate sufficient power to make up the shortfall as more nuclear plants are retired …

  The current reliance on coal will increasingly be replaced with gas, and longer term this raises issues of security of fuels sources …

  There is a need for swift action from utilities and regulatory authorities alike to prevent further grid supply collapses".

  These questions need answers, and I look forward to the Minister's answers to them in his winding-up speech.
  6.30 pm
  Mrs. Helen Liddell:I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me at this early stage, given that I have already had two name-checks this evening. I reckon that I was one of the longest-serving Energy Ministers in this Administration. May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) that I never regarded the job as a hobby, especially not when I was trying to save the pits in his constituency and trying to secure compensation for his miners. His comment will cost him a cup of tea later.
  Mr. Kevin Hughes:I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows that I was not casting any aspersions in her direction. Things may well have altered since she and, particularly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) left.
  Mrs. Liddell:Obviously I have scared my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that Energy Ministers have often had other responsibilities, but he got it wrong about me, because I was the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe. There is a perfectly logical reason for that: energy policy is about competitiveness. I am surprised to hear Opposition Members talk with derision about the idea of reducing energy costs. If we are to be truly competitive, our industry requires low energy costs and, frankly, my constituents, who live in one of the coldest parts of the UK, very much require lower energy costs. That is why I am so grateful to the Government for introducing the proposals in the Bill for BETTA.
  It is important to end the position whereby Scotland has two major energy companies and its energy prices are higher than in the rest of the UK. We also need to tackle the substantial difficulties in Scotland in respect of the maintenance and repair of the grid. That is particularly important when we talk about renewables. Later on, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) may wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the great opportunities for the Western Isles will be limited if we cannot upgrade the grid.
  As a little anecdote, as I was preparing my thoughts last night, I suffered a two-hour power cut, but I did not blame the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for

  75
  that, and her resignation would not have cooked my tea any quicker, which shows the illogicality of the new clause that was introduced in the other place. I blame it on some of the maintenance problems with the Scottish grid, which must be tackled, particularly in the remoter parts of the country.
  Mr. Weir:The right hon. Lady may be surprised to learn that I agree with some of what she is saying, but I am concerned about what she said about the lowering of costs through BETTA. I note that the Public Accounts Committee, in reporting on NETA, observed that although the cost of commercial energy for industry had decreased, it had not done so for domestic customers to anything like the same extent. Is she certain that domestic energy prices will fall under the proposed BETTA provisions?
  Mrs. Liddell:I believe that there is an important job for Ofgem in that respect, as there is for every Member of Parliament. Our constituents need to be alert to the fact that switching energy suppliers can produce cheaper bills at the end of the month. Particularly with pensioners and those on pre-payment meters, I always make the point that it is now possible to shop around for cheaper energy. I always encourage them to do so. We have further to go, however, to ensure that reductions in energy costs are passed on to the consumer in a coherent and transparent way. Transparency has often been lacking in the past.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) made powerful cases in respect of future nuclear generation. If I have one criticism of the Bill, it is that it misses the opportunity to further the debate about nuclear energy. I take wholeheartedly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the skills, particularly with regard to the framework for the nuclear decommissioning authority. However, other skills are also required for the development of a new generation of nuclear capacity. My fear is that we are falling behind in failing to take up and be transparent about our desire for future nuclear generating capacity. I accept the fact that the market has not developed any proposals for new nuclear capacity, but there is a need for further debate and we must not be put off from having such a debate by the sort of intimidation that we face from the anti-nuclear lobby.
  Mr. Michael Clapham:I know that my right hon. Friend has worked hard for the energy industry overall. She makes a point about competitiveness and the cheapness of energy, but she will be aware that nuclear power is both inflexible and the dearest electricity on the wires.
  Mrs. Liddell:I know exactly where my hon. Friend is coming from and I take his point, but that does not necessarily mean that future generation will have that degree of inflexibility and high cost. My hon. Friend is a great champion of the coal industry. We should look further into the economics of clean coal technology as well.
  76
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil made a valid point about combined heat and power, as did the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). There are real anxieties about the future of CHP, and we are missing a trick in not paying more attention to the difficulties experienced in the CHP sector. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us in his summing up exactly where the Government are in respect of the future of CHP. I am very attracted to it from the point of view of energy efficiency, having seen it in very effective domestic use, particularly in Sheffield.
  I greatly welcome the Bill's proposals for the nuclear decommissioning authority. That represents important recognition of the scale of nuclear liabilities and of the fact that there is a competitive marketplace with international opportunities for decommissioning. We should reflect on the Finnish experience. The Finns were very fast off the mark—partly due to necessity, because they are so close to old reactors from the former Soviet Union—and keen to get ahead with decommissioning. There is a great market for it, and we should be throwing up the skills, experience and expertise to participate in that market.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle:Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have great skills in this country and that, especially in the light of problems in the former eastern bloc, failing to put them to good use on decommissioning is disappointing? Any Government who refused to support it would indeed be negligent. We are still the world leaders, even though many other countries are trying to catch up, and we must not lose those skills.
  Mrs. Liddell:I take my hon. Friend's point and I congratulate the Government on their vision in recognising that there are great opportunities.
  One of the side-effects of the management of our nuclear liabilities has been completely to alter the picture for British Nuclear Fuels. I note that when the decommissioning plans were announced, the chief executive of BNFL talked about opportunities for the new BNFL. I hope that the Minister will give us some idea in his summing up of how he views the future of BNFL after its many different traumas in recent years. I hope that we have now reached a point where we can see some way forward for it far into the future.
  I do not want to detain the House much longer. If I have one criticism of the Bill, it is that it is wrongly named. It is more an electricity Bill than an energy Bill, and huge issues of energy policy need to be debated in much greater detail—not least what is happening at the moment. The recent spike in oil prices will, because of the inter-relation of oil and gas prices, lead to an increase in gas prices, which will work its way right through the chain. Any competitive country concerned about energy policy should be looking in some detail at what is happening in international energy markets. I say that from two points of view—those of the United Kingdom as a consumer nation and as a producer nation. Increases in oil prices give a much more secure future to our North sea oil and gas industry as it moves into the third age. There are great opportunities before us, but there are also huge challenges that we must be prepared for.

  77]
  I wish all who serve on the Standing Committee a great deal of entertainment and enthusiasm. I well remember the Utilities Bill Committee; indeed, one Liberal Democrat Member's wife had a child during its progress, and I was most disappointed that that child was not called NETA. I wish the Minister well with an energy policy Bill that is a start, although I have a feeling that there is such change in the world that we will find ourselves returning to the subject again and again.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Richard Page:I am no literary scholar, being more of a hit-it-with-a-hammer-and-hope engineer. I am, however, very much reminded by this Energy Bill of the words of William Blake's "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell". He wrote: "Energy is Eternal Delight"; the only problem is, Blake put those words into the mouth of the Devil. That is the problem: we all want energy, and we all want it to be eternal, but we also want it to be pollution-free, and there is the rub.
  The White Paper and the Energy Bill are full of warm words. Various energy conservation bodies can be cited as saying how much they welcome it, but there are some gaping holes, and important issues are not tackled. The realities of life are avoided.
  There is an energy that we on the Opposition Benches are prepared to mention but which the Secretary of State was not prepared to name, because the Government just do not have a policy. I can see the Minister busily looking through his notes and shifting in his seat, so I shall tell him that I mean the N word—nuclear. Where is the Government's nuclear policy? It is a simple question. How can the Government produce a Bill dealing with future energy without mentioning the future policy on 25 per cent. of today's production? I sense Government policy produced and dictated by focus groups. It is produced not by the reality of what this nation needs, but by focus groups. In American football terms, the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) did a splendid job of running interference for the Secretary of State by asking why she should be responsible for any power failures. If a Secretary of State does not grant the power capacity to generate electricity in this country and there is a power failure, then that Secretary of State will be to blame.
  We have warm words, but they are a polite description for unrealistic alternative energy production. We have targets for wind farm production that are for the birds, because they have been plucked from the air. As a former Minister in charge of renewables, I favour them, but we cannot harness ourselves to a target that is unachievable. I shall not go through all the green energy sources, but unless there is a huge breakthrough in photovoltaics, such as those that cover the doubtless attractive roof of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), or unless we discover that the capital cost of Wave power has been slashed, or unless we suddenly discover more efficient fuel cells, such targets destroy the credibility of the Government's other proposals, some of which I welcome.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) referred to fish-and-chip recycling, which gives us our biofuels. That is fine, but unless the Government
  78
  give a commitment that they will give the biofuel obligation a couple of years or so, there will not be enough plants in place to take advantage of it, and we will not move towards improving on our targets. We will not have farmers starting to plant crops to use it, and we will not have enough plants to generate the fuel. We shall miss a golden opportunity.
  Mrs. Shephard:Does my hon. Friend agree that to have such a policy without putting proper structures in place would also encourage imports of biofuels, which has already happened in some degree?
  Mr. Page:My right hon. Friend is quite correct. That is why I said that the renewable obligation should be put in place in two years to give home-grown industry a chance to get into place instead of our, once again, drawing in imports. The Government are really good at allowing that: they had the fridge directive and hundreds of thousands of our fridges had to go abroad to be decommissioned because we did not give our home industries time to do that.[Interruption.] That is, of course, a sideline, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we must not get into it.
  I welcome the fact that the Bill deals with various serious issues, such as the decommissioning of redundant nuclear generating plants and the disposal of radioactive waste, which have been of enduring concern to the House, the whole of Parliament and Governments over many years. I used to be Member of Parliament for Workington, and I am fully aware of the problems in that area. The words of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) should be read and taken on board by the Minister and the Secretary of State, because they are the words of someone who knows what he is talking about. That will be difficult for the Secretary of State, but she must concentrate and plan for the future. Short-termism must be avoided.
  I am equally clear about the need for a public body to oversee the process of decommissioning and disposal, which must be done on a UK-wide basis, although I do not mean to say that all the Bill's provisions are completely satisfactory. I shall not go into the Westminster/Scotland relationship, but if I am fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to be placed on the Committee—I am not sure which of those categorises it—I may wish to probe the arrangements. It is one thing to commit the Secretary of State to consulting Ministers of the Scottish Executive on the appointment of the chairman of the nuclear decommissioning authority, but quite another to ensure their assent. I make that point because the Government seem to make many assumptions about Scotland, particularly that the political map will stay unchanged for ever and that there will never be a Conservative Administration up there—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but as with everything else, the wheel will one day turn, just as it has in the past.
  Mr. Robathan:To counter the rather foolish laughter from some Members, does my hon. Friend remember, with a sense of history, that within our lifetime the Conservatives had an overall majority of votes cast in Scotland in 1950?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst):Order. I think that, too, is an aside.
  Mr. Page:I am glad you remind me of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am far too young to remember anything of that nature.
  Where I do agree with Ministers is on the importance of creating the civil nuclear police authority. They are right to place its jurisdiction and the terms and conditions of its senior officers and constables on a basis comparable with those of the other UK police forces.
  No one will object to the principle of extending the scope for developing wind farms and renewable energy production beyond the current nautical limit of 12 miles. If this country and some of our European Union neighbours wish to do that, it will be absolutely desirable. If it can produce a reduction in fossil fuels, that will be desirable too. However, several hon. Members have already asked: what is the point of running down nuclear when there is no gain in CO2, reductions? We would just be swapping one thing for another. If the money and support going into wind farms were put into the nuclear industry, I wonder what the cost of generation would be, and there would be a stable base load that was not dependent on the strength of the wind at any particular time.
  I also welcome the Bill's aim of drawing Scotland into the wholesale market for electricity that operates in England and Wales. I was fascinated by the contribution of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) on that point. He talked about the book that he has written, and I shall rush to the Library to read it, because I found what he said rather difficult to support and comprehend.
  I hope that the powers that now control the market have realised the dangers of the cross-subsidy, where a generator, in conjunction with a distributor, can create acute financial pressures at one point in the process, to the discomfiture of a generator that does not have a distributor providing cross-subsidy. Hon. Members have already made the point that the cost from the generator has gone down, but the cost to the consumer has barely moved. That has been part of a process.
  The security of electricity supplies across Britain is an important duty for the Government. Now that the hon. Member for Ochil is in his place, I can say that I commended him for his defence of the Secretary of State, but she will have to take the blame for a failure of supply if she has not authorised the capacity to maintain supply. Ministers should bear that very much in mind.
  I welcome many aspects of the Bill, but it has some huge gaps and lacks realism. For example, do we have adequate energy reserves? France has reserves of some six to eight weeks. Over the years, we will see an increasing reliance on imports. By 2006, we will no longer be self-sufficient and will increasingly have to rely on energy sources from politically unstable countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said, and the UK is right at the end of the pipeline, at the point of maximum risk.
  Mr. Denis Murphy:The hon. Gentleman mentions energy reserves, but does he regret the part played by his Government in destroying Britain's mining industry?
  Mr. Page:I remind the hon. Gentleman that in 1997 the Labour party gave a commitment at the general election that it would provide support and money for clean coal technology, so that the mining industry could be developed and the mining product would not be so polluting. I am still waiting to see that happen. I do not know how many mines the hon. Gentleman has been down, but having done so myself I really think that if someone came forward today with a new energy source that meant that people had to be sent underground to dig it out, many would feel that it was not a suitable job for human beings on health and safety grounds.
  The Bill glaringly lacks a nuclear policy. In the future, our children's children will talk about us, saying, "Do you know that that generation actually burnt gas and oil for heating? How mad were they?" The feedstocks of those chemicals will be long gone. Some parts of the Bill are good and some are misconceived. The Government must look for further justification for policies than just "it seemed a good idea at the time."
  6.54 pm
  Mr. Michael Clapham:This is a large and important Bill, but it misses the point, in particular with reference to the coal industry. I see that part 1 refers to clean coal technology, but that is about the only reference to the coal industry. The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) referred to a black hole, but it was created by the Conservatives when they were in power. In the aftermath of the miners' strike, between 1985 and 1992, they closed down 120 collieries and, from 1992 onwards, a further 30 collieries. At present, we have just 13 collieries left.
  The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) was one of the Ministers involved in the privatisation of the coal industry and he will know that at the time it was below its critical mass. The privatisation was destined for market failure because no banker would invest in a coal industry below its critical mass. The privatisation made the industry reliant on Government support and, had it not been for the support provided by this Government, what is left of the coal industry would long since have disappeared. However, it would be possible to invest in the 13 mines that remain and make them profitable. That is because of the changes in the world energy market.
  My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that coal prices have started to increase because of the demand from China and from other Asian countries. For example, Malaysia has two new huge coal-fired power stations. The Malaysians have decided to diversify their energy economy away from gas, and consequently have invested in new clean coal technology. That has put pressure on prices and they have started to rise, to such an extent that the UK coal industry is approaching competitiveness.
  I hope that my hon. Friend, even at this eleventh hour, will reconsider some of the decisions that have been made about the Selby complex of four mines and about the Hatfield colliery. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will concentrate his remarks on the situation at Hatfield, but I hope that

  81
  my hon. Friend the Minister will consider investment in those two colliery complexes. The Hatfield colliery leads into the country's largest reserves and if it is allowed to close, the industry will be on a slippery slope.
  Much has been made of the technology that has been used to tackle pollution. The power industry has fitted flue gas desulphurisation systems to address the nitrogen and sulphur emissions that cause acid rain, and that is working successfully. However, we need a real commitment to investment in new clean coal technologies. My hon. Friend the Minister would no doubt say that there is a multiplicity of new technologies, but we should consider investing in and encouraging the use of two major ones: first, supercritical boilers, a new technology that could be retrofitted to existing power stations, making them much more efficient. After all, it is the efficiency of a power station that counts in cutting down CO2 emissions. The second is the integrated gasification combined cycle system, and the owner of Hatfield colliery is prepared to invest in it. He has been able to put together a package for investment in that new clean coal technology, but unfortunately the colliery may close.
  At present, the generators are sweating their capacity to squeeze out the Nth degree of profit, and we must encourage them to reinvest in new technologies. The current resources that the Government are making available for investment in clean-coal technologies are insufficient. We need more investment in clean-coal technology. The greater that investment is, the stronger the signal that will go out to the remainder of the coal industry to enable it to continue in the future.
  Paddy Tipping: Before my hon. Friend leaves the powerful case that he is making for the coal industry—that coal can be economic, but environmental constraints cause problems—will he ask the Minister about the large combustion plant directive? If that is not implemented properly, it will kill the British coal industry.
  Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for prompting me about the large combustion plants directive, which indeed relates to the Bill. The directive will become operative from 2008, and currently two options have been put forward. One option is the national plan approach, and the second is the emissions limit value approach. The nationl plan approach can be visualised as a bubble over the whole country, while the emissions limit value approach would be a bubble over each power station.
  There are people in the industry who say that to adopt the national plan approach would close the British coal industry, because it would encourage generators to bring in low-sulphur coal from places such as South Africa, Australia and north America. If we adopt the ELV approach, generators will be encouraged to invest in their plant, which would be beneficial to the UK coal industry because UK coal could be burned in power stations. It is important that the Minister make the right decision. I understand that he is on the verge of making that decision, and that officials from his Department have inquired into the situation. Will he tell us whether he will adopt the ELV approach and avoid the national plan? That is very important.
  82
  I return to the Bill and its proposals to set up a nuclear decommissioning authority. That is important because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) made clear, it is necessary to have a co-ordinated, uniform approach that would be better for the industry and the safety of the country. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the nuclear decommissioning authority will be responsible for all the liabilities. As he will be aware, there are three areas of liability in the nuclear industry: spent fuel, radioactive waste and the decommissioning of sites. Do I take it that the decommissioning authority will be responsible for the entire remit relating to waste left by the nuclear operation?
  It is important that the Minister should not abandon the UK coal industry at this point, as it requires only a modest amount of finance to survive. As I have already pointed out, it is approaching competitiveness. It would be a shame indeed if that industry were to disappear because of the lack of a small amount of finance. Coal's advantages are so great that the Minister should consider ring-fencing an element of the UK energy market. Coal is cheaper and more flexible than other sources, such as gas or nuclear. Some pundits have suggested that if we continue along our current route, we may well end up importing 75 per cent. of our energy needs by 2020. We need to avoid that situation.
  In conclusion, I believe that the Bill sets out the route to ensuring the energy future of the UK. I hope that the Minister will consider in Committee what might be done to make more resources available for clean-coal technology. That technology is not just a matter for the coal industry. It is important to manufacturing industry because it would allow us to produce the sort of wares that would enable us to transfer technology in order to tackle the CO2 issue in countries such as India and China. It is important that the Minister take the issue on board and make resources available for clean-coal technology.
  7.6 pm
  Mrs. Gillian ShephardI am extremely pleased to have the chance to contribute to the debate, and I particularly welcome clause 128, to which I shall address my remarks.
  The clause enables the Secretary of State to introduce a renewable transport fuel obligation that would require specified sections of the road transport fuel industry to demonstrate that a specified proportion of their aggregate fuel sales were "renewable transport fuels". Its wording is perhaps over-gentle. It is not as strong as we should expect, given the Government's self-imposed environmental commitments, not to mention current, rising fears about fuel supplies and their costs. Nevertheless, it is welcome.
  The Secretary of State was deeply cautious about the clause. When asked to expand on what she intends, she said she was "still looking at it". However, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services may be cheerier in his concluding remarks —I hope that he will be.

  83
  Part 1 should encourage those such as me and all other hon. Members who support the development of a UK biofuels industry. Clause 1 places on the Secretary of State the

  "duty to ensure the integrity and security"

  of energy supplies, and clause 2 specifically mentions energy derived from biomass and biofuels. Subsection (3) requires the Government or Government agencies to

  "develop effectively sources of energy enabling the UK to avoid undue reliance on imports".

  The lack of cheering or optimistic news about the likelihood of imports will strike the Government during the passage of the Bill. So far, they do not seem to have a clear notion of the opportunities missed by the Bill.
  What contribution would the UK biofuels industry make to the aims set out in part 1— if the Government ever encouraged such an industry to develop? It would clearly contribute to security and sustainability. It would also contribute to the development of alternative markets for UK-produced crops, and its environmental contribution would be impressive. According to the Government's research from Sheffield Hallam university, the reduction in CO2 emissions from bioethanol would be up to 70 per cent. That should be important to the Government. They have signed up to several environmental targets such as the Kyoto protocol, and have adopted a national goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 2010. Their energy White Paper, which I assume informs the thinking behind the Bill, states:
  "The UK should put itself on a path to a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of some 60 per cent. from current levels by about 2050."
  For good measure, the energy White Paper adds that

  "fuels made from biomass represent an important potential route for achieving the goal of zero-carbon transport, creating new opportunities for agriculture in the UK, as well as globally."

  I hope that the Minister is aware of the support in the House and the other place for biofuels. The Government should be aware of the cross-party support—illustrated by all the early-day motions, debates, questions and, indeed, delegations—for further encouraging biofuels. They should also know that, outside Parliament, a developed biofuels industry is supported by the CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Food Research, the university of East Anglia, British Sugar, Friends of the Earth, the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association and so on.
  I make those points to this DTI Minister because, although they have been made myriad times to his colleagues in the Treasury, DEFRA and other Departments, it is not clear that the Government have a sewn-up, cross-departmental attitude. There is every kind of incentive and support from inside and outside the House for the Government to give more encouragement to biofuels, but, so far, there has been little action. I hope that the Minister can dispel the unfortunate impression given by the Secretary of State that, even as a result of the Bill and the inclusion of clause 128, there will be more of the same—in other words, she is still looking at things.
  84
  The debate about the need for Government support for domestic biofuels production has been going on for some time, without it reaching a firm conclusion. Last September, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee published its report, in which it said:

  "Government bio-fuels policy still seems muddled and unfocussed. It has expressed support for bio-fuels but the mechanisms used to promote their use have had little effect so far.

  Quite so. Our biodiesel industry, although valiant, is tiny and, as has been said several times, uses used cooking oil as its raw material. No bioethanol is produced in this country for transport purposes. That is the reality, despite the aspirations and hopes.
  Things are, of course, very different in other nations. Spain has recently tripled its bioethanol production. France already produces 344,000 tonnes of biofuels a year, and Germany produces 130,000 tonnes. An immediate effect is that rape seed produced in the UK is exported by road and sea to Germany and France, where it is made into biodiesel, and it is then brought back to this country by road and sea. How sensible, environmentally or in any other way, is that?
  It would be churlish not to recognise that a little progress has been made. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced the introduction of the 20p duty rate derogation for biofuels in 2005, so that the industry would have some certainty to plan investment: but, of course, it would have helpful if enough fiscal or other encouragement had been given at the same time to make the industry want to invest—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). The consultation exercise announced in the Budget by the Department for Transport has only just been launched—rather late, given that the findings have to be produced by July this year. However, one of the options to be commented on is the principle in clause 128: a renewable transport fuel obligation.
  I would welcome hearing more information from Ministers about whether clause 128 will move the UK further towards a biofuels policy, how they intend to proceed and what the timetable is. Hon. Members who share my enthusiasm for this cause—there are many—have, as I have already said, raised it with Ministers from the Treasury, DEFRA and the Department for Transport. Today, it is the turn of Ministers from the DTI. Will they be able to assure us that they mean business by including clause 128 in the Bill and that taking action on it will produce a secure, sustainable domestic source of fuel supply, provide a lifeline to the rural economy and fulfil the Government's environmental targets? We look forward to hearing from the Minister later this evening.
  7.14 pm
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: I have followed and participated in energy debates for some time now, and it is not hard to notice a pattern: many of those who speak promote their favourite energy source and oppose other sources. I will promote mine tonight, but I do not think it sensible for any hon. Member to put down the other energy source that he or she does not like, because the real challenge for any Government is, as has been said, to keep the lights on and, even with a strong commitment to energy saving, we might well need all the energy sources that we can find.

  85
  The Government's key priority, therefore, must be security of supply. The fact is that gas will be the mainstay of electricity generation for many years to come. We will rely heavily on gas—some say too heavily. Of course, we must first maximise the recovery of the gas that this country produces, but we will soon become a net importer of gas.
  Some of the fears are exaggerated. People are concerned about the politics of some of the countries from which we propose to buy gas but history shows that those countries need the revenue from gas as much as we need the gas. There are also concerns about terrorist attacks on pipelines. That is a risk, but there could easily be terrorist attacks on nuclear power stations or any other generator, and an attack on a nuclear power station might be worse than one on a gas pipeline. We clearly need to develop energy sources other than gas, not only to achieve a balance and to enhance the security of supply, but to achieve our targets and obligations on CO2 emissions. That is why the part of the Bill that will provide the framework for the development of renewables is so important.
  In preparing for the debate today, I considered what happened in the House of Lords, and I was perplexed by what I can only call the breathtaking attack on wind energy by the Conservative party in the other place. Baroness Miller, who led for the Conservatives, said that wind power

  "can provide only a minute fraction of our power needs. The environmental impact of the giant windmills, both on land and offshore, gives rise to no less controversy than do nuclear powers stations." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 839.]

  Lord Monro said:

  "Wind power is inherently unreliable".

  He also said that

  "we do not seem to care about what we are doing to the beauty of our country by putting up these wind farms, which produce such a minimal amount of power."'—[Official Report, 11 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 906.]

  He seemed to forget that the Bill is basically about offshore wind power. Lord Jenkin went further and likened wind farms to something from the old Soviet Union; but, of course, the real agenda of such people is to promote nuclear power, and we have seen that in the House today.
  Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when we signed up for the renewables targets, we in fact signed up to exclusively onshore wind targets? Does he believe that we need a mixture in those targets? We must have wave power and biomass production; otherwise we will continue to have wind farms in inappropriate locations.
  Mr. Blizzard: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, and I shall deal with it as I proceed with my speech.
  The end result of all the vitriol in the House of Lords against wind power was that some almost wrecking amendments were aimed at offshore wind farms. Those amendments impose extreme restrictions and a one-sided view of the balance between offshore wind farm sites and navigation. There was also pressure to impose more onerous and demanding decommissioning plans
  86
  on wind developments than on nuclear, gas or coal generators. Nuclear energy seems to have become the Conservative party's obsession. It seems to want to charge headlong into a new generation of nuclear power stations now, just as they promoted and misrepresented nuclear power before. That is one reason why part 1 is necessary to clean up and put right that which was not properly thought through in the past.
  The energy White Paper is right. The Government are right to keep nuclear power on hold and right to leave the possibility open, but they are also right not to charge headlong into more nuclear power generation. The Government have created a five to 10-year window of opportunity for renewables, especially now that the renewables obligation has been extended to 2015. If the nuclear option were taken now, it would stifle or even stop investment in renewables— most notably, wind energy.
  The Conservatives seem to want wind energy to be a birth-strangled babe. In fact, I wonder whether their purpose is to try to create uncertainty among those looking to invest in wind energy so that, if the Tories looked like winning the election, the uncertainty would increase and the investment would not be made. There would be no future at all for wind energy under the Conservatives.
  Mr. Page: I gave the rounds on the non-fossil fuel obligation my maximum support, and what the hon. Gentleman says is completely wrong. Our objection is to the unrealistic targets set by the Government and not to wind energy per se. We do not think that it will reach the target of 10 per cent. and there will be a gaping hole in our energy supply. That is our problem.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) responds to that intervention, I should point out that we seem to be having a little trouble with the clock. It is adding double the extra time for each intervention. I do not want to be too hard on the hon. Gentleman, but it would be helpful if he could curtail his speech when one minute is showing.
  Mr. Blizzard: I am glad that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have offered guidance so I know how much time I have left.
  I can half understand the point made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), but I do not understand why it is necessary to be as anti-wind power as was suggested in the other place and by some of the comments made here tonight. I was talking about the creation of uncertainty in investing in wind energy, lest it were thought that the Conservatives might win the election. Thankfully, people are still investing in wind power.
  The case for wind energy is strong and irresistible. The wind is there, the technology is proven and it would be irresponsible and bad husbandry of natural resources not to harness the wind, especially when we face the challenge of global warming. After all, we are the windiest country in Europe, and not to maximise the use of the wind would be incredible.

  87
  Another Member of the other place, Lord Gray, with whom I get on very well, observed:

  "This year… There has been low rainfall, much sun, little wind."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 2003; Vol. 655, c. 863.]

  We often accuse politicians of being London-centred, but I invite people to Lowestoft where they will find plenty of wind at Britain's most easterly point.
  What has held back wind energy most of all is the uphill struggle that it has had in securing onshore sites in the face of a planning system combined with the great British "nimby". Perhaps we should see that as an advantage and as a chance to take the lead in offshore wind energy. We are already set to make more use of offshore wind than most other countries, and the Bill will enable us to go further. We have experience of, and expertise in, offshore installation work from our oil and gas industry and leading institutions, such as the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is an executive agency of DEFRA and a world leader in the environmental assessment, monitoring and research that is needed to develop offshore wind.
  Intermittency does not make wind energy unfeasible. The implications of operating a network with 20 per cent. wind energy have been examined. There are extra balancing costs, but they are not prohibitive. Added to that is the possibility of using demand-side management more actively and employing better wind prediction. Both can help to mitigate the impact of intermittency. Some of us visited Schleswig-Holstein a couple of years ago, where 40 per cent. of the electricity is generated from wind. Yes, there is an extra cost to wind energy, but the cost of not making use of it in the face of global warming could be greater.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blizzard: No, because, unfortunately, I do not think that any more time would be added on.
  Offshore wind is popular even among those who dislike onshore wind. There are signs in my area saying, "Offshore not onshore". We should harness offshore wind's popularity.
  The great news is that offshore wind energy is happening. Right now, turbine columns and blades are sitting in Lowestoft harbour and they are being assembled and taken out to the Scroby Sands wind farm development. In fact, most of the turbines have already been erected, and this is only the start of a new industry in my part of the country. I am pleased that Lowestoft can claim to be at Britain's leading edge when it comes to offshore wind and offshore energy experience, as a brand new brochure makes clear.
  The geographical position of Lowestoft is ideal. It is Britain's most easterly point and is a port surrounded by areas from the Wash to the Thames estuary designated for wind farm development. That is good for a town that has long suffered economic disadvantage from its location. We have expertise from the offshore sector, from firms such as SLP Engineering, and we are also the national headquarters of CEFAS. In short, offshore wind is my
  88
  constituency's great hope for the future. The Bill will pave the way for further offshore renewable energy by establishing the comprehensive legal framework.
  My constituents will be amazed by the Conservatives' opposition to wind farm energy that we heard in the House of Lords and tonight but, as has been said, offshore renewables are not just about wind. They are also about the excellent resource that we have in the tidal current. Tidal current is reliable and predictable, and the CEFAS institution in my constituency that is working on it tells me that we are on course to have a commercial demonstration project within five years. That would be another opportunity for this country to lead in the world. However, the Norwegians are working on it, too.
  We have to pursue all those options, but they alone will not be enough to secure the low-carbon future described in the energy White Paper. There may well be a need for nuclear, but we should consider other options as well. One such other option is the near-zero emission option of carbon capture and storage and enhanced oil recovery, which capture the CO2 emitted from power stations and bury it in depleted oil reservoirs and aquifers deep below the floor of the North sea. Because of long lead-in timer, if we are going to take that option forward, we must take it now. I am told that the Government have allocated £2 million for CCS and £4 million for nuclear fission. I think that the figures should at least be equal.
  I welcome the Bill. We must follow through on wind energy and we need to decommission and clean up the nuclear sites. Although gas will continue to be the mainstay of our electricity generation—we must maximise recovery our gas reserves—and although we must make much more use of the crops that can be converted into biofuels, we must pursue all ways of reducing emissions, including tidal current and CCS as well as offshore wind.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Michael Weir: We in the Scottish National party and Plaid CyMru find the Bill to be very much a curate's egg. There are elements in it that we are keen to support, b it there are others that we have concerns about and that we shall wish to consider at later stages.
  The Bill is very important for Scotland because, despite what has been said about the future of electricity generation in the United Kingdom as a whole, we are a net exporter of electricity. We generate on average 26 per cent more electricity than we need at peak capacity. We have a clear diversity of supply with ample natural resources, but we also have nuclear power.
  The establishment of the nuclear decommissioning authority is welcome in principle, but we have concerns over the particulars of the arrangements. Overriding these concerns is the fact that the Bill contains no statement on the agency's environmental principles. We believe strongly that environmental principles should be at the heart of the agency's operations, but we note that clause 12(2) states that the NDA must adhere to certain principles, including promoting competition and securing value for money. However, the clause states that the agency must only have regard to

  "the need to safeguard tie environment".

  89
  That provision is not strong enough.
  It seems to us that money and competition will be at the heart of the agency, while environmental concerns will be a mere add-on. That seems to be the wrong way round. A set of environmental principles should be enshrined in the Bill. Indeed, the protection of the environment and the health and safety of the population should be the Bill's central plank as it undertakes the clean-up of our nuclear sites, many of which, I remind the House, have a less than glorious record on safety and, indeed, on keeping records as to exactly what nuclear waste is stored where.
  We are also concerned about how the Bill relates to Scotland. It merely says that the Secretary of State will be required to consult Scottish Ministers. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on the Executive's powers. What will they be able to do if there is an attempt to establish a new nuclear waste site within Scotland? Would that be part of the agency's work or would it be covered by previous legislation?
  We also have concerns about whether the Bill would have the effect of allowing new nuclear build. The wording of the provisions relating to the Government's obligation to pick up the bill for British Energy's liabilities may allow for future private nuclear companies to be bailed out for their waste and decommissioning liabilities. That could provide an incentive for new nuclear build, something that is completely off the agenda at the moment because of the huge costs and risks to any commercial developer.
  In an intervention on the Secretary of State, I asked specifically about the thinking behind clause 82. The explanatory notes refer to

  "circumstances where British Energy has sold one of its nuclear power stations to a third party, the acquisition of the power station from that third party and subsequently operating it."

  In other words, the Bill gives the Government the power to use taxpayers' money to buy and operate nuclear power stations from a third party. There is little difference between that and nationalising a nuclear power station. It seems to fly in the face of the Government's steadfast refusal to countenance clause 1, inserted in another place.
  The point is important because there is a danger, as has been mentioned, that the UK faces an energy gap if we do not do more to ensure that alternative energy resources work and provide the claimed amount of electricity. We are opposed to nuclear power, but we must be aware that the UK Government have a target—perhaps I should call it an aspiration—of producing 20 per cent. from renewables by 2020. The Scottish Executive have a target of 40 percent. There will have to be a much more serious plan to invest in renewable resources, and the serious investment to go with it, if we are to have a chance of meeting those targets.
  We have to be completely honest and recognise that much of the argument about renewables is theoretical. What is not entirely clear is whether such systems can produce enough energy and whether it is economically viable. It seems to us that those questions can be answered only when we are in a position to test much larger systems and when many of them are on line. That will happen only if there is a considerable increase in investment in such energy.
  90
  Scotland's supplies of gas and oil give it an immense advantage and opportunity that we can utilise while building up renewables, although it might also mean—I have to be honest about this—backsliding on the Kyoto agreement until renewables are on line. Scotland has a huge opportunity to be at the forefront of the expansion of renewable energy. In a report for the Scottish Executive—"Scottish Renewable Resource 2001"—Gerry Hassan said that Scotland has 25 per cent. of Europe's potential for renewable energy, and the potential capacity to produce 75 per cent. of the UK's electricity needs from renewable resources. That is a tremendous opportunity, but only if the investment is in place.
  It has been explained that almost all energy from wind and wave is generated from onshore wind farms. It is quite clear, as has also been mentioned, that those methods are met by a great deal of opposition from the general public. It is clearly not realistic to propose that all wind farms be allowed planning permission irrespective of local conditions, size and positioning. It is also quite clear that onshore wind alone has no chance of meeting renewable targets.
  There is an enormous potential for other forms of renewable energy in Scotland. Hydro is one example. When it was first introduced in Scotland after the second world war, it was said that it would be too cheap to metre. That never came to pass, and we should not make ridiculous claims for any form of energy. To put that into perspective, although offshore wind farms are being built—we have heard about one or two of them—Scotland has only one wave-generation plant, which is a small-scale project on the island of Islay. The year 2020 is not that far away, and if we are serious about renewables we must be prepared to invest not only in the plant itself, but in the grid required to transmit the energy. Much of the potential for wind and wave power is in relatively remote areas where the national grid does not run or does not run at a sufficient strength. I suspect that our target can be achieved only by public investment. We should not shy away from that. Public investment built the grid in the first place, and massive amounts have gone into nuclear energy.
  The Bill establishes a framework for offshore wind farms, which is welcome, but costs will become a serious issue. I draw hon. Members' attention to an article in this week'sScotland on Sunday under the headline "Green will Make us see Red when power bills soar". The cost of energy from renewables will become a serious problem. We must ensure that we address that problem and the costs that have arisen from nuclear energy. We must be clear that there is a huge environmental cost if we do not go down the renewable route, although in the short term there may well be an increase in costs to the consumer.
  The last part of the Bill deals with BETTA. We have also heard much about the new electricity trading arrangements. The Public Accounts Committee said that residential customers have not seen much benefit from NETA, and there is much fuel poverty in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK. That will have to be addressed before we can go down that route completely. There are concerns about the postage-stamp principle for consumers in remote areas, such as the highlands and islands, because of the cost of transmitting electricity there. Clause 180 partly addresses that concern, but only

  91
  for a short time. The problem could become huge in rural areas throughout the UK if BETTA goes ahead. We must consider that matter in Committee to ensure that rural consumers are protected. There are also concerns about access to the grid from generators. and the costs involved. Those, too, can be pursued in Committee.
  7.37 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Any energy Bill that concerns the House of Commons is obviously a matter of great urgency, but it is clear from the breadth of the debate that there are concerns within the UK about our energy policy. Will we have security of supply? How can we address the problems of renewables? Are we concerning ourselves enough with the amount of research that needs to go into new technology? We have heard about the possibilities of renewing the coal industry. We know about renewables from biomass. We also know that there are many things that the Government can do to secure the future of the electricity supply. However, I want to draw hon. Members' attention to a much narrower, but to me a rather more important, point. I hope that I am forgiven if I get straight down to the practicalities.
  The Bill contains provisions for wind farms offshore. That is not a new subject and has been considered ever since the Harold Wilson Government when Professor Zuckerman did an enormous amount of interesting and important research. The Secretary of State told us that there had been many hours—75, I think—of debate in another place. However, throughout that time there was no acknowledgement of one simple fact: if we build very large turbines and give permission for the development of very large turbines throughout a large site of a number of nautical miles—in one case, in the second round, a site as large as the city of Nottingham—we are creating an instrument of some importance. I was therefore astonished first, that the Department for Transport was not involved in the steering group that produced the policy, and secondly, that when the steering group was set up, it was some time before the Maritime and Coastguard Agency was consulted, and many other important sectors of the shipping industry were not even allowed to contribute to the development of the plans.
  The Transport Committee was so concerned that it looked urgently at that matter. We discovered that a number of practical problems presented themselves immediately. It is clear from the maps for the first round of wind development that the areas are quite small and are nearly all within the 12-mile limit. The second round is nothing of the kind: it is permission for the wind industry to move in on very large sites. Interestingly, the Department of Trade and Industry appears to be reproducing mistakes made by the Department for Transport. When the Strategic Rail Authority simply said to people in the rail industry, "This is the kind of area that you should be looking at", but did not make it clear which particular part, it caused considerable difficulty. The second round of bids for wind farms appears to be the same thing.
  92
  We said that we could not understand why the two most important bodies, the Department for Transport and the MCA, did not insist on being represented on the steering group. Our other concern was that

  "every one of the strategic areas is on the approach to a major port or ports."

  We were told that the London Array site on the Thames

  "blocks one of the three, access channels into the Thames. It goes right across the mouth of the Fisherman's Gat".

  One of the sites in Liverpool bay will disrupt the ferry service between Heysham and the Isle of Man, imposing delays of half an hour on each crossing and considerable extra fuel costs. The best point, however, was in the evidence from the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Office—NUMAST—given by a master who had been at sea for over 30 years. He said that the proposed site in the Humber was

  "located at a very busy junction where there are three vessel traffic separation schemes converging for traffic entering or leaving the Humber along with coastal traffic making their routes north and south."

  Perhaps we could just take on board what that means: it is a convergence of routes. The Humber at Immingham, for example, is the place from which, every day, we export many thousands of cars on very large container ships. If anyone is unsure what I am talking about, let me make it quite clear: when one is standing on the quay, some of those container ships are 300 or 400 ft above one's head, so I am talking not about a small vessel but about one that could get into very real difficulty if wind and wave power such as exists already manages to slam it into a pylon. I may be unduly being a Cassandra, but it might be a matter of considerable concern if Christmas day were enlivened by a news broadcast announcing that at least one large container ship was wedged between two or three pylons in the North sea, yet as far as I can see the shipping industry was told, "Don't worry We will look at your problems but we are not necessarily going to take any notice of them."
  The problem goes further: the structures interfere with radar. They interfere not only with the RAF's aircraft systems but with ground-based systems used for security purposes, so there is a very real problem. We might not know who is approaching our shores in difficult situations. The structures also pose problems for vessels at sea, as they can distort their controls.
  Let us be clear what we are talking about. We need details in the Bill about the procedures to be followed in the event of a collision between a vessel and a wind farm. We must remember that some vessels are crewed by people whose qualifications and experience were not gained in the United Kingdom. The Committee believes that at some point a major problem such as a collision is inevitable, and we must have plans in place to deal with that.
  We think that it is important to consider the creation of safety zones around every one of these pylons and to have particular identification of sites that will not compromise the integrity of the consent process. We are astonished that the DTI is talking about all this in a very relaxed way, and we think that any installation that goes ahead must be shown not to compromise the safety of navigation. Why were Trinity House and the General Lighthouse Authorities not consulted much earlier?

  93
  Why have we heard the suggestion, even tonight, that opposition to the practical difficulties is based not on knowledge from the shipping industry but on some extraordinary hang-up about the development of alternative fuels?
  I want to see this country capable not only of securing its supplies for the future, but of securing them from such a wide selection that we are able to ensure that we never again have the situation that existed after the last war, when we frequently lost power. When one thinks of the number of developments in manufacturing and domestic affairs that have occurred, one sees how important that is. But the Department has to take this seriously: the Select Committee report is not an amusement; we did not write it to entertain ourselves. If we ignore these matters now, the results could be horrendous.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I support the Second Reading of the Bill. We will no doubt go into the detail in Committee.
  What makes Britain unique in energy terms is the variety of sources available to us as a nation. We need to start a debate such as this with a discussion of the national energy objectives. We might put them in a different order. I think that the most important one is to meet UK energy demands safely and at optimum price. Close behind that is ensuring the security of supply, achieving our environmental objectives, relying on a balanced range of alternative sources and encouraging the efficient production and consumption of energy. All of us here have a responsibility in everything that we say to bear it in mind that we need energy efficiency both in generation and in transmission. We also need efficiency in industrial use and consumption. If we wish, we can all make a difference, by switching off unwanted lights and so on.
  I have often wondered why the Liberal Democrats simply cannot see what is obvious but following the speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) I now understand: it is only the Liberal Democrats who will put out the lights when they enter a dark room.
  We need to optimise the contribution of renewable energy sources—wind, wave and solar. That is a given. However, we also need to recognise their limitations. They can never provide the base load generation that an industrial nation such as ours requires. We need a new generation of nuclear fission plants, possibly leading to fusion, and I think that we could then move into the hydrogen economy, which, although it may not prove to be the holy grail, could certainly be real progress for our nation. Of course, no Government, and therefore no taxpayer, will build another nuclear plant. If such plants are built, they will all be regulated private sector investments.
  I particularly welcome chapter l of part 2, which introduces the nuclear liabilities fund and creates the nuclear decommissioning authority. That is extremely important. It is for me a great irony that, as I well recall, back in 1976 when I was a teacher of economics, the royal commission on environmental pollution produced a report saying that no nuclear power stations should be built without first dealing with long-term waste, but
  94
  within days the Labour Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Tony Benn, ignoring that, went ahead anyway. It is appropriate that this Labour Government are implementing something that they should have done in 1976. Until now, no Government have addressed properly the issue of nuclear waste. We have failed to address the need for a new generation of nuclear plant. We will put that right.
  I was very heartened by the debate in the other place on 6 May when Lord Sainsbury said:

  "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."

  He went on to say:

  "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 right around so that if a decision on new nuclear build comes through, we shall be able to seize that opportunity."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 May 2004; Vol. 660, c. 1271.]

  That is probably the most optimistic thing that the Government have said about nuclear power for a long time. We should all remember that although nuclear waste remains a risk for hundreds of years and it seems inconceivable that radioactive half-lives can be engineered down to short time scales, the half-life of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also measured in hundreds of years and burning coal, oil and gas creates long-term wastes as well, so that to take the latter route is to bequeath to future generations a much hotter climate and less biodiversity.
  I strongly support clause 128 on the renewable transport fuel obligation. There will be enormous opportunities, not only for the environment and for our nation, but for the farmers in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom, when oilseed rape can be used for biodiesel, wheat and sugar beet can be used for bioethanol mixed with petrol, and set-aside land can be used to grow fuel. I acknowledge that the Government have made the right noises so far, but bioethanol needs more than the 20p a litre fuel duty reduction—that is insufficient to encourage major investment in bioethanol production. What we need is a duty reduction of about 30p a litre, or equivalent support in the form of capital grants. I hope that the Government will not seek to delete clause 128, which was inserted during proceedings in the other place after being proposed by a Labour peer who happens to be a distinguished Wiltshire farmer.
  We should not neglect a further aspect of the Bill, which has not so far been mentioned: chapter 3 of part 2, which creates the civil nuclear constabulary. In 1986, I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Ministry of Defence Police Bill. That Bill was but the start of the tinkering with Britain's police service. We in this country have always accepted that policing is by consent and that control lies with local police authorities, which have at least a democratic element to them. However, we have seen the emergence of a number of national police forces—four of them, with perhaps more to come—which are in the direct control of Secretaries of State, are answerable to the House of Commons only indirectly, and are not answerable to local people. They are answerable only to various fairly disembodied boards.

  95
  There is one glaring and extraordinary omission from chapter 3, in that the UKAEA constabulary is to have its jurisdiction reduced from 25 km to 5 km, and its officers are allowed to go beyond that only in pursuit of stolen nuclear or nuclear-related goods. Furthermore, they are specifically disallowed from assisting the civil constabularies—the Home Office police—in an emergency. That is bizarre—so bizarre that it runs contrary to the Government's recent actions in giving additional powers to, for example, the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police, which they have integrated more closely with Home Office constabularies, to the great advantage and protection of communities throughout the country. I hope that we can address that problem; I shall certainly pursue it in Committee.
  The Bill seems also to reflect an assumption on the part of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the officers of the UKAEA constabulary are not properly trained police officers. They are. All training for their officers is Centrex approved and all detectives, chief police officers and counter-terrorist search officers are Home Office trained. We should have complete confidence in them. The UKAEA police have full constabulary power, but that is to be limited and, indeed, reduced. That is absolute nonsense. I am grateful to Mr. Barry Wright, secretary of the Atomic Energy Police Federation, for drawing the matter to my attention. It needs to be pursued in Committee.
  I shall end my remarks at that point. A great deal of work needs to be done, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to set out my modest agenda at this stage.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Kevin Hughes: When the Secretary of State opened the debate, she said that three themes run through the Bill. I think that there are four, and one of them is clearly that of missed opportunities. Everyone who has spoken after her has mentioned a missed opportunity. Energy is not really one of the other three main themes. We have to rely on part 1, which was inserted through amendments made in the other place, not only to provide a debate on energy in connection with this Energy Bill, but to set out clearly the important issue that we should be discussing: this country's energy requirements and security of supply. For what it is, the Bill is pretty good and worth supporting, but to call it the Energy Bill stretches the imagination a little too far. If it was on sale in a corner shop, someone would get done for misrepresentation or for offences under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
  None the less, part I deals with important issues, on which I shall focus this evening. Important though NETA, BETTA, the NDA and Ofgem are, I shall stick to security of supply and the country's energy requirements. The Bill does represent a huge missed opportunity. To be frank, it beggars belief that any Government are prepared to leave our energy requirements entirely to market forces. I do not understand how we can do that. The Secretary of State's cunning plan appears to be that we will import 80 per cent. of our energy requirements and generate 20 per cent. using renewables by 2020. Presumably, we will be importing all our gas, oil and coal, we will have no
  96
  nuclear energy, and all we will be left with in this country is a bunch of windmills that only work when the wind blows. The fact is that they work only about 30 per cent. of the time. I do not think that that is very efficient.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) mentioned Hatfield colliery, which is in my constituency. Although I do not want to rehearse the arguments about why it closed, it is important to state that the colliery is closed. There are steel caps on the shafts. Some of us had hoped that the adjoining colliery at Thorne would form a super-pit with Hatfield to access the 100 million tonnes of UK coal that is there, but I learned today that plans have been started to fill in the shafts at Thorne. It seems that there is no longer a possibility of running the Hatfield and Thorne collieries together, which is a crying shame, because the opportunity available at Hatfield colliery was second to none. Many people write off the coal industry, but the new technology that my hon. Friend discussed—the integrated gasification combined cycle system—offers the opportunity to reinvent the coal industry, to use one of our greatest natural resources, and to generate electricity in abundance without the toxic emissions that we normally associate with burning coal. The IGCC technology does not burn coal in the traditional sense, and it is possible to capture CO2 emissions during the process. In fact, we can pump the CO2 down into our oil wells in the North sea and enhance the recovery of our oil wealth there.
  I know, because it has been investigated, that were we able to keep Hatfield colliery open, a planning application under section 36 has been agreed. An IGCC power station at Hatfield would make it possible to pipe that CO2 up to the Scottish oilfields and enhance the recovery of the oil, so it has a dual function. But it is better than that—nitrates can also be captured during the process, which as we all know are used in the chemical industry. It gets even better—most of us understand that the way forward for energy is probably hydrogen power, and the IGCC process can also capture hydrogen.
  Under the plans for Hatfield, which are there for anyone to see, to capture the hydrogen and produce the energy cells, enough hydrogen would be captured at that single plant to run the whole public transport system in south Yorkshire. That is a pretty huge amount. Unfortunately, that opportunity has been missed, because the Government are worshipping market forces. They believe that we can leave everything in the energy industry to market forces. I am sorry, but we cannot. The Government need to pump-prime some of that new technology. Allowing Hatfield to go under, as it has done, was a tragedy.
  This Government put a lot of money into trying to secure the future of Hatfield, and my hon. Friend the Minister spent a lot of time with me trying to do so. Because it is left to market forces, and because of the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone referred of accessing funds from banking for private industries, the bottom line is that it is difficult to access the type of capital required for that kind of project. Private industries would be expected to raise £30 million to £45 million to access the 100 million tonnes of coal available at Hatfield. Given what the Government published in the White Paper, and the looming large combustion plant

  97
  directive, people in the City are hardly filled with enthusiasm for lending £30 million to £45 million to somebody who wants to exploit the coal reserves at Hatfield. Consequently, at present those plans are on ice. I am still hopeful that the present owner, Richard Budge, who is well known in the coal industry, will keep trying to access funding to open Hatfield colliery again, and to get the IGCC technology up and running.
  The Government cannot sit on the sidelines wringing their hands. Our energy needs are at stake, and they need to get involved. Sometimes, that means putting in some money, pump-priming this technology and capital investment. I urge them to do that, because it is not yet too late. Certainly, it is not too late for the project at Hatfield.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: We have heard many interesting views, but I want to pick up on some comments made by the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), because he and I share one part of a common agenda: security of supply of energy in this country is vital. I also want to pick up on an observation by the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). In a telling intervention, he effectively agreed with a line that I have taken in previous debates: effectively, we cannot have a cheap energy policy in this country and, at the same time, energy security.
  Other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have rightly said that this might be a debate for enthusiasts, each of whom promulgate their chosen source of energy, to which they or their constituency are committed. For my part, I remember as a boy, in 1956, reading in my "Eagle" comic about the arrival of Windscale nuclear power station, and a wonderful cutaway drawing promising limitless forms of energy in the future. That had an influence on me, and when I became the Member of Parliament for Fylde, and discovered that nearly all Britain's nuclear fuel was made in my constituency, I thought that the world has an unusual way of coming full circle.
  There is another way in which we need to tackle arguments about energy security. Most of our remarks in this debate have been about security in the physical sense: about what happens if one system goes wrong, and whether others have enough capacity to replace the missing energy. I also want us to develop a policy of security in the economic sense.
  One of my worries about the policy partly espoused in this Bill is that we are still wedded to a hydrocarbon economy. We may get the gas through a pipeline from wherever—it may be delivered by sea—but soon we will find that at least 70 per cent. of our electricity is coming down somebody's pipeline, and the cost of that will be determined by the world energy market. By definition, therefore, with the removal of coal, the rundown of nuclear, and the questions raised by others in this debate about how much electricity can come from renewable sources, we have surrendered the amount of the energy price over which we have any real influence to the world energy market, which is volatile, as we have seen in recent events.
  I therefore draw a simple conclusion: whatever the outcome of the Bill, it must be about having the balanced energy portfolio that has served this country
  98
  extremely well. I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), who encapsulated in their own way many of my views about the future of the nuclear industry. The workers in my constituency have a remarkable safety record in the manufacture of nuclear fuels, and with the new investment in the fuels plant at BNFL at Springfield, effectively, no human gets near the manufacturing process. It is safe to make, safe to operate, and it has tremendous potential. Unless decisions are made, however, about the shape and scope of the future of Britain's nuclear industry, the fuels side of the business will not effectively be able to prepare itself.
  What is the future of that fuels business? I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) commented on remarks of a positive nature in the other place, but I want the Minister to tell us a bit more about the future of BNFL's fuels division, which, under the new landscape of BNFL, is part of the Westinghouse division. Between 1,200 and 1,500 jobs in my constituency are still involved in the manufacturing of nuclear fuel, and those workers want a much clearer view of the future of the industry.
  The Bill deals with the establishment of the new decommissioning authority, but there is a yawning omission. The Minister is right to establish a body to put into safer terms what is effectively a large nuclear dustbin at Sellafield—all the bits left over from the military programmes, which are dumped in those silos—and anyone who has visited it leaves thinking that something must be done with it. Having said that, the missing element relates to what the Government will do to speed up the process of consulting about what will be Britain's long-term nuclear repository. Without that solution, the new agency's work will be stifled before it begins. It has its bureaucracy in place, it works out how it will do its job; then where does it put the fruits of its labour? At present, the Government are still consulting on how to consult on the ultimate disposal of nuclear waste in this country. Finland, meanwhile, is just getting on with it.
  Rather than trying to find a solution for ever and a day, will the Government not at last adopt the Nirex approach? That means saying, "If we can get something safe and recoverable, it will do for a century." New technologies come along, but at least we have an answer to the age-old question of what we should do with the leftovers of Britain's nuclear industry, while giving hope to a new nuclear power generation industry that affordable disposal of its waste materials—albeit in smaller quantities, given the new designs of nuclear reactors—can be accommodated.
  My Select Committee also dealt with the question of biofuels. like others who have spoken, I welcome clause 128. As I said in an earlier intervention, its objective mirrors views that I expressed during debates on the Finance Bill and in the Select Committee's report. I believe that a target that blends with both the diesel and the petrol ends of the road fuels business gives the Government an opportunity to replicate mechanisms that they have approved in the context of the renewables

  99
  obligation. It is vital that they take that route, at least in terms of giving some decent pump-priming economic assistance to the industry.
  I realise that the 2 per cent. and 5.75 per cent. road fuels directive is indicative rather than mandatory, but if we are to meet its requirements we shall have to have bioethanol in this country. We talk a lot about biodiesel and the use of waste fats. Helpful as that may be, we cannot achieve our objectives with petrol-driven vehicles without bioethanol.
  As the Minister knows, there are other benefits. Apart from the use of output from the 300,000 tonnes of set-aside land, there is a potential benefit in the disposal of rubbish in this country. The lignocellosic part of the use of biofuels gives the Minister access to a waste-stream source consisting of wood, old materials and anything that produce sugar. Once the sugar is there, the fermentation that produces bioethanol can take place.
  British Sugar has made it clear that if that industrial process does not start now, it will invest in Poland and we shall end up importing the bioethanol that we need to meet our target. At present, the Department is playing a leading role in World Trade Organisation talks that will ultimately lead to the reform of the European Union sugar market. It has been too long unreformed, but something must be done with the investment that will provide the feedstock for bioethanol. In parallel, something must be done about biodiesel. We must kick-start a UK industry that uses UK-grown oilseed rape. At present, bizarrely, we are exporting raw material feedstock to Germany and France so that they can make biodiesel when we should be doing it ourselves.
  I hope that the Government will now take a lead and sort out the mess that is our biofuels industry. We have DEFRA saying how good it is for jobs in the rural economy, we have the Treasury setting the fiscal regime, we have the DTI presenting an energy policy—we even have the Department of Transport running a consultation exercise on the level of the biofuels obligation. Please can the Government get their act together, help the rural economy, and help themselves meet the carbon dioxide reduction targets by means of a UK-based biofuels processing industry?
  8.14 pm
  Dr. Brian Iddon: It is a great pleasure to take part in an energy debate in the main Chamber. Since my election, most energy debates have taken place either in Westminster Hall or here on Fridays, via the mechanism of private Members' Bills. It is rather sad that most of the advances —albeit small— in energy policy have been made in that way.
  Most developed countries are engaging in a serious debate about energy—rightly, in my view. The Science and Technology Committee visited Japan during its study of non-carbon fuels. One of the memories with which I left Japan was of a very mountainous country. From Mount Fuji the land goes straight down to the sea: there is no continental shelf surrounding the islands. That rules out offshore wind, because there is nothing to which to anchor the turbines. Tidal power is ruled out as well.
  The Japanese have obviously thought carefully about their energy policy. They have their old enemy, China, facing them, and they are conscious of the implications
  100
  of bringing in oil and liquefied gas via the sea. They have decided to invest heavily in nuclear power as their main base load, but also to invest heavily in photovoltaic cells. We saw roofs being lowered on to houses—roofs that had been preconstructed in factories, manufactured entirely from photovoltaic cells. Inside the houses were other energy-saving devices. The Japanese have thought through their domestic energy policy, and are also investing a great deal in fuel cell technology. I would say that in those two technologies theirs is the leading country in the world: it is probably ahead of us and even America.
  A large amount of public subsidy is going into photovoltaic technology. Photovoltaic energy is not yet able to beat all other energy processes, so the Japanese Government are subsidising householders to fit photovoltaic cells in existing properties, while all new properties are being provided with photovoltaic roofs.
  Finland has also been having a serious debate about energy policy recently. It has been upfront with its public about the possibility of building more nuclear plants and providing its base load through nuclear energy. In fact, that it is what it has decided to do. Its public debates have been far more successful than ours on, for instance, genetically modified crops. It has persuaded the people that the only way to secure its energy supplies for the future and to develop as it intends to, is to build nuclear plants. It is also solving—with the help of the public—the problem of disposing of existing nuclear waste from nuclear generating plants, which is a problem that faces us as well.
  Within three years we will be a net importer of gas, and within seven we will be a net importer of oil. As others have pointed out, by 2020 we will be at least 70 per cent. dependent on imported energy. Indeed, it has been suggested that our dependency will be as high as 90 per cent. I cannot, on behalf of my constituents, endorse a policy that allows us to rely on so much imported energy. If I were to design an energy policy—and I suggest that the Government act along these lines—it would involve two important concepts, security of supply and diversity of supply. The thought of gas coming from in anywhere in the world, even Norway—especially if it came through an above-ground pipeline—terrifies me. I think that "terrifies" is the right word, because, as we have seen in the middle east, it is easy to blow up such pipelines, not just at one point but at several points.
  Let us imagine what could happen if we were 70 to 90 per cent. reliant on imported energy, mainly gas, and there were one or two explosions on the pipeline. They might happen in the Russian states, from which we will probably import, or in the middle east, from which we may import. For how many days would some of our major cities and towns be without energy? No Government can afford to develop a policy that allows us to depend so much on imported energy.
  I am all in favour of renewable energy. We should be developing all forms of such energy, including the stuff that comes out of fish and chip shops. I was rather worried to hear the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) say that the exhaust coming out of those cars smelled like almonds. Any chemist will tell him that the smell of almonds is like that of cyanide, so there is a bit

  101
  of a worry there. I am not suggesting that hydrogen cyanide was coming out of the exhaust, but it may have been.
  We must consider the base load. There is no way we can have an intermittent supply of energy—wind energy, for example—to produce the base load. We must have something that we can instantly switch on and off. Gas is the best form of energy in that respect, so we cannot rule out the use of gas. In recent years, there has been a dash for gas because it is cheaper and faster to build the plants. The returns for the investment are much greater for companies. There must be public investment in energy. I am all in favour of building new, cleaner nuclear plants that produce only 10 per cent. of the nuclear waste that existing plants produce.
  There is no such thing as a safe method of producing energy. Think about the Piper Alpha disaster in the North sea, the thousands, probably world wide hundreds of thousands, of miners who have been killed in methane gas explosions or other accidents. Energy comes at a cost.
  The nuclear industry in this country has a fine safety record. Okay, there have been problems in the Irish sea, but the very small trace amounts of radioactive material that get into the Irish sea do not bear any comparison with what used to happen. We have made great steps forward.
  I used to work in a department of chemistry that trained a lot of people for the nuclear industry. We had one of the largest radioactive suites in Europe, where we trained people to handle highly radioactive materials. Therefore there were departments who trained such people. Our courses were mainly degrees in chemistry or applied chemistry but they always had a module to train people for the nuclear power industry. The hon. Member for Eddisbury said that there are no undergraduate courses in that anymore. That is probably true, but there are modules on that in undergraduate courses. He failed to mention that there are still postgraduate university courses to train people in nuclear power. However, there are by no means enough. The nuclear power industry says that it does not have enough young people coming in to replace the people who are retiring.
  Energy costs are rising. The cost of the Phoenix gas company's supplies of gas in Belfast and the surrounding area has gone up by 11 per cent. in the past 12 months. A 20 per cent. increase in October is on the cards and is causing controversy in discussions across Belfast.
  If we have a 10 per cent. rise in gas or electricity prices, it puts 500,000 people back into fuel poverty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that 750,000 people have been lifted out of fuel poverty. Rises in energy costs, which are inevitable, will put a lot of people back into fuel poverty if we do not counteract that in some way. I do not think that there is any way of avoiding rising costs.
  Driving down costs of energy has had a downside: there has not been enough investment in research and development throughout the energy industry. It is therefore not all good news when the costs of gas, electricity or any other form of energy are driven down—the downside is a drastic reduction in research and development. We will feel that in future.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful to be able to participate in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who spoke a lot of common sense, particularly when he referred to the fact that if we rely on imports of energy, anything could happen, particularly in the light of the rise of terrorism. It would be completely stupid for any Government to have a policy that was based on that.
  This is an important debate because 100 per cent. of the Lancashire Conservatives have spoken in it. Sadly, there are only two of us at the moment but, following the next general election, no doubt there will be more and we will not be able to get 100 per cent. of the Lancashire Conservatives speaking in a debate of this importance.
  I speak as an environmentalist. I represent Ribble Valley, which is a beautiful, glorious, very rural constituency. I hasten to add that, to my knowledge, I have one wind turbine in Ribble Valley, and I hope to keep it that way. A British Wind Energy Association map shows where all the 1,100 wind turbines are in the United Kingdom. The map looks pretty crowded now, and if we carry on as we are we will add another 5,000 to 10.000 wind turbines to it. It will be absolute lunacy if we go down that path, for reasons on which I hope to expand.
  The Bill talks about the security and integrity of energy being vital. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for that. It is an important role.
  The hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes) said that the current policy seems to be a free-market one. If that were the case and it were left just to the free market, I suspect that we would not have a single wind turbine in this country. If it were not for the subsidies, it would not be worth putting them up. It is important to get that right. If it were not for the amount of money that British taxpayers are paying for the erection of wind turbines, we would not be going down that path.
  In 20 or 30 years' time, when some sanity comes into energy policy, and a father and mother are driving their family around and one of the children points at a wind turbine and asks, "What is that?" the parents will reply, "That is an example of the folly of the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the Government thought that it would be the answer to all our problems. They invented targets that they had to meet, and they thought that wind turbines were the answer." We all want the Government to meet targets that mean that we rely less on carbon energy, but, sadly, one will not have to drive far to see examples of such folly—they will be all over the place. They are all over Scotland, Wales and large swathes of the south-west and the midlands—there is one coming near you now if we carry on with that policy.
  I want to rely not on my prejudices—I declare my interest as president of the Country Guardians, which opposes industrial furniture in the countryside—but on those of some other people. James Lovelock, the founding historical and cultural leader of environmentalism for environmentalists around the world, said:

  "I was asked to open the windfarm at Delabole. At that time nobody was talking about a gigantic programme, getting 15 or 20 per cent of the country's energy from wind turbines. It was a kind of nice green gesture. I think, now that I know as much as I do, I wouldn't have touched it with a bargepole."

  103
  The second person is Sir Martin Holdgate, the now-retired chairman of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group, which in 1992 advised the Government to set out on an alternative energy path. He strongly favoured renewable technologies, he said, but in the right place and on the right scale. He was attracted to the idea of solar panels on roofs and said:

  "The trouble with wind farms is that they have a huge spatial footprint for a piddling little bit of electricity. You would need 800 turbines to replace the output of a coal-fired power station."

  I am not an expert, so I rely on those who know all about it. My third expert has an honorary degree from the university of Central Lancashire. He said:

  "My main thing against them is that they can only work, if you are very lucky, for 30 per cent. of the time. Going by the ones in Denmark it is about 17 per cent. of the time. So how are people going to be able to boil their kettles, or how are we going to power our hospitals the rest of the time? It means that we have got to keep our other stations running, spinning in reserve, inefficiently and pouring out carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide and the like."

  That person was David Bellamy; no one could say anything against his environmental credentials, and he is someone with huge credence in the country.
  We know that the demand for power will rise tremendously over the next 10 to 20 years and we need a policy to deal with that.
  Brian White: The hon. Gentleman implies that the only renewable technology is wind power. Does he recognise that there is a panoply of renewable technology and that we ought to make sure that that wide range of renewables is encouraged?
  Mr. Evans: I absolutely agree. Part of the problem is that we are reliant on one kind of energy but not on all the others mentioned in part 1 of the Bill. There are so many alternative energies that could be getting part of the subsidy that disproportionately goes to wind power. A lot of other technologies and renewables do not get a look-in for all sorts of reasons, and I hope that that will be addressed in Committee.
  There is a one-sided debate, as we have heard this evening: everybody loves wind turbines, which provide free energy and look nice—one cannot say anything against them—but nuclear power is nasty and horrible. One has to decommission nuclear plants. A wind turbine can be decommissioned for £12.50, but nuclear power will cost billions to decommission. The arguments are one-sided and, for whatever reason, Governments of different persuasions have been slowly hooked on wind technology. It is now time we got off that hook.
  The subsidy going to wind technology is enormous—about £400 million. The myths need debunking. I do not have a wind turbine in my constituency and I will keep fighting against it, as will a number of other people. That is why I intervened on the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) to say that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of wind technology generally but against
  104
  individual applications, which they know will lose them votes. People do not like wind turbines, which reduce the value of people's property.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman in talk about offshore as well as onshore wind? He states that he does not have a turbine in his constituency, but appears to forget that we are talking today about turbines that are far out to sea and not in his constituency.
  Mr. Evans: At one time, I thought that because people always said nice things about wind turbines I should not hit them too hard. I knew that they were completely inefficient, produced a piddling amount of energy and were noisy. I knew that people did not like huge farms in their area and that such farms were a scar and a blot on the countryside. I knew that they hit tourism.
  If we shove them out to sea, we can pander to those people who think they are being environmentally friendly. We can put them on rigs out in the sea; it is hugely expensive, but who cares? We must pander to the green lobby somehow, despite the fact that it would give a small percentage reduction in carbon emissions. But, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, there are a number of downsides to that scheme as well.
  If we are looking at efficient ways of producing energy, we should spend a small percentage of the amount that we are ploughing into wind technology on energy conservation. If so, we would not need the wind turbines in the first place. There is hardly a mention in the Bill of energy conservation, which is remarkable. We spend money on lagging roofs and insulating doors and windows, and Ribble Valley council accesses Government grants to ensure it is able to do that. But why do we not do more? Why do we not invest more money to ensure that more people get access to cheaper lights that use less energy? They are expensive now, but why do we not bring the price down for everybody? Everyone could then get energy conservation bulbs, which would help a little. We could be doing all sorts of things on the conservation front, such as roof insulation, doors and cladding, which we are currently not doing.
  Mr. Stunell: May I warn the hon. Gentleman that he is coming dangerously near to propounding Liberal Democrat policy? I remind him that we have just spent £243 million propping up British Energy—money that should have gone into energy efficiency.
  Mr. Evans: I am old enough arid wise enough to know that almost anything that I say comes close to propounding the Liberal Democrats' policy one way or another, because one of them will be saying it to some group of people. If only they had a coherent policy, at least we would know where they stood. They are in favour of and against certain things at the same time, which is part of the problem.
  On the need to ensure that we preserve the countryside, and the ways of doing that—perhaps the Minister could address this point when he winds up—tourism is one of our fastest growing industries, with thousands of jobs reliant on it, so to scar the countryside

  105
  with yet more wind turbines is a grave mistake. Even to push them out into the sea, at disproportionate cost, is a grave mistake. Let us look at all the alternative supplies mentioned in the Bill, and ensure that sufficient funds are going into research and technology at the university and industry stages, so that we can work out what to do.
  Let us not turn our backs on nuclear energy, either. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said—I suspect that I, too, have about 100 constituents working at Springfields —France is reliant on nuclear energy, which produces well over 70 per cent. of its total. We are prepared to import that energy from France, but turn our backs on it here, as though it were not in our backyard. I must tell hon. Members that France is in our backyard. To import energy from there, at the same time as denying that source here, is completely disingenuous. We should get a grip on that issue.
  8.36 pm
  Dr. Desmond Turner: At least the Conservatives are even-handed—they say, "Not in anybody's backyard", whereas the Liberals stick to their own backyards.
  To be a little more serious about energy policy, our problem here tonight is that we are discussing a Bill that should be the launching pad for an energy policy that makes a serious contribution to the future survival of the world, in terms of climate change. All that it is, in fact, is a set of housekeeping measures, which does not do anything seriously to promote renewable energy. The White Paper gave us all hope when it identified and set in lights the 60 per cent. target for CO2 reduction as a prime policy driver. Since then, the threat of climate change has been reinforced and emphatically stated from many sources, including the Pentagon and the Government's chief scientist, all of which have made it clear that climate change is the most serious threat to the security of the planet.
  The problem with climate change is that we cannot start too soon to try to do something,about it. Even if we achieve the 60 per cent. target by 2050, of all the climate change scenarios even the most moderate is still quite extreme, by comparison with current circumstances, and anything else starts to move into the apocalyptic. Energy, therefore, takes centre stage. Virtually all the CO2 output is derived from energy use, so it follows that we should be concentrating on moving away from the habit of burning fossil fuels. That has to be the ultimate driver.
  Although this might not be the Secretary of State's fault, to have a Bill that starts out by imposing a duty on her to keep the lights on, which she already has, is laughable. Even George W. would understand that one. We need to do a little better than that, and CO2 reduction has to be the prime driver There is now probably general agreement on both sides of the House, and with everybody in the industry, that the present aspirations for renewable energy generation in this country will not be met—and, sadly, the Bill does nothing to correct that. We have to ask ourselves why. What is wrong?
  For me, wind turbines are definitely not the be-all and end-all of the renewable energy industry. New technologies coming on stream could be far more
  106
  potent, especially in the United Kingdom. How fast they are exploited is another question. As everybody probably knows by now, my favourite candidate is tidal power, closely followed by wave power. Between them, those two natural resources have the inherent capacity, if exploited, to supply twice as much electricity as this country now generates and consumes. That massive potential has to be worth exploiting.
  Not only can those sources generate that huge amount of electricity, but tidal power can supply base load as well, because tides are totally predictable, to the minute. We know exactly when they will flow and exactly how fast, and the times change around the country, so if we locate our generation sites strategically, we can have constant predictable baseline power, with no CO2 emissions and no serious environmental consequences. That must be a goal well worth pursuing.
  We have seen the advantages that Denmark and Germany have gained from wind power, for all its problems. Denmark is a world leader in producing wind turbines, which provides thousands of manufacturing jobs in a small country and is a very significant contributor to its economy. We have that opportunity with the marine technologies, if we can exploit them fast enough. There are fantastic export opportunities.
  We have worried about the industrialisation of the developing world. What if China, India or the whole Pacific rim were to industrialise by burning coal? They do not have to do that, because there are magnificent tidal opportunities in the Pacific rim. Anywhere there are islands, there are tidal power opportunities. We still just have the world lead in this technology, and we could have a fantastic export industry, creating 50,000 jobs—or perhaps 100,000, or more. If we do it right, the sky is the limit. We cannot afford to miss that. Why are we not doing it more quickly?
  The example of our near neighbours Germany and Denmark shows how determined Governments, without massive expenditure, can promote the introduction and deployment of a technology. We must do that too, yet the sad thing is that the Bill does nothing about it.
  I have here a report by the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I probably do not have time to talk about its recommendations in detail, but it supplies the policy that is lacking, and if its advice were followed the funding would be supplied, through a carbon tax and carbon tax credit system. CO2-producing technologies would be taxed, and renewable technologies would get a credit. That would solve the problem that technologies other than wind power, which is already there and is readily deployable off the shelf, have in attracting investment. The current system of ROCs—renewables obligation certificates—is too small and too uncertain to attract investment. But if we are to get a new technology into the marketplace, it needs support. By definition, it cannot possibly come in straight away at a commercial price, because the early machines do not have absolute design optimisation and economies of scale. That is why new technologies need guaranteed entry prices. Germany has achieved such things through its renewable energy legislation. Whether or not one likes wind power, we should note that Germany has deployed it several times faster than we have, or even plan to.

  107
  The report also clearly sets out grid companies' obligation to connect new generators to the grid—we will have to rewire Britain completely—and how that will be paid for. We could do this. For example, our Committee proposed a renewable energy authority. We are to have a nuclear decommissioning authority, which I totally support, but promoting renewable energy is at least as important to our future. We could derive enormous benefit from such a body taking over the functions currently exercised by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Carbon Trust and other bodies that, frankly, are not as effective as they might be, and from its producing as concentrated an effort in developing renewable energies as the UK produced in developing nuclear power after the second world war.
  There are possibilities out there, but the Bill does not reflect them. It is not too late to incorporate some of these principles.
  8.46 pm
  Norman Baker: The good news, if I may say so in a spirit of generosity, is that the Government's energy White Paper is almost coherent in setting out the way forward; the bad news is that the so-called Energy Bill does not implement the White Paper. This is becoming a serial fault of the Government. The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, which should have produced an holistic view of how we deal with waste, was simply the "landfill directive implementation Bill". The Water Bill was a series of small, unconnected measures that failed to recognise the water framework directive, which was being implemented at the same time through regulation. As hon. Members have said, this Bill is not simply a missed opportunity, it is a worrying sign. There is a window of opportunity to get this issue right, but the Government are missing it.
  I agree with those hon. Members who said that security and diversity need to be key drivers in energy policy. Of course, a third driver is minimising environmental impact, yet the Bill contains virtually nothing on energy efficiency or energy conservation. Labour Members rightly talked about the impact of high energy charges on their constituents, and the way in which people have been taken out of fuel poverty. I admire the desire to get people out of such poverty, but the best way to deal with the problem is to conserve energy: to reduce the cost of energy by reducing the amount that people have to buy, through energy conservation and energy efficiency measures. That would help individual constituents and reduce the impact on the environment, yet we hear nothing about that idea in this Bill; nor did the Secretary of State say anything about it in her opening remarks. That is another missed opportunity.
  The Government also need to look at transmission losses. We have long transmission lines, and as a recent parliamentary question of mine demonstrated, we lose more of our energy between the point of generation and the point of consumption than other European countries do, probably as a result of the transformer arrangements. It is a big issue that the Government have not even begun to address.
  The second failing is in respect of renewables. I, too, believe that renewables should and will provide the bedrock of our energy generation requirements in the
  108
  years ahead. They will do so through diversity of supply, rather than through onshore wind power alone, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)—he has disappeared from the Chamber—would have us believe. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) suggested. there are a number of alternatives, which are listed in the Bill. But the Bill does not set out how to promote them, other than to wish and hope for the best.
  The Government fail to intervene in the energy market in a meaningful way. The days when the Department of Trade and Industry would intervene before breakfast, lunch and dinner—when Michael Heseltine was Secretary of State—have long gone. It is now a matter for market forces, but the idea is taken to a ludicrous degree. Some of us had lunch today with the senior environment official in California, who told us that the land of the free is intervening to get its energy policy right and making sure there is pump priming for renewable technology and low-interest loans for private sector companies to make sure that technologies are developed. Targets are being set for photovoltaics on 50 per cent. of homes in California. What are our Government doing about that? I am tempted to say something unparliamentary, but the diplomatic way of putting it is "Not very much".
  Much more could be done, and we have a window of opportunity in which to get things right. There will undoubtedly be increasing uncertainty over fossil fuel supplies. We are seeing the run-down—rightly, in my view—of the nuclear industry. We must make sure that we start actively to fill the gap, and we must do it now. We can do that, first, by reducing energy demand, and then by having a big renewables programme. We are not seeing that happen.
  Of course, it suits some people very well to pretend that there is no renewable energy industry able to meet the gap and that we must therefore fall back on nuclear power. It suits some people so well that wind power and other renewable energies are being talked down so that people are encouraged not to invest in them. That is what is being said from the Conservative Benches, and there is a spectrum of views—to put it kindly—among Government Members. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs believes that renewables are very important and that nuclear power has no future. Lord Sainsbury, on the other hand. believes that nuclear power is the best thing since sliced bread and that we should be investing in it as fast as we can. The Secretary of State for Trade and industry is stuck somewhere in the middle, which is why the door to nuclear power has been left open. It would be helpful if the Government finally settled on a view and implemented it, rather than hoping that market forces will dictate. That abdication of responsibility means that renewables will not have the support that hon. Members on both sides—particularly on the Labour Benches—want for that industry. The way things are going, we will not see that.
  Conservative Back Benchers have told us that nuclear power is the solution, and their Front-Bench spokesmen—I hope that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) will do this—should have the decency to say, if they believe in nuclear power, that it is their policy to have new build. They cannot honestly

  109
  carry on articulating a need for nuclear power while saying that they have an open mind on whether nuclear new build should occur. New build is a respectable policy; 1 disagree with it, but if it is their policy, they should say so instead of pretending that they are stuck in the middle, like the Government. They do not want to offend the green lobby or someone else, but they should advocate the policy they believe in.
  There are three good reasons why nuclear is not the future and why it would be wrong to go down that road. First, there is security, which is a real issue in the age of terrorism. Nuclear installations and nuclear fuel present a threat and a target, and we should be careful not to exacerbate that. The Government should minimise the exposure of the nuclear industry. For example, they should be minimising transport movements of nuclear material, but they are not. Movements of radioactive material are a matter, they say, for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. or for British Energy, or for anyone apart from them. In fact, according to answers to my parliamentary questions of last year, unless they have changed their mind since, the Government even allow nuclear material to be carried, in theory at least, on passenger ferries and through the channel tunnel. That is the Government's official position, and if I am wrong on that, the Minister should stand up and say so. That is what his predecessor said in answers to me about a year ago.
  The second issue is cost. Hon. Members, now absent, have berated the cost of wind power. We were told it would be £400 million, and how terrible that is, if it is correct—and I must say that the figure varies from day to day. But there was no mention of the £48 billion that we are being asked to find from the taxpayers' purse to decommission the nuclear industry. That is an enormous sum, and far more has been given over the years to the nuclear industry than to renewables. Parliamentary answers demonstrate that while renewables have been given a pittance—pennies here and there—shovels full of cash have been thrown at the nuclear industry.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: No matter how much is put into wind power, it will provide electricity only for a small percentage—perhaps only 30 per cent.—of the time. That is the difference. The nuclear industry provides 22 per cent. of all our electricity without failing us at all.
  Norman Baker: There are a number of problems with that. First, we are back to wind power as the only renewable source of energy. Secondly, we are not yet clear whether nuclear new build is Conservative policy—perhaps we should assume that it is. Thirdly, other countries manage to generate much more than 22 per cent. of their energy from renewable sources. I am afraid that that is "three strikes and you're out" for the hon. Member for Tewkesbury on his intervention.
  Mr. Weir: Equally, there is the point that nuclear energy can be interrupted. In fact, Torness in Scotland shut down for a considerable time because of mechanical problems.
  Norman Baker: That is absolutely true and the point should be borne in mind by those who advocate nuclear
  110
  power. Unlike gas and coal generation of electricity, nuclear power cannot be switched on and off: it has to be kept running.
  The third problem with nuclear power is nuclear waste. We have gigantic amounts of it in this country—
  Mr. Robertson indicated dissent.
  Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but we do. I could quote him parliamentary answers from successive Ministers. Furthermore, the Government's own "Consultation Paper on Proposals for Intermediate Level Radioactive Waste Substitution"—a catchy title—means that we will get more waste. The Government will increase the amount of nuclear waste in this country—that is what the consultation paper actually says. One would think that they would at least stop reprocessing, which increases the amount of nuclear waste. I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she would stop reprocessing and to outline her views. The Minister for the Environment replied:

  "Decisions about whether to reprocess spent nuclear fuel depend on the commercial judgment of the operator concerned."—[Official Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 146W.]

  The commercial judgment of the operator? Where is the Government's bold policy on that? Do we or do we not want more nuclear waste? Do the Government not have a view on that? Is it simply a matter for some company somewhere to decide that they can land the taxpayer of the future with an environmental and a financial liability? That appears to be the Government's abdication of responsibility, so far as the nuclear industry is concerned.
  When the Minister sums up, will he comment on The Sunday Times story—I hope that he will take note of it; he is obviously not listening—that appeared last Sunday, which suggested that 20 kg of radioactive material had gone missing from the midlands? Will he say whether it is true and what the Government are going to do about it? As the Minister is not listening, perhaps the Whip will tell him that I have raised that point and asked him to comment on it when he responds this evening.
  This country needs a proper nuclear policy and a proper energy policy. Energy policy should be based on minimising, through energy conservation and energy efficiency, the amount of energy consumed and having proper investment pump-primed by Government intervention to get the renewables industry going. It should not be just an odd wind turbine here and there, or a pilot plant somewhere else. I mean a proper policy to get renewables up and running to meet the Government's target and beyond.
  We should be looking even further to the coal industry to establish how coal generation could be made more acceptable. In another parliamentary question, I asked about the gasification of coal. Labour Members who represent mining constituencies might be interested to hear the answer. I asked

  "what percentage of power was derived from gasified coal in 2003."

  111
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services replied:

  "Currently in the UK there is no power produced through coal gasification."—[Official Report, 6 May 2004: Vol. 420, c. 736W.]

  Why not? What have the Government been doing over the past six years to help the coal industry to ensure that our indigenous supply is used while at the same time meeting proper environmental standards? What has happened in the past six years? The Government need an energy policy, and they need it now.
  8.58 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: We have had a rather odd debate about this important Bill. Claims have been made that wind power is the only trick in the magic box, that the Government claim that it will solve everything and that we should also examine other sources. As far as I am aware, the Government and Labour Members have never claimed that that is the future for renewables. Indeed, page 55 of the White Paper includes a timeline for a whole variety of renewables coming on stream over a period, which will create the mix of renewables that hon. Members have spoken about.
  We must emphasise, however, that it is a race against time. We cannot just say that we should have a good think about various alternatives and discuss the best option over a period without taking any decisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) explained, we are producing ever-increasing amounts of CO2, which is causing enormous and possibly irreversible damage to our environment. The question is whether we start the movement towards renewables now, with the technologies that we have and bring others on line later, or talk about the technologies that we would like to have and do nothing. If we are not careful, we will be here in 50 years talking about what sort of renewables we would like. However, we will not be here in 50 years if we carry on business as usual in terms of energy use, because this building will have been flooded.
  The White Paper is ambitious and I was proud to have it published. I was proud that the Government emphasised a long-term aim of a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, but that is of course a target and not actual energy reduction. The changing picture of UK energy production requires huge action. It has been estimated that to meet the Government's target of 10 per cent. of energy from renewable sources by 2010, some 3,500 to 5,000 wind turbines would be required. That would fulfil only the wind element of the target of some 7 per cent., with the remaining 3 per cent. met by other renewable energy sources. That could involve a variety of systems, which could contribute to a secure and reliable system. As hon. Members have already mentioned, wind is intermittent, but other renewable sources—tide, wave and biomass—are not. It is a failure of the imagination to think that the only way to secure a baseline of power—and a different arrangement for the distribution of power—is by continuing to churn out power in the centralised way that we always have.
  The DTI has said that the potential resource for wind in our territorial seas comes to 200 GW, or three times the present UK generating capacity. If we went beyond
  112
  territorial waters, a further 130 GW, or twice the UK's present generating capacity of 68 GW, would be available. That estimate excludes any conflict with oil exploration or production, with aggregate extraction or with shipping lanes.
  We have heard today that we need to replace nuclear capacity, and I agree with the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) that it is time that Conservative Front Benchers admitted, "We would like to build lots of nuclear power stations. Can we start tomorrow because that is our policy?" It is not tenable for the Conservatives to continue their patsy game.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I have tried to resist intervening on this topic, but I must point out that no Government would write a cheque for the building of new nuclear power stations. We believe in the market and it would be up to the market. Our point is that it is up to the Minister to create the economic conditions that will encourage investment to achieve security of supply. The coal industry is under environmental threat, gas will have to be imported from long distances and we struggle to meet renewables targets, so it is up to the Government to say how security of supply will be achieved.
  Dr. Whitehead: That clears that up, then. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have already said that they do not have a policy, but they do not agree with wind power or with encouraging renewable sources as the Government suggest. The Conservatives have implied that it would be a good idea to go down the nuclear route, but they will not come out and actually say that. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman has just confirmed that.
  Even if we did replace the entire present nuclear capacity with wind turbines—I do not anticipate that that will happen—we would need some 10,000 to 15,000, and some people think that that is an unachievable target. Germany already has 14,000 wind turbines in operation and the country is not covered with them. Nor has Germany failed to make progress in wind turbine technology, because it has begun to install them over the past 15 years.
  Capacity could also be derived from biofuels, as'hon. Members have mentioned. About 5 per cent. of arable land, much of it currently fallow, would be needed to meet EU biofuel targets of 6.7 per cent. Tidal power, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown, could provide twice the UK's generating capacity. The truth is that there is the capacity, both in base-load generation and intermittent generation, to produce a large proportion of the UK's energy supply through renewables.
  Realistically, the choice is between business as usual, renewable technologies that are coming on stream—and ensuring that those work well—or simply going nuclear. Real licences and real generation are needed now. We have to overcome a number of hurdles. Hon. Members have already mentioned shipping lanes and the objections of the Ministry of Defence. I do not think that those are insuperable objections; they can be negotiated and discussed.
  We must sort out the matter of renewable obligation certificates. The design of the renewable obligation system should not cause the system to come close to

  113
  collapse because certain firms go out of business and do not meet their obligations. We must have a more stable system that produces a more stable price.
  However, those are matters of detail. It is vital that we make use of all the renewable technologies we can, and make greater use of CHP. If the Government want to resist clause 120, I would suggest that they convert its provisions to a power for the Minister, so that it can remain in the Bill, along with clause 128.
  Overall, I think the Bill is to be welcomed. It is part of a jigsaw, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) said, but it represents real progress towards the 20 per cent. target for renewable energy by 2020. Wind power will not solve tin problem, but the Bill will go a considerable way towards reaching that target.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Calum MacDonald: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) said, I have a very important constituency interest in the Bill and the topic of meeting the Government's renewable energy targets. As many hon. Members have pointed out, the targets are very demanding and ambitious. After many years of neglect of renewables by previous Governments, the Labour Government, in pursuing their policy, have to break through what seems to be a wall of scepticism—or at least a great deal of uncertainty—among people in industry about the viability of meeting those targets.
  That atmosphere of uncertainty will be added to by the various contributions from Conservative Members during the debate, in which they revealed once again their long-standing hostility towards the development of renewables. If the Government are to overcome that scepticism, and break through that uncertainty, they have not only to announce targets, but to encourage and push industry to meet those targets To meet even the 2010 target, we shall have to build about 1,000 turbines each year in the run-up to that date. Sadly, each development comes up against a wall of obstructions and objections of various kinds, and threats of legal action that could take years to settle.
  It is unfortunate that, sometimes, some of those obstructions are thrown up by various Departments, quangos and Government agencies that seem not yet joined up to the central thrust of the Government's renewables strategy—notably the Ministry of Defence, but also arm's-length agencies such as the Civil Aviation Authority, the air traffic control system and environmental agencies such as Scottish Natural Heritage.
  It is understandable that some of those public sector bodies will have points of view about the development of wind farms—they have legitimate remits to deliver—but we need to remember that each of them is, in essence, the equivalent of a single-issue pressure group; they have a narrow focus on the renewables issue. If the renewables strategy is to be delivered, it is important that the Government pull together the different strands to achieve some joined-up government between those Departments and the various agencies.
  The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) pointed out in his excellent speech that the United Kingdom has the best wind and wave resources in
  114
  Europe. The best resource in the United Kingdom is to be found in the highlands and islands, especially in the outer islands of the Western Isles and in Orkney and Shetland. The average efficiency of wind farms has been mentioned during the debate. The percentage figure given was somewhere in the high 20s, but I am told by AMEC—the leading developer—that the efficiency of wind turbines is between 40 and 50 per cent. in the outer islands of Scotland. The nation needs to harness that huge resource to meet its renewables targets in the run-up to 2010. Indeed, if we look beyond 2010, as we move into the hydrogen-based economy, that huge resource could produce perhaps one of the most cost-effective sources of hydrogen in the United Kingdom and, indeed, in Europe.
  To realise that potential the Government must ensure that two things happen. First, a genuinely national, UK grid must be constructed which links the generating capacity of the north of Scotland with the markets of the south of England. Scottish and Southern Energy, which owns the grid in the north of Scotland, as well as supplying customers in the south of England, estimates that it would cost £200 million to upgrade the grid to connect the highlands to the central belt—a project that it hopes to begin building early next year—but that a further £500 million would be required to connect the three main island groups to the mainland and to harness their resources for the good of the whole nation. Those are large sums, but they are well worth spending.
  Three separate wind farm developments have been proposed in the Western Isles—planning applications will be made during the year—and, taken together, they will have an installed capacity of more than 1,000 MW. That is a huge resource for the nation, but its development will obviously bring massive economic benefits to those remote and economically marginal communities. The development of renewables could end 100 years of low growth and economic underdevelopment in the outer islands of Scotland, and transform them into an economic asset for the whole nation. That double benefit—for nation and for region—should be in the front of Ministers' minds when they talk to Ofgem about the need to upgrade the grid in the coming months.
  The second big obstacle, which must be overcome, is the creation of a level playing field, so that all generators across the UK are equally able to gain access to the grid. There is serious worry and concern that, compared with generators elsewhere, those in the north of Scotland will end up at a disadvantage under the BETTA rules when the new, British-wide electricity trading arrangements get under way. I am delighted that the Government have responded to those concerns in clauses 175 and 176 and especially in clause 181, but we are still far from seeing the details—the flesh on the bones—of how that new fair and level playing field will be established, and I look forward to hearing more about that during the Bill's consideration.
  9.14 pm
  Paddy Tipping: This is an important Bill, because it helps to deliver the aspirations in the Government's energy White Paper. By itself, it will not deliver those aspirations, because the White Paper is a step change from the past to the future—from a fossil-dominated economy to a carbon-free economy.

  115
  Achieving 60 per cent. carbon reductions by 2050 is extremely challenging, and becoming a net importer of energy in just a few years' time is a matter about which the Government should be seriously concerned.
  Climate change has hardly been mentioned in the debate, but it is the big political issue of our time. If we are to achieve the White Paper's targets of 10 per cent. of energy from renewables by 2010 and 20 per cent. by 2020, we must work quickly, because we start from a very low base.
  There has been a good deal of discussion in the debate about wind power. It is clear to me that wind power by itself—particularly onshore wind power—faces real difficulties. The Government are committed to offshore wind power, and the first field at North Hoyle came on stream just last year. Offshore wind power has remarkable possibilities, but there are difficulties, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) outlined some of them. We need to go further than the Bill and consider a marine environment Bill to consider the conflicts in the marine environment. I am not confident that we have joined-up government on the issue.
  If we do not reach the renewables targets, we will face great difficulties in the mid-term. Security of supply has been mentioned throughout the debate, but I would be very worried if by 2020 or 2025, 70 per cent. of our energy needs were supplied from abroad, 90 per cent. of which were gas. The events of 11 September have changed the world. The war in Iraq has shown that diplomacy cannot solve everything. We will face difficulties if our renewables targets are not met and if we are so heavily dependent on gas. Hon. Friends have pointed out that there are other sources of renewables, but wind power will drive our renewables forward in the mid-term.
  If we do not meet our targets, what else would need to be done? It is absolutely clear that the nuclear option needs to remain open. There is no prospect of the market or the private sector replacing nuclear with nuclear just now. We need to look further afield.
  Many of my hon. Friends have made a strong case for coal. I find it astonishing that Japan, which has no indigenous coal industry, spends more on research on clean coal technology than we do. We need to move harder and faster to bring investment into new forms of clean coal technology. We need a more stable market and a place for coal in the energy market to encourage private sector investment. That will not come in by itself. We need to consider carefully how the Government can take the prospects for clean coal technology further. Coal burn will increase across the world, and we can develop the new technologies. We are in a strong position to exploit them.
  I have previously discussed the large combustion plant directive with my hon. Friend the Minister, and I will not pursue the point today. However, I will remind him that coal mine methane is a real problem. I hear stories coming from his Department that the study into coal mine methane advocates its flaring and burning. Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that that would not fit well with our White Paper commitments.
  116
  A number of hon. Members have talked about biofuels. In the short term, they are the only way of reducing carbon emissions in the transport sector—a sector in which emissions are increasing. It is important that we use the renewables obligation to encourage our indigenous industry. There is a danger that our needs will be sucked up abroad.
  I conclude with something that I raised in an intervention. I am extremely worried about the future cost and price of energy. We have been fortunate to have had relatively low energy prices in the past two decades, but the cycle has turned, as the White Paper acknowledges. I think that there will be sharply increasing energy prices in the next decade. Many little additional bills will be created by the White Paper. The renewables obligation has been mentioned. The emissions trading scheme will also add to costs. We need to rewire Britain, and there has been a consensus on that. If we are to have sources of renewable power, will they come from peripheral supplies, because the cost of rewiring Britain will be fairly steep?
  The big demand for energy conservation measures will also add to costs. The White Paper is clear on that: it predicts that energy prices will rise by 5 to 15 per cent. for the householder and by 10 to 25 per cent. for the industrial user. I think that those figures are on the low side and energy prices will increase rapidly. Conceptually, that is not a bad thing. We should charge more for activities that harm our environment, but if we accept that energy prices are to rise, we need to think through much more carefully the social, economic and political costs of that. I hope to have the opportunity to explore all those issues in more detail in Committee.
  9.22 pm
  Brian White: One of the disappointing things about the debate in the Lords and the Chamber today is the way in which different energies have been set up against each other. We have had a rather sterile debate in which energy A is better than energy B. The renewables versus nuclear debate is false and I hope that we move away from it in Committee.
  As little time is available, I shall not talk about nuclear energy, energy zones or security of supply. I suppose someone has to welcome part 1, and given that many of its clauses use the original wording of the Sustainable Energy Bill, my private Member's Bill of a year ago, I should probably be the one to do that. If the Government are minded to remove those clauses, and I understand why they might, perhaps I can remind them of the Minister's response in Committee. The issues that the clauses address will not go away, and he needs to have a transparent response to people who advocate their removal. The strategy for dealing with their removal must be clear.
  I was a member of the Committee that considered the Utilities Bill; indeed, someone once called me a refugee from that Bill. One issue that arose was how NETA was implemented. Warnings were given about its impact on small companies. I moved amendments that would have allowed us to avoid some of the problems encountered by combined heat and power, but Ministers were sceptical. We need to return to the lesson of how NETA was introduced and ensure that the mistakes made then are not replicated when we introduce BETTA.

  117
  We also need to recognise that we have lived in an era of overcapacity and low prices and that that era is over. We need to consider how the issues apply in an era of rising prices. There is also an issue to do with how we deal with CHP in that scenario.
  We have been promised a review of the renewables obligation in 2005, but I think that we ought to use the opportunity of the Bill to address the problems of the CHP industry now, rather than waiting until 2006. Ministers are well aware, from representations from companies such as Conoco Philips, of the problems that the industry is having. It is important that we address some of those serious concerns when we come to discuss clause 120.
  I understand that the DTI has several objections to CHP, but many of those stem from the scale of new CHP technology that is likely to be introduced. My concern is that the Cambridge model that the Department has used is fundamentally flawed. I question the robustness of that economic modelling, which predicts that 284 MW of new build is likely to result from the renewables exemption. Even the Department accepts that there is uncertainty about that. There is a lot of discussion about the impact on renewables, but many renewables companies say that removing the obligation on CHP will not affect their investment decisions. We need to discuss those issues in Committee because they, rather than the clause, point the way forward. If Ministers do not it rule out, removing the obligation would be a better way forward than removing the clause.
  The operation of Ofgem under the new arrangements is critical, particularly to the role of smaller companies. In the short time available to me, I want to welcome clause 129 on microgeneration; it is very important and has not been highlighted enough tonight.
  The measures in the Government's statement following the energy efficiency review need to be implemented as quickly as possible. I urge the Minister to use not only this Bill but the spending review to do that.
  Opposition Members were absolutely right to talk about bioethanol. We could blend biofuels into petrol, which would solve the problems caused by Customs and Excise requiring 100 per cent, duty on the use of biofuels, which requires new build. rather than allowing the use of 70 or 60 per cent. biofuels and charging duty pro rata. I will go into the issues concerning bioethanol in more detail if I am lucky enough to be on the Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) referred to fuel poverty, which in an era of rising prices will not go away; it needs to be addressed. We will touch on that issue again tomorrow when we discuss the Housing Bill. As the lead Department on the matter, the DTI has played its role very well so far, but in future its commitment to eradicating fuel poverty will be critical.
  The investment climate has not really been discussed tonight. The Bill highlights the question of how we give the City certainty without long-term investment in energy needs, particularly in renewables and CHP but also as new arrangements are introduced. It is important that we stimulate the markets. Points were made earlier
  118
  about how a market can come to maturity. The Bill does not cover that, but again I am sure that the debates in Committee will.
  In conclusion, we are at a critical stage in developing our energy policy. The role of Finland has been mentioned a couple of times tonight. Given that the President of Finland is visiting the UK tomorrow, I am sure that she would be interested to hear some of the comments that have been made about how well the country has dealt with its energy policy, and how it had a mature debate about whether to return to nuclear energy. We can learn a lot from what Finland has been through.
  The concerns that have been expressed today, particularly about CHP, the industry renewables and the regulatory barriers for small companies, need to be addressed, and I look forward to doing that in Committee if I am lucky enough to be a member.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: This has been an interesting debate. I have counted 24 speakers so far, and I hope to be forgiven for not mentioning each and every contribution. The debate has ranged widely. When one speaks with the various interests in the power industry, one hears many different views expressed, so it does credit to the House of Commons that different views have been expressed by hon. Members during this good debate on an extremely important issue.
  When people wake up in the morning, they might not think about the energy supply until they flick the light switch and the light does not come on; then, it becomes an very important matter. Of course, it is important, because the first thing people do when starting their day is use one form of energy or another. I am grateful to all who have participated in the debate, but I shall be forgiven for mentioning in particular my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) spoke of his personal experiences of renewables—
  Mr. Timms: Where is he?
  Mr. Robertson: I do not know. The winding-up speeches have started a little sooner than anticipated, but perhaps my hon. Friend is on his way. He spoke about his solar panel and his windmill in his back garden. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) made his usual considered and sensible speech, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) spoke knowledgeably about biofuels. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made a broad-based and interesting speech, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) broadened the debate still further, speaking not only about the security of physical supplies, but about economic security. He did not go so far as to say that the world would be troubled were a gas producers' equivalent of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries to arise, but I am sure that that is the sort of thing he had in mind. Given the recent increase in oil prices, we have to consider that possibility.

  119
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made a passionate speech. He tended to focus on windmills, but he was speaking from experience. It is wrong of Labour Members to accuse some hon. Members and members of the public of being nimbies. There is little wrong with being a nimby if it means that one defends the area in which one lives and wants to preserve its beauty and economic prosperity, as people in the lake district want to do.
  I hope that Members representing other parties will forgive me for not going through every one of their speeches, but some very interesting contributions were made. The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) spoke with his customary knowledge. I was in Sellafield fairly recently—I hope that I wrote to him at the time to inform him, but fear that I might have been a day late in doing so, and postal strikes do not help. It must have been in the second delivery, which never arrived.[Laughter.] When I was there, I saw how crucial the nuclear industry is to the area. It was noticeable that support for the industry cut across the political divide—
  Dr. Jack Cunningham: Not them.
  Mr. Robertson: No, not the Liberals. I shall not name the people I met, but the industry appeared to command great support from the Labour party, from the trade unions whose representatives I met, and of course from the Conservatives.
  There were many other interesting speeches, including from hon. Members who are concerned about the coal industry. As the son of a former miner, I can certainly sympathise with the sentiments that they expressed.
  This is an interesting time to be having this debate, an interesting time for the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services to be holding his portfolio, and an interesting time for me to shadow him. We in this country have enjoyed 30 years of security of power, which has benefited not only those who use power, but the Exchequer. That, of course, is now changing, and we must recognise that. Indigenous gas and oil supplies are running down, there are strong nobody should underestimate them—environmental challenges to the coal industry, and renewables are struggling to keep pace. It will be a challenge, in which I hope that the Government will succeed, to meet the targets set for renewables. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) said in an outstanding opening speech, in less than 20 years' time, unless nuclear power plants are extended, nuclear will be reduced to providing just 2 per cent. of electricity in this country. Some Labour Members—not all by any means—might welcome that, but those who do must explain how the remaining 20 per cent. will be made up. As has been explained, if it is made up from renewables, we may replace that capacity, but in terms of carbon emissions, we will have gone nowhere. We must bear that in mind.
  In terms of financing of new generation and the direction of energy policy in this country, we are at a crossroads. As has been said, we want to avoid an over-
  120
  dependence on any one form of energy, including nuclear, coal and gas, if that gas must come not only from Norway but all the way from Russia. As has been said, we are at the end of a very long pipeline, with all the implications that go with it. We might ask the people, "Would you like to be dependent on imported gas from countries such as Russia?" As for honouring commitments, by and large, it does so, but Lithuania and Belarus might not agree, because both have recently had their supplies cut off by Russia for political reasons. Let us bear that in mind. Were we to ask people whether they wanted to be in that situation, in which the vast bulk of our gas was imported, they would say no. We must think again.
  The White Paper, on the back of which this Bill has been introduced, raises some commendable objectives: security of supply, reduction in carbon and reduction in the numbers of fuel-poor consumers. We would all say that those three are worthy objectives. The problem is that they are conflicting. They are made more difficult by the changing atmosphere and circumstances in this country. I have been in the Chamber for the whole debate apart from one speech, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) for missing his. When I nipped out, however, I caught a news item in which the chief executive of Powergen, Paul Golby, said that a 20 per cent. rise in prices of electricity over the next decade is possible, and that a massive amount of investment is needed in the industry—between £50 billion and £70 billion—to secure supply. That is an awful lot of money, and the suggestion is not from someone who is ignorant of the facts.
  Given the White Paper, and the difficulties to which the White Paper has perhaps drawn attention without pointing the way to a solution, we generally welcome the Bill, especially as it has been greatly improved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury said, by the sterling work carried out in the other place, principally by Conservative peers, although occasionally—I am sure it was a mental aberration—they were supported by the Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Stunellrose—
  Mr. Robertson: I knew that I should not have said that. Can the hon. Gentleman be quick, as I do not get time added on?
  Mr. Stunell: Absolutely. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that all the amendments passed in the other place were either proposed by the Liberal Democrats or directly supported by them?
  Mr. Robertson: Perhaps we will save the details for the Committee stage.
  This debate is taking place in an atmosphere different from the one which would have existed before privatisation. Great advances have been made in the industry, but the whole House would agree that we need to go beyond this Bill. It is a start, and we welcome much that is in it, so much so that we will seek to hang on to quite a few of the amendments passed in the other place. I do not understand why the Government are having such difficulties with the amendments on combined heat and power, for instance. When I met representatives of

  121
  the Combined Heat and Power Association recently, I was told that it had generating capacity that was not being used.
  There is an interesting amendment concerning micropower, and as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) pointed out, there are navigation amendments. There is also a biofuels amendment. We shall look at all those closely, because we think that they improve what was rather a bland Bill.
  The Secretary of State said that clause 1, which began as an amendment, was superfluous. It relates to the security of supply. We look forward to seeing how the Government manage to wriggle out of their duties in that regard.
  Unfortunately, in this industry we do not have the free market that everyone assumes, or claims, that we have. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what will happen to British Energy when the NDA is established. Is it intended that the NDA will take over some of British Energy's liabilities? If so, will the Minister tell us whether he has taken legal advice from the European Union? I understand that a recent report—it may have been published only yesterday—suggested that such intervention might infringe EU rules I do not say that to be awkward; I feel that it should be considered, although we support the establishment of the NDA.
  We have heard a great deal about two aspects of electricity generation. One is wind—there has been a lot of hot air about that—and the other is the nuclear industry. I do not want to spend too much time discussing those two issues, but I should point out that we are not for or against one form of energy or another. What we are in favour of is security of supply.
  At present, 22 per cent. of our country's electricity is generated from renewable sources. If that is to be allowed to decline, it is up to the Government of the day to tell us where they will find the extra electricity to replace it. Are we to have wind farms or windmills all over the country? They are intermittent, and building and maintaining them will be costly. Thankfully, they will not need to be maintained for very long because they do not last for more than about 20 years. Given those factors and the cost of the electricity they will produce, it will be up to the Government of the day to explain why so much energy is being focused on the development of wind power to the exclusion—seemingly—of other forms of renewable energy such as thermal and solar power, and possibly fusion—my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury mentioned that possibility.
  It has been a privilege to take part in such an interesting and crucial debate. I hope that the Minister will answer some of my questions, and, more important, the many questions asked by Members in all parts of the House and representing every possible energy interest.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I agree with the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) that this has been an interesting debate, featuring a range of constructive contributions from Members in all parts of the House. That reflects a growing interest in energy matters throughout the country, which I welcome.
  122
  I pay tribute to my noble Friends Lord Whitty, Lord Davies and Lord Triesman for their work on behalf of the Government. A number of improvements were made to the Bill in the other place, although I should add that not all the changes constitute improvements. We shall look carefully at some of them in Committee.
  I was pleased by the general welcome to the Bill given by the hon. Members for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) and for Tewkesbury. I shall return shortly to some of their specific criticisms. First, however, let me remind the House of the four goals for energy policy proposed in last year's energy White Paper. The first was putting ourselves on a path to cut UK carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050. The second was to maintain the reliability of energy supplies. The third was to promote competitive markets. The fourth was to ensure that every home was adequately and affordably heated. It is important that we achieve all four together. We are not looking to give up on one to achieve another. The package is designed to be, and needs to be, delivered as a whole.
  We can point to excellent progress on implementing the White Paper, as the first annual report, which was published a couple of weeks ago, shows. The Bill puts in place key parts of the jigsaw to enable that progress to continue.
  We now have scientific consensus that climate change is for real, that carbon emissions are causing it and that it poses an immense threat to all of us. My hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner), for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) were right to draw that to the House's attention. That consensus extends to the National Academy of Sciences in the United States. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was right to draw attention to the recent scientific contribution from the US—hoping that climate change will go away is not an option. The challenge of climate change requires an urgent and serious response. The Bill's provisions—for example, those on offshore renewable energy—are a key contribution.
  Energy security considerations are also vital. Over the next few years, the self-sufficieny in energy that we have enjoyed thanks to North sea oil will end. In itself, that is not a worry. Among the G7 countries, only the UK and Canada are self-sufficient in energy, so we will move to a position that is the norm among industrialised countries. It is a transition that we can manage successfully, but we will need to ensure that we have sufficient diverse sources of gas. We also need to look for new sources of electricity generation under wholly UK management. For that reason, too, the Bill's provisions on renewable energy are vital. The wider issues of security will be an important theme of debates on the Bill.
  A number of other provisions in the Bill are aimed at underpinning secure and reliable supplies: for example, part 4 on the special administration regime for energy network companies, and the arrangements for interconnectors in part 5. In addition, as we have heard, the Bill puts in place vital new arrangements, which have been widely welcomed, for setting up the nuclear decommissioning authority to get to grips with the challenges of our nuclear legacy. The NDA will drive

  123
  work on clean-up, provide the long-term strategic direction that is needed and help to deliver long-term efficiency savings to the taxpayer.
  The hon. Member for Eddisbury made the point that the security of supply clause—I think these were his words—is not a prelude to interventionism. That is not how the industry has read it, as I think he will know, and the industry is right. It is no good him telling the House that he did not mean to imply that, because the views of the industry have been clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quoted Mark Clare of British Gas. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury quoted Paul Golby of Powergen. Powergen's brief makes the point that the clause as currently construed could undermine the independence of the regulator, make ad hoc Government intervention in the markets more likely and add to investors' perceptions of risks, making investment more difficult. The Chemical Industries Association has pointed out that more central planning inevitably has to be paid for by consumers. So it goes on. The provision would represent a huge shift backwards to state intervention, in which the Conservative party is not normally in favour.
  I will be happy to talk to the hon. Member for Eddisbury about a way forward. He and his colleagues in another place were right to draw attention to the importance of security of supply. A shared way forward other than the one currently in the Bill may be available. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tewkesbury was alluding to that, too.
  There have been a couple of references to the interesting PricewaterhouseCoopers survey. The head of the utilities at PricewaterhouseCoopers said that a consistent and stable regulatory environment is required to make the sector more attractive to investors. That is the point, and that is what we have to deliver.
  I welcome what sounded to me like the hon. Member for Eddisbury's adoption of the White Paper policy on nuclear energy: that of keeping the options open, a position his party has strongly criticised. In fact, the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) strongly criticised it again today, presumably not having noticed that his hon. Friend had said that it was now his party's policy. It would also have come as something of a surprise to a number of his noble Friends in the other place. Nevertheless, I welcome that change of heart, if that is what it is.
  We sometimes hear that if only the Government accepted the need to build new nuclear power stations, the twin challenges of carbon emissions and energy security could be readily resolved. We may well need new nuclear capacity, but I have yet to meet anyone who wants to invest in new nuclear power stations in Britain at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown) made an important point along those lines. It is the same in the United States, where there is a strong pro-nuclear policy, but getting people to make commitments has been extraordinarily difficult. It will be a considerable time before there are new nuclear power stations in the USA, let alone in the UK. We need that dose of realism in the debate and I welcome the Conservative party's change of heart.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is noticeable that the Minister excluded Finland from his list of examples. It
  124
  decided that it needed a new nuclear reactor because it did not want to be over-dependent on imported gas from Russia. It also has a consortium of businesses to invest in the building of that new nuclear reactor, on the promise that the electricity it produces will be bought.
  Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to Finland, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). There are important lessons to he learned there, but I repeat that I have yet to meet anyone who wants to invest in new nuclear power stations in the UK. The position may well change in future, in which case we will consider that, as the White Paper made clear.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) paid tribute to his constituents and those of other hon. Members who work at Sellafield, and I endorse that.
  On wind energy, every megawatt-hour of electricity generated from a wind turbine is nearly 200 cu m of gas that does not need to be burned. It is important that the UK plays a leading role in the move to a more sustainable energy economy.
  My right hon. Friend t0he Member for Copeland was right to draw attention to the employment importance of nuclear industries for his constituents. I was concerned to hear what he said about difficulties in the supply chain among his constituents. We have wanted to do everything we can to ensure that the supply chain is kept informed of work on the Sellafield near-term work plan. There have been three supplier forums recently on that, but if there are particular problems I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend dropped me a line and I will be glad to take them up.
  Dr. Jack Cunningham: I can do better than drop my hon. Friend a line; I can repeat what I said earlier. There are already, I regret to say, real problems in the supply chain of support industries in west Cumbria because of the hiatus that has been caused by the proposals to create the nuclear decommissioning authority and because of BNFL so far refusing to bring forward its near-term work plan. That is threatening jobs in the west Cumbrian economy now.
  Mr. Timms: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I shall certainly look at his point. He would agree that his point underlines the importance of securing the timely enactment of the Bill so that we can press ahead with establishing the NDA on the timetable that has been announced and thus ensure that any hiatus is minimised.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) talked about the annual report on energy efficiency. I hope that I was able to make the position clear; we expect carbon savings from energy efficiency overall—household plus business—to be greater than they were in the White Paper because of the greater contribution from businesses. I can give him a firm assurance that we will hit our Kyoto targets—the UK is one of only a handful of EU member states to be in that position. Indeed, our target is to go further and achieve savings of 20 per cent. in UK carbon emissions by 2010.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) made some important points, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White),

  125
  on combined heat and power. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East referred to the Cambridge study, which indicates a central projection of 8.1 GW of good quality CHP capacity by 2010, in a range of 7.7 to 9.4 GW. I know that he was critical of that study, but we have to add to that an expected contribution from the European Union emissions trading scheme. We have said that we will review the support for CHP alongside the review of the renewables obligation next year, but I caution against a view that we can somehow use the renewables obligation to deliver what we want on CHP as well. That would fatally undermine the renewables obligation just at the time when we are at last starting to see the momentum behind the investment that we need. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East has been a strong advocate of CHP, not least through his private Member's Bill, and he will know that quite a lot of work is going on to support CHP. I take his point, however, about the challenge that remains.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) for her work as my predecessor in this role. I agree with her about the benefits of competitive pricing that BETTA will deliver to her constituents. She also made important points about skills in decommissioning, and clean coal. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), too, drew attention to the importance of clean coal, as did other hon. Members. The technology programme for clean coal that we are taking forward will continue until the end of 2006, with a fourth and final call for proposals being made at the end of this year. That will involve some £4 million. We expect to announce the successful projects at the end of the year, and, in addition, the new carbon abatement technology strategy will identify programmes to replace the existing cleaner coal technology programme. That is expected to receive similar levels of Government funding.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, like my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone, raised concerns, which I well understand, about the large combustion plants directive. I have listened carefully to the concerns that he and the coal industry have expressed. He will know that other parts of industry have diametrically opposed views, so we are looking very carefully at the analysis that we have commissioned.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), in an excellent speech on the importance of wind power, rightly welcomed the extension of the renewables obligation to 15.4 per cent. by 2015–16. I look forward very much to visiting Scroby Sands next week.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald) underlined the important point that in many areas of the country there is strong support for making progress on wind energy. The Western Isles is one area where that is very much the case, and he was right to draw attention to what he called the huge resource for the nation that is available there.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised concerns reflected in the recent Transport Committee report on navigational hazards and the Energy Bill, which we have welcomed. We see that report as an important contribution to
  126
  consideration of how offshore renewables and shipping industries can co-exist. There have been discussions with shipping interests, and I have met representatives of the Chamber of Shipping, following that up with a letter. I can tell my hon. Friend that Government consents will not be given to any wind farm developments that would be a danger to navigation. She mentioned the idea of safety zones, which the Chamber of Shipping has raised, and which I welcome.
  We have had an excellent debate and I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  ENERGY BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Energy Bill[Lords]:
  7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
  Question agreed to.

  ENERGY BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    Proceedings in Standing Committee
    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 24th June 2004.
    3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

    Consideration and Third Reading
    4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
    5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
    6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made by the House on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.

  ENERGY BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Energy Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—

  (1)the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under or as a result of—

  (a)any option under which he or his nominee may acquire an undertaking or property from British Energy plc or a company that is or has been a subsidiary of British Energy plc, or

  (b)any agreement entered into for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of such an option, or of continuing or modifying their effect,

  (2)the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or the Treasury in respect of the acquisition of securities of a company to which transfers authorised by the Act are made or in respect of the acquisition of rights to subscribe for such securities,

  127

  (3)the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown for or in connection with the carrying out of any of his functions under the Act, and

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

  Question agreed to.

  ENERGY BILL [LORDS] (WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Energy Bill [Lords] ("the Act") it is expedient to authorise—

  (1)the making of provision for the purposes of corporation tax, capital allowances, stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax,

  (2)the making of provision in connection with the responsibilities of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (as established under the Act) for—

  (a)requirements for payments to be made to the Secretary of State, and

  (b)the levying bf charges by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority,

  (3)the transfer of property and rights to the Secretary of State or the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority,

  (4)the making of payments under the Act to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority in connection with benefits received in respect of the use or disposal of interests or rights in installations, sites and facilities,

  (5)the imposition, by virtue of the Act, of charges under licences issued under the Electricity Act 1989 or the Gas Act 1986,

  (6)the levying of charges under the Act in connection with powers and duties conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State by or under the Act or other enactments or provisions of Community instruments, and

  128

  (7)the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

  Question agreed to.

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

    DOHA DEVELOPMENT AGENDA
    That this House takes note of European Document No. 15529/03. Commission Communication 'Reviving the Doha Development Agenda negotiations—the European Union's Perspective'; welcomes the European Commission's commitment to the successful conclusion of the negotiations and urges the European Commission to show leadership in taking this forward; welcomes the signs of the European Commission's flexibility, particularly on the Singapore issues, and urges other World Trade Organisation members to do likewise; and supports the Government's aim of ensuring that the negotiations deliver benefits for all countries, especially the world's poorest, recognising the contribution this could make to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.

    ADJOURNMENT (WHITSUN)
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.25 (Periodic adjournments),
    That this House, art its rising on Thursday 27th May, do adjourn till Monday 7th June 2004.—[Mr. Kemp.]
    Question agreed to.

    Ordered,
    That Mr Michael Jabez Foster be discharged from the Committee on Standards and Privileges.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

  Treasury Policy (Housing)
  Motion made, and Question proposed That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth]
  10 pm
  Andrew George: I am pleased to secure the opportunity to discuss Treasury policy in respect of housing, partly because the issue has a significant impact on my constituency, which covers west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and partly because I am certain that it also has a significant impact on many constituencies throughout the country.
  I am pleased to see the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in his place. I have tried before, in Budget and other debates in which I have had the opportunity to speak about Treasury matters, to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or that of one of your colleagues, to discuss this matter, but without success. I am pleased to have the opportunity now to debate serious material issues, which I hope the Minister will accept I am raising in a spirit of constructive engagement.
  Following the theme of constructive engagement, a few years ago, after I was first elected, I raised the subject of the impact that council tax discounts were having on second home ownership in my constituency and in many others. I argued at tie time that I was disappointed that a Labour Government had been responsible for giving me such complacent ministerial replies on the subject, both written and otherwise.
  I am pleased to say that on 9 February 2000, in a debate that I had called on second homes and council tax, the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is now a Foreign Office Minister, acknowledged that I had received a rather complacent response from his ministerial colleagues in previous years and months, and then went on to say:

  "indeed, I have here a rather complacent response, which I will not read out."—[Official Report, 9 February 2000; Vol. 344. c. 12WH.]

  Indeed, he suggested that we discuss the matter later, and we did.
  Later that year, in November, the Government proposed to withdraw the council tax discount for second home owners. I was pleased with that outcome, and I was also pleased when, this year, the Government honoured their promise to reduce that discount from 50 per cent. to 10 per cent. That was the result of constructive engagement. I would like the Government to go even further, but what has happened already demonstrates that constructive dialogue can result in what I consider to be a beneficial outcome.
  I want to raise with the Minister an issue that was rather hidden away in Treasury papers following the pre-Budget statement in early December last year—the subject of self-invested personal pensions. I shall make a few remarks about the Kate Barker review, and then, as I cannot hand it to him across the Floor of the House, I would like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to a briefing from the National Housing Federation outlining its concern about various tax impacts on social landlords.
  130
  What I, and other people far more expert than I who work in the industry, are concerned about is the likely impact of the Government's proposed changes to self-invested personal pensions from April 2005. What concerns me is that, having largely closed one tax loophole by removing the council tax discount for second homes, the Government are about to open a new one that could provide even greater encouragement to those wanting to invest in second homes. From April 2005, self-invested personal pensions will enable a pension plan to invest in residential property for the first time. That will have clear implications: 40 per cent. tax relief on money used to purchase property, and exemption from capital gains tax on the sale of property where the proceeds are reinvested in the pension plan.
  Although personal use of the asset held by a pension fund will be subject to a tax charge, we all understand—just as local authorities understand—the distinction between council tax and business rates on second homes. Frankly, local authorities are prepared to turn a blind eye to businesses that let out second homes for more than 120 nights a year and that would otherwise be subject to business rates. Similarly, it will be very difficult to police the extent to which second homes are used by those with a beneficial interest in the property and the pension plan.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and near neighbour for giving way. In case the Minister does not understand this point—I hope that he does—perhaps my hon. Friend might emphasise that this potential taxpayer subsidy to second home owners will be far greater than the concession on council tax. It will therefore be devastating to Cornwall communities such as those in my constituency and my hon. Friend's. The affordability gap in such communities is already big, and many local people are squeezed out of the market altogether.
  Andrew George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly have among the highest levels of second home ownership in the country, and parts of North Cornwall have similarly high levels. That is a burden on our local communities, although it is nice that people from outside take an interest in them. None the less, the impact on the opportunities for local people, socially and economically, is very significant.
  I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this proposal is likely to have a far more dramatic effect. The reduction in the council tax discount was very unlikely to result in the sale or loss of a single second home from any constituency in the country. On the margin, it did not affect people who invested in such properties, who were unlikely to change their minds as a result. It provided more funds for the local community, but it did not necessarily reduce levels of second home ownership.
  Although the proposal makes using self-invested personal pensions for a main home rather complex and probably unattractive, it provides a very encouraging scenario for investing in a second home. In my constituency, 10 per cent. of all the mainland properties are second homes, and 25 per cent. or more on the Isles of Scilly are second or holiday homes. I am not

  131
  criticising what is a perfectly rational decision, given the way in which the current tax and benefit system works, for someone who has some spare cash. On an individual basis, many second home owners provide a great deal of support to local communities, but they affect the viability of services and housing opportunities for local people. Spare properties in the local market simply are not available for local people.
  Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent subsidising the wealthy so that they can have second homes in areas such as mine, in which thousands of local people cannot afford their first home. Now, probably billions of pounds in tax concessions will be made available to the wealthy so that they can have their second homes, and even greater numbers of local people will have no chance whatever of owning a first home of their own. That is the problem that we face.
  In areas like mine, the rented sector is diminishing significantly. As the housing market remains buoyant, landlords see their main chance—no one can criticise them for it—as selling their properties into the market. The problem is that local people simply cannot afford to buy into that market themselves. The private sector, where it is not slipping away into the holiday trade, is diminishing and the social rented sector is in any case being lost over time. In an area such as mine, little more than 10 per cent. of rented properties are in the social sector—either housing association or council housing—so the opportunities for local people are few and far between.
  Even in the most run-down communities—there are many of them in west Cornwall—low-priced properties are well out of the reach of those on local wages. The problem is now "ginormous" in my constituency, where there are unprecedented levels of need within the community and long waiting lists in each of the three local authorities that cover it. What impact does the Minister believe the tax change is likely to have in that context?
  On 4 February this year, I asked the Financial Secretary what criteria would be used, and I received a parliamentary answer:

  "There will be no specific criteria relating to residential properties. There will be a single set of simple, flexible investment rules underpinning the simplified regime. The use of private pension scheme assets by a scheme member will be subject to a tax charge."

  We know that. Secondly, when I asked about the likely impact, the Financial Secretary answered:

  "The impact of this change, if introduced, will depend on the extent to which trustees and administrators decide that residential property is a suitable pension investment."—[Official Report, 4 February 2004; Vol. 417, c. 935W.]

  Again, that is more or less self-evident, but the likely impact on the opportunities for local people in areas such as west Cornwall is simply unknown and not addressed at all.
  The hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) received a written answer from the Financial Secretary on 26 February 2002:

  "Information on the total number of self-invested personal pension plans and value of their funds is not available."—[Official Report, 26 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 1215W.]

  132
  How, then, can the Treasury possibly assess the value of the likely impact when it does not even know the number or total value of the plans? Experts in the industry estimate that it could not only have a significant impact on areas such as mine, but bring about a further loss of housing opportunities. I suspect that any such losses for local people on local incomes will be extremely significant. It is also likely to have a general impact on house price inflation in the country, which is already running at a severe rate.
  In the spirit of constructive engagement, I propose an alternative to the Government's approach, as it entails severe unintended consequences. Many pension plans are clearly failing and the Government need to respond. Self-invested personal pension plans are one way of responding, and I applaud the Government for their efforts in that direction. However, unless the Government take a second look at the problem, the policy is likely to have severe and even greater consequences socially throughout the country.
  Why do not the Government try to produce a wider definition of residential properties, which could create a virtuous investment—a benefit for those seeking an alternative to pension plan provision, but restricted to rented or leasehold accommodation for people in local need, or portfolios of shared equity properties, which would provide further opportunities for the most needy or those trying to get a toehold on the housing ladder? If the Government want to proceed, they should define the circumstances in which the investment could take place. That would have two benefits: first, it would benefit pensioners and pension plans; and secondly, it would add to investment in social properties.
  I said that I would mention the Kate Barker review. Recommendation 2 says that local authorities should charge more for second homes, which is going in the opposite direction in respect of statements of investment principles, and recommendation 26 argues effectively for the reintroduction of development land tax. That seems fundamentally to fail to recognise the key feature of the housing market in the past 20 years, which is the persistence and growth of an affordability gap. Areas such as mine need an intermediate market, because there will always be a massive gulf between social rented accommodation and the first step on the housing ladder. Simply building more houses will not fill that gap. The Government need to seek more sophisticated ways of dealing with that.
  The National Federation of Housing Associations sent me a briefing pointing out that the Government are allowing millions of pounds of investment in affordable housing to be lost through onerous burdens on social landlords. Housing associations set up with the purpose of improving former local authority housing face increased tax bills of more than £200 million as a result of recently announced Government reluctance to counter an Inland Revenue decision. The NFHA is asking for relief from capital gains tax, harmonisation of VAT at 5 per cent. on all works to existing social housing, and an extension of zero rating of VAT on aids and adaptation works to non-charitable housing associations, and it is making a case for exemption from stamp duty and corporation tax. To cap it all, it argues for the need for a more effective channel of communication between the Treasury and social housing providers.

  133
  I hope that the Minister will accept that I wish the debate to be held in a spirit of constructive engagement. I look forward to his response.
  10.16 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I congratulate the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on securing the debate and on his constructive tone. He wanted constructive engagement, and he certainly delivered his comments in that way. I am glad that he concedes that he is less disappointed with Government policy than he was in the early days after 1997, but I find the title that he has chosen for the debate somewhat curious. He and the House will understand that there is no Treasury policy on housing, only the policy of the Government as a whole. He will also appreciate that, although the Treasury may sometimes help to shape it, we are always fully supportive, to the hilt, of policy. It is therefore about Government rather than Treasury policy that I speak tonight.
  It is nevertheless true that housing is an important factor in the functioning of the economy, and it is therefore a matter in which the Treasury takes a close interest. Housing plays a key part in the flexibility of an economy. The availability of housing, its location and the access that individuals have to it all have a direct impact on a person's ability to gain employment and to match their skills with appropriate job vacancies. People need not only to be able to live within a reasonable distance of their jobs, but to be able to move in order to access better employment opportunities when they arise. Current evidence is that, although increased labour mobility can make a significant contribution to increasing employment, it can make an even greater contribution to increasing productivity.
  Housing also has an impact on a person's social opportunities—through the effects that inadequate or inappropriate housing can have on health, education and social integration. For too long, too many of the poorest in our society have had to endure damp, cold, poorly insulated and poorly repaired properties, which they often cannot afford to heat.
  Despite the obvious importance of housing to our welfare and prosperity, the UK has over many decades persistently under-invested in housing, as the hon. Gentleman hinted. Since 1960, in fact, the UK has invested a lower proportion of national income in housing than any other European Union country. It is partly because of the long-term under-supply of housing that the UK has one of the strongest trends in real house prices in Europe. That upward trend in prices has itself made the desire to get on the housing ladder grow even stronger. Owner-occupation is now the tenure of choice and a source of financial saving for many.
  The hon. Gentleman set out his concerns about affordability within the context of the Cornish economy. It is fair to say that the south-west is a region in which pressures are acute. This afternoon, I looked at some figures produced by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation last year, which show that the south-west suffers the double impact of lower than average incomes and higher than average house prices. In 2002, north Cornwall had a house price to income ratio of more than 5:1 and Penwith, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, had a ratio of only just under 5:1.
  134
  In the UK, our high level of mortgage debt is often more reliant on variable interest rates than other countries, which tend to have a higher proportion of debt at fixed interest rates. That greater exposure to variable rates contributes to making the UK housing market more volatile, which itself adds a greater potential volatility to the general economy.
  Since 1997, the Government have faced a unique combination of low investment coupled with high levels of owner-occupation and house-price volatility and sharp regional divergences—not forgetting demographic trends that suggest that the demand for housing will grow ever stronger. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's queries, I shall explain how Labour in government is rising to that challenge.
  Successive spending reviews since 1997 have approved substantive real increases in public sector investment in housing. By next year, it will have more than doubled compared with 1997. After nearly two decades of the Tory neglect of investment, in 1997 the Government inherited a £19 billion backlog of repairs to the social housing stock. Some 2.25 million social homes failed to meet the standard for decent homes. Already, under a Labour Government, 1 million of those homes have been brought up to that standard, and we have an ambitious target to make all social housing decent by 2010.
  Since 1997, the Government have supported the creation of 230,000 new affordable homes. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have again increased the Housing Corporation's rural target to provide 3,500 affordable homes during 2004–05 and 2005–06 in smaller settlements. We have put policies in place to ensure that existing social housing can be kept for those who cannot rent privately or buy, so that the right to acquire does not apply in rural villages where fewer than 3,000 people live. Restrictions may also be imposed on resale of right-to-buy properties in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas designated as rural for that purpose. Those restrictions on resale effectively cover the whole of Cornwall.
  Mr. Tyler: The Minister is making a very reasonable speech, but I hope that he will come to the issue of second homes. I remind him that on the previous occasion to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) referred, when the then Minister, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), made a similarly reasonable response, he left the Government a short while later. I warn the Economic Secretary not to be too reasonable, or we will assume that the same fate may befall him. Does he accept that anything that fuels the pressure for second homes makes all the remedial action to which he has referred more expensive for the taxpayer?
  John Healey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me long enough for me to reach the point in my remarks when I shall deal directly with the points that he and the hon. Member for St. Ives raised.
  Increased investment alone will not be sufficient. Greater investment must be accompanied by significant reforms if we are both to increase the supply of housing and to promote stability in the wider economy. Fundamental reforms to unlock land and private

  135
  development are under way. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill contains a wide range of measures designed to improve the speed, predictability and certainty of the planning system. The Government have consulted on an update of guidance on planning for affordable housing. New regional housing boards, introduced by the communities plan, are now taking responsibility for the preparation of regional housing strategies, including the requirement that they are "rural-proofed" with the assistance of the Countryside Agency. The Government are also considering an extension to the contaminated land tax credit to cover long-term derelict land—a measure championed strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and which may be of particular benefit to areas of Cornwall.
  We know that we still have further to go, however, and the hon. Gentleman raised three specific points. I shall take his reference to the briefing from the National Federation of Housing Associations as an early representation for the 2005 Budget. I shall deal with self-invested personal pensions and the Barker review.
  Although self-invested personal pensions do not fall directly within my policy field, I submitted a memorandum to the Environmental Audit Committee in February as it had raised the issue with me. The memorandum was published with the Committee's third report on 10 March and both the hon. Members for St. Ives and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) might find it worth examination. It dealt with the pre-Budget proposal to simplify the eight taxation regimes relating to pensions into a single regime, which would among other things allow all pension schemes to invest in residential property. Currently, only large schemes can do so; the prohibition on small and self-invested pension funds was designed to prevent pension scheme assets being put to the private use of the member or his or her family—where the rent forgone would reduce the growth of the pension fund.
  The reforms we propose for SIPPs should help the supply of residential property for rent, but will not exacerbate the problem of second homes about which the hon. Gentlemen are concerned. There will be no new incentive to purchase property for private use, because any non-commercial or personal use of a property would lead to a benefit-in-kind tax charge. There would thus be no incentive to shelter second homes in a pension. The Inland Revenue will police the legislation and will be alert to possible abuses of the kind feared by the hon. Gentlemen. The Inland Revenue will not turn
  136
  a blind eye to such abuses, even though—as the hon. Member for St. lves suggested—some local councils may do so at present.
  Andrew George: Does the Minister accept that second homes—whether run as a business or simply used as a holiday home—are notoriously difficult to police? When they are let, it is difficult to determine whether their use is commercial or personal. I cannot accept his rather optimistic expectation that the scheme would not be used for second homes.
  John Healey: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I can only repeat that the Inland Revenue is alert to the possibilities. We are obviously looking into the possibilities for misuse, and as the Inland Revenue polices the new legislation and the new regime, it will be alert to potential abuses. It will have access to a range of data that may not be available to the local councils that the hon. Gentleman felt were not undertaking the work required.
  I shall turn briefly to the Barker report. In many ways, the Barker review has prompted a change in the nature of the debate on housing in the UK, putting the affordability of housing to the fore in a way that I think the hon. Gentleman welcomes. Indeed, he expressed some concerns about that in his remarks. Obviously, many factors can influence prices and supply locally, and affordability problems can be further exacerbated in some areas, such as Cornwall, where second homes account for a sizable proportion of the stock—I think that he said that the figure in his constituency was 10 per cent. That is why the Government have given local authorities the power to reduce the council tax discount on second homes, from 50 per cent. to 10 per cent. Councils thus have the chance to raise extra money locally, and can spend it on local priorities. I understand that all district councils in Cornwall have chosen to take advantage of that new power and have agreed with the county council that most of the proceeds will be spent on affordable housing
  The Government recognise that housing is central to the UK's economic performance. We recognise the essential contribution that housing can make—directly and indirectly—to meeting many of our other policy priorities. That is why we are putting so much investment into housing and taking such a close interest in housing policy reform.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Bribery
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to the answer of 2 February 2004,Official Report, column 613W, on bribery, from which countries the request for mutual legal assistance to the Serious Fraud Office came where there was a suspicion of corruption offences involving a UK citizen or company. [168656]

  The Solicitor-General
  The request for mutual legal assistance referred to in this question came from the USA.

  Harassment
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will issue guidance to the police and Crown Prosecution Service on the issuing of first stage warnings under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. [170016]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 has been in force since June 1997. Guidance regarding the scope of this Act has been issued to all the criminal justice agencies, including the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, by way of Home Office Circulars 34/1997 and 28/2001. In addition, further guidance on the Act is provided to Crown prosecutors via the CPS Legal Guidance which can be accessed electronically through the Crown Prosecution Service's website.

  The issue of warnings is a matter for the police rather than the Crown Prosecution Service. There is no obligation on the police to provide warnings before an arrest under this Act. However, guidance on the issuing of warnings in suitable cases was provided in the Home Office commissioned paper "Stalking and other forms of harassment—An investigators guide" published in 2001.

  Iraq
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment she has made of whether prosecutions can be brought against those United Kingdom citizens whose names appear on the list of non-Iraqis who are alleged to have benefited from the United Nations oil for food programme for Iraq. [170743]

  The Solicitor-General
  To date the Crown Prosecution Service has not received a file from the police nor been consulted regarding matters relating to recent allegations concerning the United Nations oil for food programme in Iraq.
  2W
  If a file or request for advice is received it will be considered against the relevant law and the tests set down in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Advisers/Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Leader of the House how much his Office spent on external consultants and advisers in each of the last three years. [171873]

  Mr. Woolas
  The Office of the Leader of the House of Commons was established in June 2003 and since then has spent £38,514.67 on external consultants and advisers. This expenditure was required for the development and hosting of the Office website (www.commonsleader.gov.uk).

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Leader of the House (1) how many(a) Ordinary Written and (b) Named Day Questions his office 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; [170770]

  (2) what proportion of (a) Ordinary Written Questions to his office 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) the current parliamentary session up to the most recent date for which figures are available, broken down by month. [170771]

  Mr. Hain
  Ministers have an obligation to parliament to ensure that Members receive a substantive response to their named day question on the named day and to endeavour to answer an ordinary written question within a working week of it being tabled.

  Ministers and their Departments should also make every effort to ensure that the live load of questions still awaiting a substantive reply should be kept to a minimum at all times.

  During the 2002–03 session my office received 91 Ordinary Written and 46 Named Day Questions, of which 88 per cent. and 96 per cent. respectively were answered within the above targets.

  So far this session my office has received 44 Ordinary Written and 19 Named Day Questions, of which 84 per cent. and 100 per cent. respectively were answered within the above targets.

  The breakdown per month and the proportion of Questions answered are shown in the following tables:

  2002–03

  Ordinary Written

  Percentage answered within five sitting days

  Named Day1

  Percentage answered on Named Day

  November

  3

  67

  7

  100

  December

  5

  80

  2

  100

  January

  10

  90

  5

  100

  February

  8

  75

  5

  60

  March

  7

  86

  8

  100

  3W

  2002–03

  Ordinary Written

  Percentage answered within five sitting days

  Named Day1

  Percentage answered on Named Day

  April

  23

  96

  10

  100

  May

  10

  80

  3

  100

  June

  5

  60

  2

  —

  July

  9

  100

  0

  —

  August

  0

  —

  0

  100

  September

  5

  100

  1

  100

  October

  1

  100

  3

  100

  November

  5

  100

  0

  —

  2003–04

  Ordinary Written

  Percentage answered within five sitting days

  Named Day1

  Percentage answered on Named Day

  November

  5

  80

  0

  —

  December

  2

  100

  5

  100

  January

  2

  100

  3

  100

  February

  12

  83

  4

  100

  March

  19

  42

  3

  100

  April

  4

  100

  4

  100

  1Named Day figures include Questions not answered orally.

  Productivity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Leader of the House what his policy is for(a) increasing the productivity and (b) cutting the costs of his Office. [172192]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply being given today by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

  My Office does, however, constantly look to achieve efficiency savings.

CABINET OFFICE

  Contingency Planning
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether the formula used to calculate the civil defence grants include a weight towards coastal councils to mitigate for potential terrorist attack by sea. [170057]

  Mr. Alexander
  The formula used for the allocation of Civil Defence Grant starts with a flat-rate component that gives each of the 179 eligible local authorities £53,000. For shire counties carrying out emergency planning on behalf of their districts, an additional £12,000 per district is allocated. The remainder of the overall sum (approximately 35 per cent.) is distributed according to each authority's Bellwin threshold.

  The formula does not recognise particular risks as the Grant represents a contribution to local authority emergency planning, sufficient to provide a core service. The formula was introduced following the Civil Defence (Grant) Act 2002, and after negotiations with the Local Government Association on its detail.

  The Government separately commits substantial sums to counter terrorist activity by departments and front line responders such as the police.

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of the(a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by his Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170793]

  Mr. Alexander
  The information is not held centrally.

  The Cabinet Office bases all procurement decisions on value for money considerations and information on nationality of companies is recorded only for contracts subject to EU advertising procedures.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the EU directives since May 1997 which have been incorporated into UK law by Parliament; and which items of UK legislation so incorporating an EU directive have subsequently been(a) revised and (b) repealed. [171163]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: The information requested is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Green Minister
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) what work his Department's Green Minister has undertaken in the last three months in that capacity; [167738]

  (2) what meetings his Department's Green Minister has attended in the last 12 months in that capacity. [167739]

  Mr. Alexander
  Work has mainly focused on how the Cabinet Office is working towards taking a more strategic approach in embedding sustainable development into work disseminated to other Government Departments including our internal policies and operations. This work includes discussions with Ministerial colleagues and their officials.

  As regards discussions in Cabinet Committees it is established practice under Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose such information.

  Recycled Paper
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of copying paper used by the Department in 2002–03 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained. [167732]

  Mr. Alexander
  Copying paper used by the Department in 2002–03 was from 'sustainably managed' sources.

  Since May 2003 the majority of copying paper used by the Department is 100 per cent. recycled with a minimum post consumer waste content of 100 per cent.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what measures he has put in place to ensure that his Department meets the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
  5W
  to ensure that all copying paper bought by the Department is 100 per cent. recycled with a minimum of 75 per cent. post-consumer waste content. [167734]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has already implemented in full the quick win target for copying paper. Performance is monitored for the purpose of reporting progress in the annual Sustainable Development in Government report.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what measures he has put in place to ensure that his Department meets the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that all paper for printed publications bought by the Department is 60 per cent recycled of which a minimum is 75 per cent. post-consumer waste. [167735]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office has already implemented in full the quick win target for paper for printed publications. Performance is monitored for the purpose of reporting progress in the annual Sustainable Development in Government report.

  Sustainable Development
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made on his Department's Sustainable Development Strategy. [167742]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office's Sustainable Development Strategy is being reviewed in light of the "Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate" including looking at how best to consider the policy aspects in light of the principles of Sustainable development.

  Cabinet Office progress towards meeting the commitments in the Framework is detailed in the Sustainable Development in Government's 2nd Annual Report published in November 2003. Copies of which are available in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Council Visits (West Bromwich)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) board members and (b) head office hated staff of the Arts Council for England have visited projects in West Bromwich East in each of the last five years. [171596]

  Estelle Morris
  Arts Council England do not hold records of visits by council members and national office staff to projects. In April 2004, five members of the Arts Council, including the chair, visited the site of pUBLIC in the centre of West Bromwich. National office based staff are in frequent contact with Sandwell Borough Council, Jubilee Arts and pUBLIC.

  Digital Television
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of homes in each of the regions of the UK has switched to digital television in the last 12 months. [172066]

  Estelle Morris
  OFCOM estimated digital penetration by ITV region in mid-2003, as follows.6W

  Region

  Percentage

  Wales

  56

  Channel Islands

  55

  South and South East

  48

  London

  47

  Central Scotland

  47

  North West

  47

  East

  46

  Midlands

  44

  North Scotland

  44

  West

  44

  North East

  43

  Yorkshire

  42

  Ulster

  42

  Border

  40

  South West

  37

  Libraries (Stockton, South)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  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 Stockton South since 1997. [171460]

  Estelle Morris
  This information is not held centrally.

  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 two 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 EnrichUK portal at http://www.enrichuk.net.

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

  Licensing Act
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her estimate is of the date for the first appointed day, as specified in the Licensing Act 2003; and if she will make a statement. [171396]

  Mr. Caborn
  The timetable for the first appointed day, when licensing authorities will be able to accept applications for the conversion of existing licences and club registration certificates, will be dependent on the date when, or if, Parliament approves the draft Guidance made under section 182 of the Act which has been laid before it.

  Parliament will not be able to consider the draft Guidance until the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments have completed their scrutiny of it and reported to the Houses. We expect the first appointed day to be six months later than the date of Parliamentary approval. The timetable we hope for would see approval by Parliament at the end of this month which would therefore lead to a first appointed day in November.

  National Lottery (Stockton, South)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the New Opportunities Fund was allocated to Stockton, South in each year since 1997. [171462]

  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund began making grants in 1999. The awards to Stockton, South are shown in the table.

  Financial year

  Amount (£)

  1999–2000

  267,764

  2000–01

  140,100

  2001–02

  461,842

  2002–03

  1,706,395

  2003–04

  1,185,453

  The information is freely available from the Department's searchable Lottery award database at www.lottery.culture.gsi.gov.uk, which uses information supplied by the Lottery distributors.

  New Opportunities Fund
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the New Opportunities Fund was allocated to Oldham West and Royton in each year since 1997. [170943]

  Estelle Morris
  The New Opportunities Fund began making grants in 1999. The awards to Oldham West and Royton are shown in the table, from the latest figures available.

  Financial Year

  Amount (£)

  1999–2000

  8,834

  2000–01

  205,919

  2001–02

  993,803

  2002–03

  798,785

  2003–04

  1,200,336

  2004–05

  525

  The information is freely available from the Department's searchable Lottery award database at www.lottery.culture.gsi.gov.uk which uses information supplied by the Lottery distributors.

  Contracts, consultancies and other services placed by DFT(C) during 2002–03

  Date

  Net value

  Description

  Ernst & Young

  21 August 2002

  400

  Consultancy service; Project management

  Total

  400

  Cap Gemini Ernst & Young

  28 June 2002

  14,747.53

  Consultancy: Transport Direct Programme

  26 September 2002

  6,120.00

  Consultancy: Transport Direct Programme

  Total

  20,867.53

  KPMG

  16 April 2002

  193,756.50

  Consultancy service; Project management

  1 May 2002

  651.1

  Consultancy service; Project management

  10 May 2002

  37,542.00

  Consultancy service; Computer strategy

  14 May 2002

  181,228.90

  DVO Strategy blueprint

  30 May 2002

  2,563.40

  Consultancy service; Project management

  Tourism (Stockton, South)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  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 Stockton, South. [171461]

  Mr. Caborn
  One North East (ONE) has secured the work programme of the former Northumberland Tourist Board through funding of £2.3 million and has committed an additional £1 million for tourism in line with its Corporate Plan. The development of the Tees corridor has been identified as a key priority for ONE's resources and this will have significant benefits for Stockton, South. Tourism development will also benefit from the Regional Image Strategy and Marketing budgets. ONE is also supporting the sub-regions in developing their own destination management organisations.

TRANSPORT

  A13
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what investigations he has(a) conducted and (b) planned into solutions to the congestion problem on the A13 in Hadleigh. [171087]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The A13 east of Tilbury is not a trunk road and so is the responsibility of Essex County Council as local highway authority. I understand that Essex CC has recently carried out work in High Street, Hadleigh (the A13) to update an earlier environmental scheme and that some carriageway widening works and the provision of a new pedestrian crossing have been undertaken in conjunction with a new superstore. The carriageway will be resurfaced later this year.

  The council also plans to undertake a route management strategy for the A13/A127 which will address the problem of congestion amongst other issues.

  Accountancy Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) nature and (b) value was of all contracts, consultancies or other services placed with the accountancy firms (i) Deloitte & Touche, (ii) Ernst & Young, (iii) KPMG and (iv) PricewaterhouseCoopers since 2000–01 by the Department and its agencies. [166094]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department was formed in May 2002. The information for the central Department for financial years 2002–03 and 2003–04, and the agencies for the financial years 2000–01 to 2003–04 is set out in the following tables.
  9W

  Contracts, consultancies and other services placed by DFT(C) during 2002–03

  Date

  Net value

  Description

  3 July 2002

  1,177.00

  Consultancy service; Project management

  4 July 2002

  407,807.00

  DVO Strategy blueprint

  9 July 2002

  1,312.40

  Consultancy service; Project management

  21 August 2002

  112,533.10

  Consultancy service; Project management

  9 September 2002

  1,733.20

  Consultancy service; Project management

  6 November 2002

  1,297.10

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  19 November 2002

  7,729.00

  Consultancy service; Project management

  7 January 2003

  3,847.00

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  10 February 2003

  4,071.20

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  17 February 2003

  3,842.60

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  11 March 2003

  4,037.70

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  Total

  965,129.20

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  14 January 2003

  5,000.00

  Consultancy service; Finance and Accountancy

  Total

  5,000.00

  Contracts, consultancies and other services placed by DFT(C) during 2003–04

  Date

  Net value

  Description

  Cap Gemini Ernst & Young

  18 June 2003

  55,302.00

  Review of ICT services

  23 June 2003

  303,161.15

  Consultant service; Web services

  21 October 2003

  32,205.00

  Consultancy service: TransXchange review project

  Total

  390,668.15

  Deloitte &Touche

  23 May 2003

  7,864.00

  Computer consultancy service

  17 July 2003

  4,704.00

  Training course

  14 April 2003

  6,427.00

  Computer consultancy service

  23 May 2003

  216,683.00

  Consultancy service; Project management

  17 August 2003

  36,286.00

  Computer consultancy service

  14 August 2003

  2,641.00

  Professional services

  27 October 2003

  840

  Consultancy service; Project management

  7 November 2003

  417,286.00

  Support for Programme and Project Management Centre of Excellence

  7 January 2004

  156,753.00

  Consultancy service; Project management

  Total

  849,484.00

  KPMG

  11 April 2003

  2,826.70

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  21 May 2003

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  12 June 2003

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  2 September 2003

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  2 September 2003

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  12 September 2003

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  14 October 2003

  Consultancy service; Project management

  12 November 2003

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  17 December 2003

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  19 January 2004

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  11 February 2004

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  5 March 2004

  Consultancy advice in connection with Rail Review

  9 March 2004

  Accounting advice—CROSSRAIL

  9 March 2004

  Accounting advice—CROSSRAIL

  10 March 2004

  BR privatisation (successor companies) Advice/negotiation on tax benefits

  16 March 2004

  Consultancy advice in connection with Rail Review

  18 March 2004

  Consultancy advice in connection with Rail Review

  Total

  1,155,766.88

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  18 November 2003

  425

  Courses and Seminars

  5 March 2004

  595

  Training course

  23 March 2004

  80,000.00

  Identification and assessment of local authority expenditure

  Total

  81,020.00

  Contracts, consultancies or other services placed by DFT's agencies since 2000–01

  Company

  Nature

  Value

  Agency

  Ernst & Young

  General Consultancy Support under the S-Cat framework agreement between October 2000 and March 2001

  189,938

  DVLA

  Advice on pay comparability 2001

  80,310.88

  MCA

  Cap Gemini Ernst & Young

  IT consultancy

  11,907,982

  Highways Agency

  KPMG

  Appointment of Financial Consultants under the S-Cat framework agreement between July 2000 and October 2002

  227,000

  DVLA

  Change Consultancy under the S-Cat framework agreement between June 2001 and June 2002

  300,000

  DVLA

  Review of Secure Document Handling under the S-Cat framework agreement between October 2002 and October 2003

  85,000

  DVLA

  MOT Project Consultancy

  115,232.84

  VOSA

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  Feasibility Study for EOS Project under a former DETR framework contract between July 2001 and August 2001

  16,000

  DVLA

  General Management Consultancy

  940,000

  Highways Agency

  Training Services

  980,000 (to date)

  DSA

  Preparation and Support and Consultancy Highways

  288,000

  10W 11W

  Contracts, consultancies or other services placed by DFT's agencies since 2000–01

  Company

  Nature

  Value

  Agency

  Deloitte & Touche

  IT consultancy

  2,587,350

  Highways Agency

  Consultancy on non pay benefits (2004)

  15,166.90

  MCA

  Consultancy on joint helicopter harmonisation project with MOD— covering advice on business case, investment analysis, project management, pre PFI advice and consultation with industry. Contract let by MOD 2002–03

  326,244.63

  Auditing company accounts

  Ad-hoc low value orders, below £15K

  Highways Agency

  Air Safety
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of rocket-assisted parachutes in improving aircraft safety. [170168]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since September 2003, responsibility for the safety regulation of most aircraft and aircraft products lies with the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) except for various smaller or specialist aircraft such as microlights which remain the responsibility of national aviation authorities.

  The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) recognises the potential safety benefits of ballistic parachutes in otherwise potentially catastrophic accident situations. The authority introduced an amendment to the UK Design Requirements for Microlights in 1999 allowing for the installation of ballistic parachutes in such aeroplanes. Approval was on the basis that this did not introduce any additional hazard during normal conditions of flight.

  EASA will include an assessment of an installed ballistic parachute system when investigating aircraft for the issue of a type Certificate. We understand that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved the installation and use of a ballistic parachute in the Cirus SR20 light aeroplane and that this aircraft is now the subject of an application for approval in Europe.

  Coastguard Station, Tynemouth
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the former coastguard station at Tynemouth. [170409]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  As part of a general audit of its property portfolio, English Heritage has been reviewing the operation of Tynemouth Priory. They will shortly be carrying out an options appraisal on the future use of the former coastguard station within the Priory grounds. The views of the local community will be taken into account in this appraisal.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his latest estimate is of the amount spent by his Department on official entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [169104]
  12W
  Mr. McNulty
  The costs of entertainment incurred were:

  £000

  1996–97

  131

  2002–03

  124

  2003–04

  116

  1 Department for Transport

  For the current-financial year (2004–05) it is forecast that the Department it for Transport's costs will be approximately £15,000.

  From 1997–98 to 2001–02 transport formed part of the DETR and DTLR. Transport specific information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the(a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by his Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170812]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed 29 May 2002 since when all DfT procured crockery is manufactured in the UK, all cutlery is manufactured abroad in various countries, and all glassware is manufactured in France.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to source all sea bass used in catering outlets for which his Department is responsible from hand-line fishermen rather than pair trawlers. [167535]

  Mr. McNulty
  Defra supports the sourcing of sea bass from sustainable fisheries and handlining, as a relatively low impact method of fishing, can play a part in ensuring fisheries remain sustainable. However, the last report in 2003 by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas on sea bass advised that the level of exploitation of the stock at that time was sustainable and did not recommend closure of the offshore pair trawl fishery. There are currently no restrictions at a UK or Community level on the method of fishing that can be used to target bass. In addition, to address the dolphin bycatch problem associated with the pair trawl fishery, Defra-funded trials of a separate grid device to reduce dolphin bycatch are currently taking place, with the co-operation of the fishing industry.

  In these circumstances, I do not believe that recommending a specific source of supply for bass could be justified at this stage.

  Green Transport Schemes
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary cf State for Transport if he will publish the research evidence produced by studies made by the Department on the potential land value benefits of development within easy access of a railway station. [168798]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department contributed to the Jubilee Line Extension Impact S Study carried out for TfL by the University of Westminster. As part of that study the views of local agents on the impact of the JLE on the property market were sought and a general review of the commercial and residential market along the line was performed. The property report and the overall summary report for the JLE Impact Study will be released in May 2004.

  The Department also contributed to a research project by ODPM and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors on "Property Values and Public Transport Investment". The main objective of the study was the development of a suitable methodology for the estimation of the impact of public transport investment on property values. RICS published the report on Stage I, which was a literature review, as 'Land Value and Public Transport: Stage 1—Summary of findings' in October 2002 and plan to publish the Stage 2 report 'Land value and public transport: Stage two—Summary of findings' on 25 May.

  Omega Site (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had on providing public transport links to the Omega site in Warrington as it is developed. [171018]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Highways Agency, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, has been in discussions regarding the transport implications of the Omega site on the strategic highways network. The applicants and the borough council will be considering the public transport implications as part of the planning process.

  Railways
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ask Network Rail to launch an urgent inquiry into track quality between Swindon and Paddington. [169332]

  Mr. McNulty
  This is an operational matter for Network Rail. However, Network Rail advises me that it is already undertaking a comprehensive programme to manage and monitor the track quality in this area and, at the same time, is investing to upgrade the track.

  Network Rail has liaised closely with the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate over those sections of poorer quality track, which are being monitored though an enhanced regime of inspections. It is investing in maintenance of the track, and switches and crossings (S&C) sites have been receiving additional attention from heavy maintenance gangs. There is also an on-going extensive programme of track and S&C renewals.
  14W
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport with which stakeholders he has held direct discussions in connection with his review of the structure and organisation of the railways. [171213]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministers and officials in the Department of Transport have had discussions with a wide range of people and organisations in the course the current review of the structure and organisation of the rail industry.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the decision of Network Rail to postpone the installation of a radio system for drivers until 2015. [168372]

  Mr. McNulty
  Network Rail advise me that they are currently implementing a new system for drivers known as the Global System for Mobile Communications for Railways (GSM-R). Its phased introduction is due for completion in 2013.

  The installation work has already commenced in Strathclyde. GSM-R will be implemented on all high-speed lines by 2006 and the majority of the GSM-R upgrade will be completed by 2008–09.

  The original timetable envisaged completion by 2008. The new time scales and expenditure profile reflect the outcome of the Rail Regulator's Interim Review and are believed to be realistic and deliverable.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of the reports on the Central Railway project prepared for him by the Strategic Rail Authority. [171282]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 6 May 2004]: The Strategic Rail Authority's report took the form of a letter to Ministers from the SRA Chairman. The letter constitutes advice to Ministers. It is not the practice to make available such advice.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often he meets officials of the Strategic Rail Authority to discuss improvements to the national rail network. [171479]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministerial colleagues and I have very frequent meetings with the Strategic Rail Authority.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the Department's role was in the formulation of the Route Utilisation Strategy (Part One) for the East Midlands published in March by the Strategic Rail Authority; [171504]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the Strategic Rail Authority's Route Utilisation Strategy (Part One) for the East Midlands. [171506]

  Mr. McNulty
  The role of the Department in formulating the Strategic Rail Authority's (SRA) Route Utilisation Strategies is to ensure that the SRA's approach is consistent with broader Government policy, is in the best interests of the taxpayer and is in accordance with expected resources. The framework informing and underpinning all Route Utilisation Strategies was set out in the SRA's Network Utilisation Strategy, published in June 2003. The detail of individual Route Utilisation Strategies is a matter for the SRA.
  15W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the profit levels of train leasing companies. [171514]

  Mr. McNulty
  The profits earned by the rolling stock leasing companies (ROSCOs) are set out in their filed accounts. Their operations are subject to the scrutiny of the competition authorities in the usual way.

  Road Works
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the average duration of works carried out by highway authorities necessitating occupation of(a) Highways Agency roads and (b) local authority roads was in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001, (iii) 2002 and (iv) 2003. [170652]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: This information is not held centrally.

  Rural Bus Services (Cambridgeshire)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rural bus services in(a) the Huntingdon constituency and (b) Cambridgeshire are supported by rural bus grants. [170861]

  Mr. McNulty
  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) is paid to local transport authorities, in the case of Huntingdon this is Cambridgeshire County Council. It is for the authority to decide which services should be supported with the grant. We understand from the county council that there are 25 rural bus services operating in Cambridgeshire that are currently supported by RBSG, of these 13 services operate in Huntingdon.

  Transec
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what Transec's chain of command is; and how Transec's staff are(a) recruited and (b) vetted; [169968]

  (2) if he will make a statement explaining the central command structure of Transec. [170061]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department's Transport Security Directorate (Transec) is headed by a director supported by two divisional managers. The director reports direct to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on security matters, and to the Department's Director General for Railways, Aviation, Logistics, Maritime and Security on management issues. The director and her staff play a full and active role as part of the Whitehall counter-terrorist community working closely with colleagues in the police and other Government Departments.

  Transec's staff is recruited in a variety of ways, depending on the job and the knowledge and skills needed to do it. Transec's staff includes career civil servants from the Department for Transport and other departments; people recruited through open competition who have relevant experience from industry and/or the security sector; and staff on secondment.
  16W
  Members of staff are subject to security vetting according to the nature of their work and the access they require to classified assets. The vetting is carried out in accordance with the rules set out in the Government's Manual of Protective Security.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abattoirs
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost to the Department in the financial years(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 was of charges brought successfully against abattoirs for breaches of meat hygiene and animal welfare regulations. [166079]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The total legal costs incurred by both this Department and the Food Standards Agency (which is responsible for meat hygiene prosecutions, as well as being involved with animal welfare cases) in pursuit of charges that were successfully brought against abattoirs for breaches of meat hygiene and animal welfare regulations were:

  £

  2002–03

  44,031.61

  2003–04

  90,748.11

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost was to the Department in the financial years(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04 of all charges brought against abattoirs for breaches of meat hygiene and animal welfare regulations, including those which were successfully prosecuted and those which were dropped before they came to court. [166092]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The total legal cost incurred by both this Department and the Food Standards Agency (which is responsible for meat hygiene prosecutions, as well as being involved with animal welfare cases) in pursuit of all charges brought against abattoirs for breaches of meat hygiene and animal welfare regulations was:

  2002–03—£48,311.26

  2003–04—£123,050.62

  British Wildlife
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect of the introduction of genetically modified crops on wildlife; and what studies the Government commissioned on the subject. [169944]

  Mr. Morley
  The effects on wildlife from the cultivation of each particular GM crop is assessed on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the criteria in European Directive 2001/18 on the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms.

  In the case of GM herbicide tolerant oilseed rape, beet and maize the effects of the management of these crops on wildlife was studied in the GM crop farm scale evaluations. The results of these evaluations for spring

  17W
  sown oilseed rape, beet and maize were published in October last year. Results for winter sown oilseed rape will be published later this year.

  BSE
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) total and (b) average monthly cost of the Over-30-Month scheme has been since its inception. [170187]

  Alun Michael
  The total and average monthly cost of the Over-30-Month scheme are shown in the table.

  £million

  Total cost of the scheme including compensation

  Average cost per month

  1996–97

  858

  78

  1997–98

  432

  36

  1998–99

  380

  32

  1999–2000

  394

  33

  2000–01

  401

  33

  2001–02

  301

  25

  2002–03

  367

  31

  2003–04

  1321

  127

  Total

  3,454

  36

  1 Forecast.

  The average monthly costs have decreased over the years reflecting lower compensation rates and disposal costs and fewer animals entering the scheme.

  The 1996–97 figure reflects the high compensation rate in the first year. The low 2001–02 figure reflects the reduced numbers entering the scheme as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost of maintaining the Over-30-Month scheme for cattle born after August 1996 until January 2005. [170188]

  Alun Michael
  The estimated direct cost (compensation and disposal) of maintaining the Over-30-Month scheme for cattle born after August 1996 from April 2004 until January 2005 is £120 million.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost of maintaining the Over-30-Month scheme for cattle born before August 1996. [170189]

  Alun Michael
  The cost of maintaining the Over-30-Month scheme after April 2004 for cattle born before August 1996 will be spread over several years. The aggregate cost is estimated at £400 million. However, the annual cost will depend on how quickly the cattle are disposed of.

  Conferences/Seminars
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans were made by her Department for(a) conferences and (b) seminars in conjunction with its consultations on (i) the sustainable management of wild deer in England, (ii) hazardous chemicals and (iii) dioxins and dioxin-like
  18W
  polychlorinated biphenyls in the UK environment; what the total cost of organising each of those events was; and how many people attended in each case. [161389]

  Alun Michael
  The public consultation exercise on the sustainable management of wild deer in England ended recently on 16 April. The consideration of written responses began on 27 April and it is too early to make decisions on how to present the outcome of this exercise. However, when the appropriate stage is reached consideration will be given to the use of conferences and/or seminars.

  The Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances has held an extraordinary meeting to discuss the consultation on the UK chemicals strategy and the review of the UK Chemicals Stakeholder Forum. The Government invited companies in, and organisations representing, the small and medium-size business sector to a seminar on the consultation on 15 April but there was insufficient interest expressed to run this. The approximate cost of these events was £3,100. The consultation on the UK Strategy ends on 4 May.

  The Government consultation on the new EU chemicals strategy (REACH) was launched on 30 March 2004. The deadline for comment is 25 June. As part of the consultation process, I chaired a stakeholder conference on 27 April in Birmingham. Approximately 150 delegates were expected to attend representing our main stakeholder groups: industry, environmental, trade unions, and animal welfare and consumer organisations. The cost of organising the conference is estimated at approximately £25,000.

  The consultation on dioxins and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls in the UK environment was the first step in the development of a UK action plan on dioxins and related compounds which is a requirement of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. Work is still under way and the Government are seeking further views in a second round of consultation which will feed directly into the finalisation of the action plan. To date no conferences or seminars have been held in conjunction with this consultation, but we will consider the need for such events when we are closer to completion.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans were made by her Department for(a) conferences and (b) seminars in conjunction with its consultations on (i) a strategy for fly-tipping. (ii) the definition of wild birds and (iii) a new strategy on bovine TB; what the total cost of organising each of those events was; and how many people attended in each case. [161390]

  Alun Michael

  Fly-tipping

  Defra has worked with ENCAMS to organise a series of nine regional seminars in conjunction with the Environment Agency, the Local Government Associations, the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Local Government Association.

  The events have used the Flycapture database system but also included discussion on Defra's Fly-Tipping Strategy.
  19W
  The total cost of the seminars for England and Wales was £77,000 and over 400 delegates have attended the events that have been held so far. More detailed numbers of attendees will be available when the events have finished.

  Wild birds

  We are currently conducting a public consultation on an amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in order to ensure that the definition of "wild bird" correctly transposes the EC Wild Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) by protecting all species of birds occurring in the wild state in the European territory of the member states. A short consultation document was issued on the 17 February and the consultation period concludes on 11 May 2004. The proposed amendment will not restrict trade in legally taken or captive bred specimens. The Department has no plans for conferences or seminars in conjunction with this consultation.

  Bovine tuberculosis

  Defra is holding workshops across England to discuss with stakeholders the issues raised in the consultation document "Preparing for a new GB strategy on bovine tuberculosis". There will be some seven regional workshops and a national meeting in London between 26 March and 5 May 2004, with some 50 delegates at each event. The estimated cost of organising these events is £60,000 to £65,000.

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the(a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by her Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170800]

  Alun Michael
  Defra was formed in June 2001. The information requested cannot be provided, as it is not held centrally. Under public procurement rules, it would be illegal to discriminate between suppliers on grounds of nationality.

  Discarded Needles
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about the collection and disposal of discarded needles and other drug paraphernalia; and if she will make a statement. [170836]

  Alun Michael
  Over the last two years my officials have received representations from the Chartered Institute of Wastes Management about problems associated with discarded drug paraphernalia, in particular needles. My officials are leading discussions with a number of Government Departments, notably the Home Office, Department of Health and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, looking at what action might be taken to address the problem. A drugs related litter conference took place on 12 February 2004 in Bristol which looked at identifying key issues and discussed how to take matters forward. Work in this area will continue to build upon the positive outcomes of the conference.

  Environmental Protection
  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 Government programmes(a) to stop people littering and polluting, (b) to promote energy efficiency and (c) to cut traffic pollution. [168808]

  Alun Michael
  (a) Defra funding is provided to ENCAMS (formerly Tidy Britain Group) annually. Funding over the last three years is as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  3,762,000

  2002–03

  4,597,0001

  2003–04

  3,574,000

  This funding supports ENCAMS work on a range of local environmental quality issues, including programmes to discourage littering. In addition ENCAMS is able to undertake additional work funded by or undertaken jointly with local government or other government departments and agencies.

  (b) Defra currently provides grants to aid energy efficiency through four main routes.

  1. The Carbon Trust—to support and promote energy efficiency and low carbon innovation for business and public sector

  2. The Energy Saving Trust—to support and promote energy efficiency in the domestic sector.

  3. The Community Energy programme—capital and development funding to refurbish existing and install new community heating schemes.

  4. The Warm Front programme—to provide energy efficiency measures to the vulnerable.

  1Defra allocated an additional 1m 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.

  The funding made available by Defra and its predecessors to support and promote efficiency measures in the last three years (including the Energy Saving Trust and the Carbon Trust) is of the scale set out as follows:

  £

  2001–02

  256,000,000

  2002–03

  225,000,000

  2003–04

  1243,000,000

  1Budget

  (c) Government currently provides funding through the Transport Energy Powershift and CleanUp programmes, which are administered by the Energy Saving Trust. Powershift provides grants towards the purchase of cleaner and more efficient alternatively fuelled vehicles e.g. LPG, natural gas and hybrid vehicles. CleanUp provides grants towards the cost of purchasing exhaust treatment systems which reduce NOx and Particulate emissions. Both programmes contribute to reducing traffic pollution and were allocated the following Government funding.
  21W

  Clean Up

  £

  2001–02

  7,400,000

  2002–03

  8,300,000

  2003–04

  12,900,000

  Powershift

  £

  2001–02

  5,400,000

  2002–03

  2,200,000

  2003–04

  7,000,000

  Note:

  These figures refer to grant spend and do not include management and Administration costs.

  Food Export Standards
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of(a) the UK Government's and (b) the EU's regulatory systems to prevent the export of food produced in the EU accession countries which does not fully comply with EU slaughter and production standards. [167324]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 22 April 2002]It is the responsibility of the relevant competent authorities in each accession country and EU Member State to ensure that all food is produced in accordance with EU legislation. Once food is placed on the market in the EU, it is up to the relevant central competent authorities in Member States to ensure that the legal requirements continue to be met. The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office is responsible for ensuring that competent authorities comply with these responsibilities. The Food and Veterinary Office have carried out a series of visits to accession countries to check that they have appropriate control systems in place, and will carry out further visits to ensure continuing compliance.

  The Food Standards Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its agencies are responsible for food safety and food standards in the UK. Enforcement responsibilities are delegated to environmental health and trading standards departments in Local Authorities and the Meat Hygiene Service who carry out checks on food to ensure compliance with food safety and food hygiene standards.

  Farm Income
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the impact of the(a) ending of the Over-Thirty-Months Scheme and (b) start of single farm payments on livestock holdings. [170136]

  Alun Michael
  The information is as follows:

  (a) If the Over-Thirty-Months Scheme were to end for cattle born after 1 August 1996 this would lead to an increase in domestic beef production, amounting to an additional 175,000 tonnes in 2005. Consequent changes in price will depend on the initial volumes and perceived quality of cow beef, the rate of import substitution,
  22W
  market demand, and changes to the Date Based Export Scheme. Any losses to producers should be relatively short term and market prices for OTM cattle could, in the longer term, be expected to recover to levels close to the EU average. As the present OTMS compensation rate is below the EU market price for cull cows and demand for manufacturing beef is strong, UK farm prices for OTM cattle are expected to rise especially as exports open up leading to a positive effect on the incomes of dairy and suckler beef farmers.

  (b) Under the single farm payment scheme, direct subsidies are being decoupled from production which will provide an opportunity for farmers to respond to market signals thereby producing products that consumers demand rather than producing those that they have historically produced, or which attract larger subsidies. Payments under the single payment scheme will initially be composed of an element based on farmers' historic payment in the reference period and an element based on their farm area. Area payments will be fully implemented by 2012. There will be some redistribution of monies within the regions defined by the area payments from the more intensive to the more extensive types of farming, but the impact on individual holdings will also depend on how they respond to opportunities presented by CAP reform.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on farm income levels for farmers in Wirral South. [170273]

  Alun Michael
  Due to the small number of farms in Wirral South, there are no robust data available on farm incomes for farmers in that area. Net farm income for farms in the EU North Region1 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.
  1 Comprising Government Office Regions North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on farm income levels for farmers in Oldham, West and Royton in the past five years. [170880]

  Alun Michael
  Due to the small number of farms in Oldham West and Royton, 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 Region1 and for England over the last five years are show in the following table.
  23W

  Net Farm Income

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  EU North Region

  8,272

  8,659

  12,456

  16,457

  18,512

  England

  10,359

  7,981

  9,886

  13,558

  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

  Fisheries
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she has made in setting up regional fisheries advisory councils. [171136]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  A Council Decision to establish Regional Advisory Councils (RACs) is likely to be adopted later this month. This will provide basic principles and guidelines for setting up RACs, and should enable interested parties to take forward their proposals quickly. RACs are intended to be stakeholder bodies, not Government bodies, but we are working actively with interested organisations to help set up those RACs in which the UK has an interest.

  RACs will be international organisations, developed and run by their members. Interested parties in the UK have been at the forefront of action, and with their partners in Europe they have made excellent progress towards developing proposals for RACs in the North Sea and in North Western Community Waters.

  Flood Defences
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent measures her Department has taken to protect against flooding in the Vale of York. [170009]

  Mr. Morley
  Decisions on which projects are promoted and their timing rests with the operating authorities.

  Within the Vale of York constituency, the Environment Agency has recently improved protection at Boroughbridge and restored flood defences at Rawcliffe which were damaged following the floods in autumn 2000. They are also promoting a series of flood warning improvements in the region.

  A number of long-term strategies looking at ways to reduce flood risks are being promoted by EA; included are studies on the rivers Ouse, Nidd and Ure.

  Defra regional engineers are assisting Hambleton district council with studies into looking at options to reduce the flood risk from Cod Beck in Thirsk. If these studies should result in a project meeting our standard criteria, Defra will consider it for grant aid.

  Finally, Rawcliffe IDB has looked into flood risks at Blue Beck and have introduced (in co-operation with York city council) a programme of maintenance to reduce the build up of debris at key installations.

  GM Soya
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the environmental impact of GM soya cultivation in the Colonia Loma Senes region of Argentina in order to inform her policy for the United Kingdom. [170167]

  Mr. Morley
  I am aware of various reports of the environmental benefits from the cultivation of GM soya and some reported disadvantages apparently due to mishandling of herbicides. However the Department has not made an assessment of GM soya cultivation in Argentina or elsewhere. Soya is not suitable for general cultivation in the UK and no application has been made to cultivate GM soya in the European Union.

  GM Micro-organisms
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the potential impacts on the European fermentation industry of the decision to be taken in Europe about whether to include within the traceability and labelling regulations those products produced with genetically modified micro-organisms; and if she will make a statement; [170078]

  (2) what discussions she has held with and what representations she has received 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; [170079]

  (3) what recent representations she has received about 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; [170082]

  (4) what her policy objectives 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 when those organisms are not contained in the final product; and what specific communication she (a) has had and (b) intends to have with other member states to secure those objectives. [170083]

  Mr. Morley
  The Secretary of State has not discussed the interpretation of the new traceability and labelling regulations in relation to products produced with genetically modified micro-organisms with stakeholders. However, last autumn officials from the Food Standards Agency and my Department held a series of stakeholder meetings with those interested in the new legislation, 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.
  25W
  At one of these meetings and subsequently, the food and feed industry raised specific concerns in relation to the labelling of products arising from a fermentation process using either genetically modified microorganisms and/or genetically modified substrates. The UK and other member states raised this issue with the Commission who have undertaken to take forward a discussion at Standing Committee where the Food Standards Agency will seek clarification on the status of these products.

  During negotiations on the content of the regulations at European level in 2001 my Department held a separate consultation on the content of the regulations, which provided an additional opportunity for stakeholders, including those in the fermentation industry, to raise issues and concerns.

  The Commission produced a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) of the new Regulations prior to negotiations. Furthermore, following meetings with stakeholders last year and subsequent discussions with the European Commission to promote consistency of interpretation across the European Union, my Department and the Food Standards Agency have recently launched a new public consultation on the domestic implementation of the new regulations. This includes draft guidance and draft Regulatory Impact Assessment. Final versions will be published once responses have been considered.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects further substantive discussions to take place in Europe about the interpretation of the new Traceability and Labelling Regulations in relation to products produced with genetically modified micro-organisms; and by whom the United Kingdom will be, represented in those discussions. [170084]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department expects that substantive discussions about the interpretation of the new Traceability and Labelling Regulations vis-a-vis products produced with genetically modified microorganisms will take place in the relevant European Union Regulatory and Standing Committees. Officials from my Department and/or the Food Standards Agency will represent the UK at these meetings. A Standing Committee discussing general food law considered the issue on 30 April 2004. The Commission has suggested that a working group to discuss these issues concerning products produced with genetically modified micro-organisms in more detail should take place before the next Standing Committee in June. However, no date has been finalised as yet.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she intends to make it her policy that discussions about the interpretation of the new Traceability and Labelling Regulations in relation to products produced with genetically modified micro-organisms should continue as part of the two-year review process for the Regulations. [170085]

  Mr. Morley
  The new Regulations contain specific review provisions, on which the Commission is tasked to report to the European Parliament and to the Council by respectively October and November 2005. The 26W
  review report may cover any aspect of the Regulations, including in relation to products produced with genetically modified micro-organisms. The UK Government will play a full part in contributing to the Commission's review and will discuss UK stakeholders' concerns within the context of the Regulations' provisions where appropriate.

  Horse Exports
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many horses were exported from the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [169882]

  Alun Michael
  Computer based systems relating to export health certification from the UK show that during 2003 export health certificates for 733 horses were issued to non-EU destinations and for 8,478 horses to ED destinations. These figures include horses in transit from non-EU countries to EU Member States and animals exported temporarily from the UK for competition purposes. The figures exclude the movement of certain horses to France and Ireland which under a Tripartite Agreement do not require export health certification.

  Horse Passports
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to the Government has been of the introduction of(a) horse passports and (b) the equine database. [170758]

  Alun Michael
  Work began in the financial year 2002–03 to extend the requirement for passports to all equines and introduce a national equine database in partnership with industry.

  The cost to the Exchequer in that financial year was less than £130,000 and in financial year 2003–04 the cost was less than £500,000, including publicity. These funds were found from within existing resources.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the cost to the horse industry of the introduction of(a) horse passports and (b) the equine database. [170759]

  Alun Michael
  A regulatory impact assessment was deposited in the House Libraries with the Horse Passport (England) Regulations 2003. That assessment is being updated and a copy will also be deposited in the House Libraries when the 2004 regulations are laid shortly. This will include an assessment of costs linked to the introduction of the database.

  The equine database is being introduced following an initiative by the equine industry in partnership with the Government. It will include some statutory data, though potentially the largest volume of data will be provided by the industry for the industry on a voluntary basis. This will be breeding, performance and evaluation data.

  Intensive Farming
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans
  27W
  she has to propose changes to EU animal welfare regulations to improve the conditions of intensively farmed livestock and poultry; [170592]

  (2) if she will commission further research into the efficacy of existing welfare standards applying to intensively reared livestock and poultry. [170593]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  It is for the EU Commission to propose changes to EU animal welfare legislation. In drawing up proposals, the Commission takes account of advice from its own scientific committee—the Animal Health and Animal Welfare Panel of the European Food Safety Authority; the results of research undertaken by Member States and developments in husbandry techniques.

  Defra's farm animal welfare research programme is wide ranging, with projects on all the main livestock species. Details of our current projects can be found on the Defra website. The research provides a sound scientific basis to inform our policies and helps identify areas where we can press the Commission to come forward with proposals to improve the legislation.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the standard of enforcement of animal welfare regulations governing intensive livestock and poultry units; [170594]

  (2) how many inspectors are engaged in maintaining animal welfare regulations governing intensive livestock and poultry units in the UK; and if she will make a statement on the levels of qualifications of inspectors. [170595]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  This Government is committed to ensuring a high standard of welfare on farms and to properly enforcing the legislation. The State Veterinary Service is the primary enforcement authority in the UK and 368 veterinary officers are engaged in the enforcement of on-farm welfare legislation. These officers are all qualified veterinary surgeons and have received comprehensive training and written instructions on how to enforce the legislation.

  In 1999, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), an independent body which advises Ministers on animal welfare issues, published its report on the enforcement of animal welfare legislation. Our response to FAWC's report can be found on the Defra website.

  The EU Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) is responsible for carrying out audits of the implementation and enforcement of animal welfare legislation in all Member States to ensure that it is being carried out uniformly across the Community.

  Licensed Abattoirs
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many licensed abattoirs there were in England(a) in 1991, (b) in 1997 and (c) on the latest date for which figures are available. [169749]
  28W
  Alun Michael
  The number of licensed abattoirs in England is as follows:

  Red meat

  White meat

  1991

  593

  98

  1997

  375

  131

  April 2004

  278

  110

  Mechanically Propelled Vehicles
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she intends to publish her Department's response to the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way consultation document. [170248]

  Alun Michael
  We received more than 15,000 letters and e-mails about the consultation on the use of mechanised vehicles on rights of way. These are currently being analysed and I expect to make a statement on the way ahead once I have fully considered that analysis.

  Parish and Town Councils
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice and assistance(a) her Department and (b) the Countryside Agency provide to parish and town councils who wish to (i) start up and (ii) develop their own website. [170577]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has supported the Countryside Agency's work to promote the use of ICT within the parish sector.

  In 2002 the Agency worked with the Local Government Association (LGA), the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) and the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA), to develop and implement a web-based management and good practice guide for the parish and town council sector. It has a focus on partnership working between parish and town councils and principal local authorities. This 'toolkit' was launched in September 2002 and is hosted within the existing 'Knowledge' website created and managed by IDeA to serve as local government's own management good practice 'warehouse' of information and guidance.

  The Countryside Agency has advised NALC on a current project, 'Connecting with Communities'. ODPM, the LGA, IDeA and the Audit Commission have jointly produced a good practice toolkit offering comprehensive communications support to local authorities. This toolkit, found at www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk contains professional advice, best practice case studies and hundreds of documents that can be downloaded free-of-charge to help spread good practice.

  The Countryside Agency continues to work with NALC to explore ways in which ICT skills, acquisition of suitable equipment and its usage within the parish and town council sector can be enhanced and supported.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research(a) her Department and (b) the Countryside Agency

  29W
  have commissioned into the role, functions and relevance of parish and town councils in the last five years. [170578]

  Alun Michael
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs funds came into being in June 2001 and took over responsibility for the Countryside Agency whose responsibilities have included relevant research. Prior to 2001 the Agency was funded by the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  (b) Relevant research commissioned by the Countryside Agency in the last few years is as follows:

  (i) The report, Training for Local Councils' was produced for the Countryside Agency by the (then) Cheltenham and Gloucester College of Higher Education and was published in 2000.

  (ii) In 2003 the University of Gloucestershire was commissioned to research internet resources available to local councils, including websites, e-groups and networks. The study researched how the internet was being used by parish and town councils by identifying good practice, barriers to use, and gaps in provision. The resulting research report, 'Internet resources for town and parish councils', is available from the Agency's website.

  (iii) In 2004 the Countryside Agency commissioned UK Villages On Line to manage an on-line poll on attitudes towards parish and town councils. The results have been reported in 'Local Councils Review' and are also available on the Countryside Agency's website.

  Radon Gas
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulations govern(a) testing for radon gas in homes and (b) disclosure of radon gas levels when houses are bought and sold. [169718]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are currently no regulations that govern the testing for radon gas in homes.

  Approximately 450,000 radon measurements, mostly Government-funded, have been carried out by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) since 1987. By 1998, every home in England with a greater than 5 per cent. probability of being at or above the radon level of 200 becquerels per cubic metre of air— known as the Action Level—had been offered a free measurement.

  The Government have designated areas where new homes should include radon protective measures during their construction to satisfy the requirements of the Building Regulations. This was introduced in 1988 and applied only to parts of Devon and Cornwall, but in 1999 was broadened to include all parts of England and Wales where there is a significant probability of exceeding the Action Level.

  It is standard practice for potential home-buyers to carry out a local search. This currently includes information on whether or not the property is located within a radon affected area. Guidance to local
  30W
  authorities from the Local Government Association asks them to provide further information to enquirers where this is the case.

  The Government intend to include standard searches in home information packs, legislation for which is in the Housing Bill.

  Rural Payments Agency
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment her Department has made of the Rural Payments Agency's performance; how many complaints were received against the Rural Payments Agency in(a) 2001 and (b) 2003, broken down by type of complaint; when the full development of the Rural Payments Agency will be completed; and what her assessment is of the ability of the Rural Payments Agency to cope with changes owing to reform of the common agricultural policy. [170008]

  Alun Michael
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed to the creation of the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) on 16 October 2001.

  The RPA's second Annual Report and Accounts, which records performance against the agency's key performance targets, as set by the Secretary of State, was published on 18 September 2003.

  An Ownership Board chaired by the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs meets quarterly to monitor the performance of the agency, on behalf of the Secretary of State. In addition, I receive weekly progress reports, as the RPA is part of my ministerial portfolio. I also monitor the response to issues raised by MPs and regularly discuss relevant issues with the agency.

  The number of complaints dealt with under the RPA's complaints procedure in 2001 and 2003 are set out in the table. These have been broken down into complaints regarding Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) and Non-IACS schemes.

  Schemes

  20011

  2003

  IACS

  3

  134

  Non-IACS

  0

  21

  Total

  3

  155

  1Figures for calendar years from creation of RPA 16 October 2001.

  The RPA could not extrapolate the data required to break these figures down to 'type of complaint' without incurring disproportionate costs.

  The RPA undertakes regular customer research through a third party to monitor attitudes to its standards of service. The verbatim comments from the 2003 survey indicate that the vast majority of complaints are aimed at the scheme rules and payments rather than at the level of service received.

  The primary development of the RPA is through the RPA Change Programme, which now includes the implementation of the changes resulting from CAP

  31W
  reform. It is planned that these changes will be largely completed by December 2005. The RPA are monitoring the on-going development of the Change Programme to ensure that customer satisfaction is maintained. This may mean future changes to the schedule in order to meet quality requirements. Full year benefits from the Change Programme will be delivered in the financial year 2006–07.

  I have every confidence in the ability of the RPA to implement the changes owing to reform of the common agricultural policy.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department plans to contribute financially to the establishment of the second phase of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [167628]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has lead responsibility for establishing a central point of expertise on timber procurement (CPET) and is responsible for organising the resources necessary for its operation.

  In December 2003 Defra announced that as a first step the CPET would assess forest certification schemes in relation to Government contract requirements. Bids for this project have been received and are being evaluated. It is intended that this work will culminate in revised guidance that will be made public at the end of August 2004 or thereabouts.

  The experience gained from operating the first phase of the CPET will help shape the plans for services in the subsequent phases. This is a new venture and the Government is concerned to ensure that the value of its output is matched with the appropriate level of investment. Defra will consult other Government Departments and other stakeholders to determine the detailed objectives for the next phase of the project, when that phase should be implemented and how the resources should be provided. The investment appraisal will consider, among other options, whether an expanded CPET service could become self-financing to some extent.

  The Government remains firmly committed to the establishment of the CPET as integral to implementing its timber procurement policy and its wider efforts to tackle illegal logging and promote sustainable development in forest management.

  Vale of York
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she has taken to ensure that officials employed by(a) her Department and (b) executive agencies reporting to her Department who deal with the Vale of York (i) have visited the Vale of York and (ii) have a full working knowledge of the area. [170012]

  Alun Michael
  The following list shows those Defra organisations who operate 'in the field' in the Vale of York.
  32W
  Core Defra Departments

  Rural Development Service

  State Veterinary Service

  Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate

  Egg Marketing Inspectorate

  Defra Executive Agencies

  Central Science Laboratory

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  Rural Payments Agency

  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies

  Countryside Agency

  English Nature

  Environment Agency

  Public Corporations Sponsored by Defra

  British Waterways Board

  Defra Funded Organisations

  Howardian Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

  Related Organisations

  Government Office for Yorkshire and The Number Rural Team

  Forestry Commission

  English Heritage

  A minimum of 16 members of Defra and related organisations staff have within their field/operational responsibility the Vale of York area.

  Due to time constraints it is not possible to produce an accurate figure for the actual number of staff involved, nor objectively assess individual's levels of experience.

  However, in recognition of this complexity, a Defra Implementers Group (DIG) has been formed in York and Number with an agreed vision statement "To achieve improved implementation of schemes and programmes delivered by the Defra family from the perspective of our customers". This activity pre-dated the Haskins review of Rural Service Delivery and was the first of it's kind to look at better co-ordination of frontline service delivery in Defra. Workshops were held between Jan and May 2003 to consider practical ideas to improve 'frontline delivery' of Defra 'family' work, in terms of service to customers, quality and effectiveness. A pilot project is currently looking to develop these ideas under the following headings;
  awareness Raising across the Defra 'family'
  using Information Technology to improve service delivery
  closer Working of Defra staff
  integrated Rural Development projects demonstrating joined up working

  In an attempt to positively engage with constituency issues such as this, Gordon Kingston (GOYH Rural Director) attends the hon. Member's "Yorkshire First" Westminster Round Table quarterly events.

  In addition, all Defra staff are encouraged to have an understanding of customer and other stakeholders needs via our competency framework which are used to measure their performance e.g. the 'Building Relationships' competency.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Child Minders (Regulation)
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of Ofsted in regulating child minders. [171303]

  Margaret Hodge
  The effectiveness of Ofsted in regulating child minders is a matter for the Office of Standards in Education (Ofsted) and I have asked HM Chief Inspector for Schools, David Bell, to write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Classroom Assistants
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new classroom assistant positions have been created in England in the last seven years. [171313]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department collects information on the number of classroom assistants employed in England in January of each year. In January 2004 there were, provisionally, 132,600 teaching assistants employed on a full-time equivalent basis in maintained schools in England, an increase of 71,400 since January 1997.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many letters received during this session by(a) Ministers and (b) officials from universities enclosed letters written by hon. Members or which included details of any hon. Members' comments on, or their voting intentions in respect of, the Higher Education Bill. [171106]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Since the beginning of the parliamentary session 2003–04, the Department has received over 1,400 letters on the Higher Education Bill. Correspondence is not systematically analysed to provide this information. Scrutiny of the correspondence to provide this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Oldham, West and Royton have benefited from the Excellence in Cities programme; and what the per pupil spending was in each year since the programme's inception. [170919]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of children in Oldham, West and Royton benefiting from EiC, and the annual spend per pupil for the years in question.

  Number of children

  Total EiC expenditure1(£)

  Spend per pupil (£)

  2001–02

  8,299

  549,988

  66.27

  2002–03

  8,184

  1,833,178

  224.00

  2003–04

  8,218

  2,301,203

  280.02

  1All funding figures supplied by Oldham Excellence in Cities Team.

  34W
  The large increase in the rate of EiC funding in 2002–03 is due to the extra funding provided through the Behaviour Improvement Programme and the increase in 2003–04 is due to the introduction of the Leadership Incentive Grant.

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many extra people in the North West he expects to stay in education as a result of the introduction of education maintenance allowances; and what plans he has to provide extra funding to further education colleges in the North West to support these extra students. [171134]

  Alan Johnson
  We estimate that there will be about 3,900 extra 16 year olds in the North West Region in further education this September who would not be participating without the EMA. There will also be a significant number of extra 17 and 18 year olds in further education in the pilot areas.

  The 2002 Spending Review settlement allowed for the expected impact of national EMA in further education institutions, including further education colleges.

  Educational Attainment
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 11-year-olds achieved level 4 at Key Stage 2 in England in(a) literacy, (b) numeracy and (c) science in each year since 1997, broken down by parliamentary constituency. [167566]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Failing Schools
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Oldham West and Royton deemed to be failing since 1997 have since reached satisfactory standards. [170920]

  Mr. Miliband
  Two primary schools in Oldham West and Royton deemed to be failing have since reached satisfactory standards.

  Free School Milk
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the local education authorities which do not offer free milk to children eligible for free school meals; and if he will make a statement. [166865]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 26 April 2004]: The Department for Education and Skills does not collect any data on school milk provision.

  Further Education Colleges
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to provide funding to help further education colleges in(a) Heywood and Middleton and (b) the North West specifically to refurbish and rebuild their estates. [171133]
  35W
  Alan Johnson
  We have set out plans for 60 per cent. real terms increase in capital expenditure in the post-16 learning and skills sector in 2005–06 compared to 2002–03.

  The Department does not provide a specific budget to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) for rebuilding/refurbishing further education colleges. It is for the LSC to determine for itself the right level of capital investment in further education colleges from the funds allocated to it by the Department for capital investment. This includes decisions about the level of funding that it expects colleges to contribute to capital projects.

  This is an operational matter for the LSC. Mr. Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member on this matter. A copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library.

  GCSE
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 15 and 16-year-olds in Bootle achieved more than five GCSEs at grade A*-C or GNVQ equivalent in each of the last seven years. [171300]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils1achieving five or more grades A*-C

  Academic Year

  Bootle

  England

  1997

  24.3

  45.1

  1998

  22.1

  46.3

  1999

  29.5

  47.9

  2000

  28.7

  49.2

  2001

  31.4

  50.0

  2002

  36.1

  51.6

  2003

  34.7

  52.9

  1GCSE/GNVQ results are reported as standard as the results of pupils aged 15 at the start of the academic year i.e. 31 August and therefore reaching the end of compulsory education at the end of the school year.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent on higher education in Oldham, West and Royton in each of the last seven years. [170924]

  Alan Johnson
  The only publicly funded institution providing higher education in Oldham, West and Royton is Oldham College. The amounts of public funding spent in the years for which figures are available are shown in the table below. Expenditure was by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and by the Students 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 Allowances, Care Leavers Grant and Travel Grant. These were paid through local education authorities, up to 2003/04, and figures are not held centrally.
  36W

  £000

  Academic year

  HEFCE funding

  SLC funding

  1997–98

  275

  n/a

  1998–99

  422

  n/a

  1999–2000

  908

  409.1

  2000–01

  1,100

  653.8

  2001–02

  1,300

  926.1

  2002–03

  1,400

  1,094.7

  2003–04

  1,600

  n/a

  In addition, institutions located outside Oldham, West and Royton 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.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent on higher education in Burnley in each of the last seven years. [167930]

  Alan Johnson
  The only publicly funded institution providing higher education in Burnley is Burnley College. The amounts of public funding spent in academic years and for 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).

  £000

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  HEFCE funding1

  134

  n/a

  SLC expenditure2

  0

  4.1

  1The 1999/2000 figure is the Basic Teaching Grant from HEFCE. Burnley College transferred their directly funded numbers to the University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN) as from 2000/01 and HEFCE do not hold information on the amount of funding passed by UCLAN to Burnley College in respect of students covered by their franchise arrangements. Figures for HNC and HND provision funded via the Further Education Funding Council prior to 1999/2000 are not held centrally.

  2Expenditure by the Student Loans Company includes fees, loans (cash costs) and the Dependants Grant. Data prior to 1999/2000 are not available. Expenditure information on other grants (Disabled Students' Allowances, Care Leavers' Grant and Travel Grant) that were, until 2003/04, paid through local education authorities is not held centrally.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent on higher education in Wigan in each of the last seven years. [169288]

  Alan Johnson
  The only publicly funded institution providing higher education in Wigan is Wigan and Leigh College. The amounts of public funding spent in academic years and for 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).
  37W

  £million

  HEFCE funding1

  SLC expenditure2

  1997/98

  0.951

  n/a

  1998/99

  1.2

  n/a

  1999/2000

  2.1

  1.407

  2000/01

  1.934

  1.098

  2001/02

  1.935

  0.971

  2002/03

  1.621

  0.935

  2003/04

  1.611

  n/a

  1This is the Basic Teaching Grant from HEFCE.

  2SLC expenditure includes fees, loans (cash costs) and the Dependants Grant. Data prior to 1999/2000 and for 2003/04 is not available. Expenditure information on other grants (Disabled Students' Allowances, Care Leavers' Grant and Travel Grant) paid through local education authorities until 2003/04 is not available.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what assessment he has made of the criteria for selecting students to participate on medical courses under his programme for widening participation in medicine; and what opportunities there are for students with 30 or more points at A Level who have failed to obtain a place to study medicine to participate in this programme; [168202]

  (2) how much funding has been allocated by the Government to the widening access programme in medical education in the current academic year; how much he plans to allocate in subsequent years; and if he will break down such funding by individual institution; [168203]

  (3) how much funding has been allocated to the improving retention pot for university medical schools for (a) the academic year 2004–05 and (b) subsequent years. [168204]

  Alan Johnson
  The admission and selection of students is a matter for individual institutions. Admissions should always be based on individual merit. Professor Steven Schwartz, Vice-Chancellor of Brunel University, is leading a review which will produce a set of high level principles on admissions and help universities learn from best practice at home and abroad.

  We know that both the new and existing medical schools are themselves doing excellent work to address some of the access and diversity issues that surround the application and selection process. One of the criteria for the establishment of new medical schools in recent years has been the need to demonstrate an active commitment to widening participation from a broad range of social and ethnic backgrounds to reflect the patterns of populations which are served by the NHS.

  In addition, there are projects under the Government's Aimhigher programme aimed at the healthcare professions. Aimhigher, the national outreach programme which operates most intensively in disadvantaged areas, provides funds to local partnerships to increase the attainment levels of young people and raise their aspirations towards university and progression.
  38W
  In addition, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) has earmarked £273 million for widening participation in 2004–05, which is allocated as part of the block grant to institutions. Included in this sum is £49 million for widening access and £213 million for improving retention. The breakdown by institution is published in the HEFCE document, "Recurrent Grants for 2004–05" (March 2004/12). No decisions on allocations after that date have yet been made.

  The HEFCE widening participation allocation provides some assistance to universities with the additional costs of recruiting and retaining students from non-traditional backgrounds. The allocation is not an incentive. It is paid to the institution, not to individual schools or departments, towards the support costs of students from non-traditional backgrounds who complete a year of their studies. How the funds are used is entirely a matter for the institution.

  Middle Schools
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in which local education authorities there are middle schools as part of a three tier school system. [171162]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: The following local education authorities have middle schools as part of a three tier school system:

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  Devon

  Dorset

  Harrow

  Hertfordshire

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Kirklees

  Leicestershire

  Milton Keynes

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Norfolk

  North

  Tyneside

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Northamberland

  Poole

  Somerset

  Staffordshire Suffolk

  West Sussex Wiltshire

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Worcestershire

  Music and Dance Scheme
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the annual budget is of the Music and Dance scheme; [171406]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the remit of the Music and Dance scheme. [171408]
  39W
  Mr. Miliband
  The budget for the Music and Dance scheme in the current financial year 2004–05 is £15.9 million.

  The scheme currently supports over 800 exceptionally talented children at eight independent specialist schools, four music schools and four dance schools, which are regarded as centres of excellence in their field. In addition, around 80 choristers are helped each year through a subset of the scheme, the Choir Schools Scholarship scheme. Through outreach and partnership working the schools share their expertise and provide music, singing and dance experiences and training for many who would not otherwise get the chance. From September 2004, the scheme is being extended to give greater opportunities for talented children to receive the specialist training they need. A new national grants scheme will enable them to gain access locally to such training out of school hours at four new centres for advanced training and at the junior departments of the six music conservatoires.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) Ordinary Written and (b) Named Day Questions his Department received in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) this parliamentary session, broken down by month. [171185]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information appears in the following tables.

  Named Day Questions

  Ordinary Written Questions

  Year 2002

  November

  23

  12

  December

  82

  213

  Year 2003

  January

  58

  320

  February

  45

  294

  March

  51

  296

  April

  53

  343

  May

  48

  248

  June

  87

  445

  July

  37

  359

  August

  0

  3

  September

  41

  236

  October

  62

  323

  November

  43

  312

  Total

  630

  3,404

  Current session

  Named Day Questions

  Ordinary Written Questions

  Year 2003

  November

  10

  36

  December

  84

  331

  Year 2004

  January

  98

  451

  February

  89

  360

  March

  122

  525

  April

  48

  509

  Total

  451

  2,212

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of Ordinary 40W
  Written Questions to his Department were answered within five sitting days of tabling, and what proportion of Questions for a Written Answer on a named day received a substantive answer on that day, in (a) the 2002–03 parliamentary session and (b) this parliamentary session, broken down by month. [171186]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The requested information is listed in the following tables. DfES Ministers take their parliamentary responsibilities very seriously and endeavour to reply to all Parliamentary Questions within the specified deadline.

  2002–03 parliamentary session

  Percentage

  Percentage of ordinary written questions answered within five sitting days of tabling

  Percentage of named day questions receiving a substantive answer on named day

  November

  45

  57

  December

  68.87

  37

  January

  81.33

  24

  February

  63.71

  27

  March

  74.64

  42

  April

  52.43

  26

  May

  57.75

  50

  June

  70.33

  22

  July

  80.92

  26

  August

  n/a

  n/a

  September

  82.15

  54

  October

  76.82

  42

  November

  92.46

  52

  Current parliamentary session 2003–04

  Percentage

  Percentage of ordinary written questions answered within five sitting days of tabling

  Percentage of named day questions receiving a substantive answer on named day

  November

  —

  1n/a

  December

  65.6

  21

  January

  71.47

  20

  February

  70.47

  22

  March

  81.45

  38

  April

  80.74

  20

  1The current Parliamentary session began on 28 November. No questions were due for answer between then and 30 November

  Postgraduate Students
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from universities regarding difficulties in attracting and retaining postgraduate students from within the United Kingdom. [166734]

  Alan Johnson
  Both my right hon. Friend and I have received a number of representations from universities about postgraduate education and research. These have included trends and participation in postgraduate programmes. Over the period 1996–97 to 2002–03 there has been a 16 per cent. increase in the number of UK domiciled postgraduate students. The Government recognise the importance of encouraging more students into postgraduate and research study and have taken a number of initiatives to achieve this, including increases to stipends for PhD students and post-doctoral salaries.

  Private Sector HE Colleges
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the criteria are relating to private sector colleges of higher education(a) for Government support for fees charged to individual students and (b) for acceptance of the institution for support from a funding council. [171608]

  Alan Johnson
  If their course has been 'specifically designated' for student support by my Department, eligible students on courses of higher education at private institutions can apply for support for fees, loans for maintenance and, where appropriate, disabled students' allowance. Generally, the fee rate for a specifically designated course at a private institution will be lower than the publicly funded rate and is not subject to means test. For 2004/05, the fee rate is £1,075.

  To be designated for support, a course must be:
  at least Certificate of Higher Education level and less than postgraduate level;
  validated by a recognised UK degree awarding body; and
  of atlest one academic year in duration

  Institutions funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) are able to franchise courses to private sector colleges, which would receive indirect funding. To be directly funded by HEFCE, a private sector college would need to be designated for funding by the Secretary of State under section 129 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The Secretary of State, in reaching a decision on designation, will seek advice from HEFCE. In addition to considering what is affordable to fund, the criteria which the Council use in forming their advice can be found in HEFCE publication 01/05, "Transfers Between the Further and Higher Education Sectors", which I have placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when 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. [166787]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The "quick win targets" set by DEFRA were communicated widely within the Department, particularly to procurement sections, in October 2003. Due to a lack of re-contracting opportunities since that date it has not so far been possible to implement specific measures to ensure the Department meets the quick win targets. Procurement sections have undertaken to introduce these as soon as re-contracting opportunities arise.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the Department's main suppliers of(a) copier paper, (b) stationery, (c) envelopes and (d) paper for reports, in each case
  42W
  stating (i) the name of each paper used and (ii) the recycled and post-consumer recycled content of each paper. [166788]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department's main suppliers of(a) copier paper and (d) paper for reports are Banner Business Supplies, Guilbert UK Ltd., Glenmore Business Papers, the Paper Company (formerly known as Twenty c Paper) and Premium Paper. Suppliers for (c) envelopes are Banner Business Supplies and (b) stationery are Banner Business Supplies and AlphaGraphics. However information for parts (i) and (ii) is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of copying paper used by the Department in 2002–03 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained. [166789]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department had no procedures in place to capture information on copying paper in 2002–03. New environmental monitoring arrangements were put in place when new departmental printing contracts were introduced in 2003–04 but the available part-year data have not yet been compiled and analysed.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of paper for printed publications used by the Department in 2002–03 was from recycled sources; and how much post-consumer waste this paper contained. [166790]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department had no procedures in place to capture information on paper for printed publications in 2002–03. New environmental monitoring arrangements were put in place when new departmental printing contracts were introduced in 2003–04 but the available part-year data have not yet been compiled and analysed.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he has put in place to ensure that his Department meets the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that all copying paper bought by the Department is 100 per cent. recycled with a minimum of 75 per cent. post-consumer waste content. [166791]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The "quick win targets" set by DEFRA were communicated widely within the Department, particularly to procurement sections, in October 2003. Due to a lack of re-contracting opportunities since that date it has not so far been possible to implement specific measures to ensure the Department meets the quick win targets. Procurement sections have undertaken to introduce these as soon as re-contracting opportunities arise.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will set a target date for the completion of outstanding repairs to school buildings; [171237]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Government's progress towards achieving its target of rebuilding or remodelling 650 schools by 2004; [171239]
  43W
  (3) if he will make a statement on the Government's progress towards its target for substantial repairs to be made to 7,000 schools by this year. [171240]

  Mr. Miliband
  Central government capital support for investment in school buildings in England has increased from under £700 million in 1996–97 to £4.5 billion this year and will rise further to over £5 billion in 2005–06. Most of this funding is allocated by formula to schools and local education authorities so that they can address their investment needs, which are prioritised locally in asset management plans. My department does not collect detailed information on local investment decisions, in view of the unacceptable bureaucratic burden this would impose. The targets mentioned by the hon. Member were realistic estimates based on the increased levels of capital funding available to schools and to authorities. However, we are confident that local education authorities and schools have the investment available for their schools to reach these targets.

  For instance, funding includes direct capital funding for every school. From 2002–03 to 2004–05, a typical secondary school has received over £200,000 of its own capital, and a typical primary school over £60,000, enabling them to improve their buildings in line with their priorities. Therefore, we believe that virtually every school in the country has now benefited from substantial repairs or improvements to its buildings, far in excess of the target of £7,000.

  Further, funding also includes support for PFI projects. By September 2004, from signed PFI contracts, about 130 newly built or rebuilt schools are scheduled to be operating, plus a similar number of refurbished schools. There are a further 220 schools, new built and refurbished, which are also scheduled to benefit from these PFI contracts. Over 80 schools benefited from substantial investment from New Deal for Schools funding. In the voluntary aided sector, where we allocate funding directly to schools, there have been 90 new or rebuilt school projects in the last five to six years. In addition, authorities are investing in new and rebuilt schools to meet local population growth and the needs of 21stcentury teaching and learning.

  By 2004–05, this government will have provided a total of £24 billion for investment in school buildings in England, enabling schools and authorities to address the backlog of repairs that had built up as a result of years of under-funding and to begin to make schools suitable for the teaching and learning needs of the 21stcentury.

  Earlier this year, I announced the first wave of authorities to benefit from the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme, which aims to renew all secondary schools in England in 10–15 years from 2005–06, subject to future spending decisions. In addition to the BSF programme, we will continue to make substantial funding available for schools in the primary sector and those in the secondary sector not prioritised in BSF. School buildings will continue to be improved in line with local priorities, and support provided for the continuing cyclical, predictive and reactive maintenance needs which are a necessary part of the upkeep of all school buildings so that they do not again decay. In value for money terms, there may be occasions when it is preferable to wait for strategic
  44W
  renewal of a school rather than continue to patch and mend. This will be a local decision. Given this, I do not intend to set a target date for completion of outstanding repairs.

  School Funding
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will break down funding for each category under school spending in table 2.4 of the Department's Annual Report for 2004 between(a) grants provided by the Department, (b) revenue support grant, (c) amounts collected through the council tax and (d) other revenue streams for each local education authority for each financial year since 1998–99; [171769]

  (2) pursuant to Table 2.2 of the Department's 2004 Annual Report, if he will break down the spending on schools between primary and secondary schools. [171770]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is not possible to answer these questions in precisely the way they have been asked as data are not collected centrally on this basis and local authorities are generally free to determine the distribution of grant between the primary and secondary sectors as they see fit, although the data in Table 2.3 indicate an approximate 45:55 split between primary and secondary schools.

  Table 2.2 provides details of DfES grants to schools and local education authorities that support schools. The bulk of Government support for schools for the figures in Table 2.4 is provided through the Education Formula Spending Share, details of which are provided in Table 2.1, but it is not possible to sub-divide this distribution accurately between the sectors in Table 2.4.

  School Results
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 15 and 16-year-olds in Oldham, West and Royton achieved five or more GCSRs at grade A*—C or GNVQ equivalent in each of the last seven years. [170923]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils1achieving five or more grades A* —C

  Percentage

  Academic Year

  Oldham, West and Royton

  England

  1997

  34.6

  45.1

  1998

  35.8

  46.3

  1999

  34.8

  47.9

  2000

  38.5

  49.2

  2001

  37.8

  50.0

  2002

  38.1

  51.6

  2003

  40.9

  52.9

  1GCSE/GNVQ results Are reported as standard as the results of pupils aged 15 at the start of the academic year i.e. 31 August and therefore reaching the end of compulsory education at the end of the school year.

  School Sports
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on
  45W
  the effects on schools of change. since 1997 in the level of investment in school sports in Oldham, West and Royton; [170906]

  (2) how much money has been invested in school sports in Oldham. West and Royton since 1997. [170907]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information is not held in the format requested. Within the context of the statutory National Curriculum, where Physical Education (PE) is compulsory for pupils aged 5 to 16, it is for individual schools to use their budgets as they judge appropriate.

  The Government are investing more than £1 billion in England to transform PE, school sport and club links. The funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, 10 increase the percentage of 5 to 16-year-olds who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  The Department is providing just over £316,000 to support the delivery of a School Sport Partnership in the Oldham LEA area. The partnership includes five secondary and 25 primary schools and provides enhanced sports opportunities for all young people to ensure that their pupils spend a minimum of two hours a week on high quality PE and School Sport. A key objective for all School Sport Partnerships is to ensure that the improvements and enhanced opportunities that they deliver are sustainable and embedded within schools to ensure a lasting legacy. The New Opportunities Fund has provided schools in the Oldham LEA area with over £3.3 million specifically to enhance PE and school sport facilities.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the effects on schools of changes since 1997 in the level of investment in school sports in Bootle. [171483]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information is not held in the format requested. Within the context of the statutory National Curriculum, where physical education (PE) is compulsory for pupils aged five to 16, it is for individual schools to use their budgets as they judge appropriate.

  The Government are investing more than £1 billion in England to transform PE, school sport and club links. The funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to increase the percentage of five to 16-year-olds who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  The Department is providing £273,121 to support the delivery of a School Sport Partnership in the Sefton area. The partnership includes six secondary and 19 primary schools and provides enhanced sports opportunities for all young people to ensure that their pupils spend a minimum of two hours a week on high quality PE and school sport. A key objective for all School Sport Partnerships is to ensure that the improvements and enhanced opportunities that they deliver are sustainable and embedded within schools to ensure a lasting legacy. The New Opportunities Fund
  46W
  has provided schools in the Sefton LEA area with over £3,331,000 specifically to enhance PE and school sport facilities.

  Schools (South Ribble)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in South Ribble deemed to be failing since 1997 have since reached satisfactory standards. [171661]

  Mr. Miliband
  No schools in South Ribble have been deemed to be failing since 1997.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been spent to develop school sports in South Ribble since 1997. [171671]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information is not held in the format requested. Within the context of the statutory National Curriculum, where Physical Education (PE) is compulsory for pupils aged 5–16, it is for individual schools to use their budgets as they judge appropriate.

  The Government is investing more than £1 billion in England to transform PE, school sport and club links. The funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to increase the percentage of 5–16 year olds who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  The Department is providing £440,130 to support the delivery of a School Sport Partnership in the South Ribble area. The partnership includes 6 secondary and 20 primary schools and provides enhanced sports opportunities for all young people to ensure that their pupils spend a minimum of two hours a week on high quality PE and School Sport. A key objective for all School Sport Partnerships is to ensure that the improvements and enhanced opportunities that they deliver are sustainable and embedded within schools to ensure a lasting legacy. The New Opportunities Fund has provided schools in the Lancashire LEA area with nearly £12 million specifically to enhance PE and school sport facilities.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will list the building improvements in each school in South Ribble since 1997; and how much was spent on each improvement; [171672]

  (2) how much public funding has been spent on repairing schools in South Ribble in each year since 1997; [171665]

  (3) how much funding each school in South Ribble has received from the New Deal for Schools. [171663]

  Mr. Miliband
  The majority of capital support is allocated to schools and local education authorities (LEAs) by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about capital investment at constituency level. Table A sets out the capital support given by the
  47W
  Government to Lancashire LEA since 1997–98, in total and by programme, including capital grants to each school. Table B shows the schools in the

  Table A: Lancashire LEA capital allocations

  £000

  Type

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–051

  2005–06

  Additional NDS Grant (615)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,510

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Assistance with AMPs

  —

  —

  189

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Basic L C Vap

  —

  —

  —

  —

  378

  2,167

  2,813

  —

  —

  Basic need

  5,388

  5,519

  4,766

  6,543

  2,931

  4,597

  9,312

  1,200

  2,713

  Class size initiative

  —

  1,238

  3,711

  2,190

  347

  89

  —

  —

  —

  Condition

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,923

  12,228

  16,043

  —

  —

  Devolved formula

  —

  —

  —

  9,115

  7,517

  11,489

  17,518

  11,811

  —

  Energy

  —

  353

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modernisation (Primary)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.965

  —

  Modernisation LEA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —3,500

  —

  —

  Modernisation LEA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —3,296

  5,574

  7,000

  9,514

  9,514

  Modernisation VA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,255

  3,176

  6,233

  3,664

  NDS 1

  2,006

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 2

  —

  3,468

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 3

  —

  —

  7,538

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 4

  —

  —

  —

  13,376

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Outside toilets

  —275

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Private finance initiative

  —

  —

  13,400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  School labs

  —

  —

  —

  591

  591

  —

  —

  —

  —

  School security

  373

  408

  429

  429

  301

  258

  —

  —

  —

  Schools access initiative

  75

  211

  400

  620

  980

  1,634

  2,138

  1,509

  1,465

  Schools Renewal Challenge Fund

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Secondary Learning Support Units

  —

  —

  —

  290

  314

  389

  —

  —

  —

  Seed challenge

  —

  —

  —

  604

  703

  1,288

  1,282

  1,281

  —

  Specialist schools

  —

  —

  —

  100

  100

  500

  —

  —

  —

  Staff workspace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  220

  526

  —

  —

  Supplementary credit approvals

  2,021

  454

  1,149

  365

  454

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Supplementary NDS for VA schools

  —

  —

  —

  —

  63

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Targeted capital funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,093

  2,689

  —

  —

  —

  Targeted capital funding—VA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,225

  —

  —

  Voluntary aided school grant

  3,425

  5,031

  3,597

  3,735

  3,633

  4,371

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  13,288

  16,957

  35,179

  38,021

  29,778

  46,470

  62,607

  36,499

  17,356

  1Further allocations to be announced.

  Table B: NDS allocations to schools in the South Ribble constituency

  £

  School

  Project details

  Grant awarded

  1997–98

  Balshaw's Church of England High School

  Refurbishment of technology areas and laboratories

  LEA-wide grant

  2,006,0001

  St. Anne's Catholic Primary School, Leyland

  Schemes submitted by District Liaison Committees (cont)

  LEA-wide grant

  2,006,0001

  1999–2000

  Penwortham Priory High School

  Replacement of roof and floor and remedial drainage work

  80,059

  Farington Primary School

  Boilers/heating

  Project including 17 schools

  601,9002

  Lostock Hall Community Primary School

  Playground repairs

  Project including 25 schools

  300,0002

  Woodlea Junior School

  Window repairs/replacement

  Project including 14 schools

  516,0002

  Whitefield Primary School

  Playground repairs

  Project including 25 schools

  300,0002

  Lever House Primary School

  Rewires

  Project including 18 schools

  1,007,1002

  Penwortham Middleforth Church of England Primary School

  Playground repairs

  Project including 25 schools

  300,0002

  Our Lady and St. Gerard's Roman Catholic Primary School, Lostock Hall

  Boilers/heating

  Project including 17 schools

  601,9002

  Leyland St. Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School

  Rewires

  Project including 18 schools

  1,007,1002

  Wellfield High School

  Window repairs/replacement

  Project including 14 schools

  516,0002

  Wellfield High School

  Roof works

  Project including 13 schools

  549,7002

  Penwortham Girls High School

  Roof works

  Project including 13 schools

  549,7002

  2000–01

  St. Catherine's RC Primary School

  Replacement of two classroom Portakabin

  6,671

  Woodlea Junior School

  Playground repairs

  Project including 29 schools

  270,0902

  Woodlea Junior School

  Replacement of boilers/heating systems

  Project including 36 schools

  1,143,1102

  Worden High School

  Roof repairs/replacement

  Project including 11 schools

  548,4602

  Penwortham Girls High School

  Roof repairs/replacement

  Project including 11 schools

  548,4602

  1For NDS 1 grant was allocated for Lancashire LEA-wide projects, part of which was used for work at each of two schools in the South Ribble constituency. The LEA will be able to say how much was allocated to each school.

  2Allocations shown are the totals for packages of projects within Lancashire LEA which included the schools shown that are in the South Ribble constituency. The LEA will be able to say how much was allocated to each school.

  48W
  South Ribble constituency that benefited from investment through the New Deal for Schools (NDS) programme, which ran between 1997–98 and 2000–01.

  Sexual Health
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures his Department is taking to ensure that young people receive clear and accurate information in schools to enable them to make informed choices about their sexual health; and if he will make a statement. [171171]

  Margaret Hodge
  Teaching about sexual health and safer sex are key elements of the Government's sexual health strategy and are covered by our Sex and Relationship Education (SRE) guidance, which was sent to all schools in July 2000. All maintained secondary schools have a statutory responsibility to teach SRE. Through SRE pupils learn about sexual health, contraception and the range of advice and support services which are available. Young people should be made aware of the risks of contracting sexually transmitted infections and know about prevention, diagnosis and treatment. In addition, we have made a new resource on 'Teaching and Learning about HIV' available to all schools.

  Schools (Stockton, South)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in Stockton, South on the latest date for which figures are available; and what steps are being taken to reduce them. [171450]

  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 seven full-time teacher vacancies in Stockton-on-Tees local education authority.

  Like other areas, since 1997 Stockton-on-Tees 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 the Stockton-on-Tees LEA area has risen by 110, from 1,650 to 1,760 in 2003. Over the same period, the number of full-time equivalent school support staff in the area has grown by 340 from 460 to 800 in 2003.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching assistants there were in schools in Stockton South in(a) each of the last seven years and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [171451]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives the numbers of full time equivalent teaching assistants in maintained schools in the Stockton South constituency in January of each year. between 1997 and 2003, the latest year for which data are available.
  50W

  Number

  1997

  90

  1998

  90

  1999

  100

  2000

  120

  2001

  160

  2002

  110

  2003

  150

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the effects on schools of changes since 1997 in the level of investment in school sports in Stockton South. [171470]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information is not held in the format requested. Within the context of the statutory National Curriculum, where Physical Education (PE) is compulsory for pupils aged five-16, it is for individual schools to use their budgets as they judge appropriate.

  The Government is investing more than £1 billion in England to transform PE, school sport and club links. The funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to increase the percentage of five-16 year olds who spend a minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  The Department is providing £751,475 to support the delivery of a School Sport Partnership in the Stockton-on-Tees area. The partnership includes five secondary and 25 primary schools and provides enhanced sports opportunities for all young people to ensure that their pupils spend a minimum of two hours a week on high quality PE and School Sport. A key objective for all School Sport Partnerships is to ensure that the improvements and enhanced opportunities that they deliver are sustainable and embedded within schools to ensure a lasting legacy. The New Opportunities Fund has provided schools in the Stockton-on-Tees LEA area with over £2.4 million specifically to enhance PE and school sport facilities.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 15 and 16-year-olds in Stockton, South achieved five or more GCSEs at Grade A* to C or GNVQ equivalent in each of the last seven years. [171471]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is as follows:

  Percentage of 15-year-old pupils1achieving five or more grades A* to C

  Percentage

  Academic year

  Stockton, South

  England

  1997

  42.9

  45.1

  1998

  44.0

  46.3

  1999

  43.6

  47.9

  2000

  45.9

  49.2

  2001

  49.8

  50.0

  2002

  48.6

  51.6

  2003

  51.8

  52.9

  1GCSE/GNVQ results are reported as standard as the results of pupils aged 15 at the start of the academic year ie 31 August and therefore reaching the end of compulsory education at the end of the school year.

  51W
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools in Stockton, South deemed to be failing since 1997 have since reached satisfactory standards. [171473]

  Mr. Miliband
  No schools in Stockton, South have been deemed to be failing since 1997.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in Stockton, South have benefited from the Excellence in Cities programme; and what the per pupil spending was in each year since the programme's inception. [171475]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of children in Stockton, South benefiting from EiC, and the annual spend per pupil for the years in question.

  Number of children

  Total EiC expenditure1(£)

  Spend per pupil (£)

  2000–01

  8,196

  574,495

  70.09

  2001–02

  8,219

  1,148,283

  139.71

  2002–03

  8,238

  1,700,191

  206.38

  2003–04

  8,295

  2,585,332

  311.67

  1All funding figures supplied by Stockton Finance Office.

  Table A: Stockton LEA capital allocations

  £000

  Type

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–051

  2005–061

  Assistance with AMPs

  —

  —

  26

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Basic L C Vap

  —

  —

  —

  —

  39

  229

  300

  —

  —

  Basic need

  165

  702

  1,209

  1,524

  341

  82

  2,069

  3,035

  1,393

  City Learning Centres

  85

  2,381

  Class size initiative

  —

  384

  174

  185

  103

  5

  —

  —

  —

  Condition

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,439

  2,218

  2,863

  —

  —

  Devolved formula

  —

  —

  —

  1,383

  1,118

  1,709

  2,662

  2,233

  —

  Energy

  —

  64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modernisation (Primary)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  821

  —

  Modernisation LEA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  668

  —

  Modernisation LEA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  769

  1,318

  1,336

  1,887

  Modernisation VA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  162

  431

  846

  497

  NDS 1

  531

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 2

  —

  358

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 3

  —

  —

  1,374

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS 4

  —

  —

  —

  2,704

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nursery provision

  61

  Outside toilets

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pathfinder schools

  61

  Private finance initiative

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,400

  —

  —

  —

  —

  School labs

  —

  —

  —

  145

  145

  —

  —

  —

  —

  School security

  52

  65

  65

  64

  45

  39

  —

  —

  —

  Schools access initiative

  13

  69

  100

  140

  224

  288

  426

  316

  311

  Seed challenge

  —

  —

  —

  152

  165

  267

  265

  258

  —

  Specialist schools

  —

  —

  450

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Staff workspace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  59

  113

  —

  —

  Supplementary credit approvals

  87

  73

  2,012

  84

  338

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Targeted capital funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  653

  1,411

  1,570

  —

  Voluntary aided school grant

  135

  213

  1,110

  1,914

  923

  846

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  983

  1,938

  6,520

  7,541

  13,661

  7,387

  11,858

  11,083

  4,088

  1Further allocations to be announced.

  Table B: NDS allocations to schools in the Stockton South constituency

  £

  School

  Project details

  Grant awarded

  1997–98

  Egglescliffe Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School

  Replacement of mobiles

  LEA-wide grant

  531,0001

  Conyers School

  Replacement of mobiles

  LEA-wide grant

  531,0001

  Ian Ramsey Church of England Aided Comprehensive School

  Improve IT suite

  LEA-wide grant

  531,0001

  52W
  The large increase in the rate of EiC funding in 2002£03 is due to the extra funding provided through the Behaviour Improvement Programme and the increase in 2003–04 is due to the introduction of the Leadership Incentive Grant.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much public funding money has been spent on repairing schools in Stockton South in each year since 1997; [171476]

  (2) how much funding each school in Stockton South has received from the, New Deal for Schools. [171474]

  Mr. Miliband
  The majority of capital support is allocated to schools and local education authorities (LEAs) by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about capital investment at constituency level. Table A sets out the capital support given by the Government to Stockton LEA since 1997–98, in total and by programme, Including devolved formula capital grants to each school. Table B shows the schools in the Stockton South constituency that benefited from investment through the New Deal for Schools (NDS) programme, which ran between 1997–98 and 2000–01.
  53W

  Table B. NDS allocations to schools in the Stockton South constituency

  £

  School

  Project details

  Grant awarded

  1998–99

  Westlands School

  Hot water temperature controls to baths

  1,464

  St. Mark's Church of England Voluntary Aided Junior School, Stockton

  Hot water source controls

  4,544

  1999–2000

  St. Mark's Church of England Voluntary Aided Junior School, Stockton

  Boiler plant replacement (single boiler installations)

  39,200

  St. Cuthbert's RC Voluntary Aided Primary School

  Boiler plant replacement (single boiler installations)

  47,040

  Preston Primary School

  Asbestos removal

  Project including 11 schools

  430,8462

  Harewood Infant School

  Asbestos removal

  Project including 11 schools

  430,846M2

  The Links Primary School

  Boiler plant replacement (single boiler installation)

  Project including 10 schools

  545,8012

  Oxbridge Lane Primary School

  Asbestos removal

  Project including 11 schools

  430,8462

  Egglescliffe Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School

  Boiler plant replacement (single boiler installation)

  Project including 10 schools

  545,8012

  St. Cuthbert's RC Voluntary Aided Primary School

  Boiler plant replacement (single boiler installation)

  Project including 10 schools

  545,8012

  St. Mark's Church of England Voluntary Aided Junior School, Stockton

  Boiler plant replacement (single boiler installation)

  Project including 10 schools

  545,8012

  2000–01

  Conyers School

  Replacement of 11 temporary classrooms

  1,021,668

  St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Primary School, Thornaby

  Replacement of asbestos roof tiles

  16,430

  Preston Primary School

  Replacement of obsolete/leaking

  Project including 10 schools

  678,8002

  Christ The King RC Primary School

  Replacement of obsolete/leaking boilerplant and asbestos insulation

  Project including 10 schools

  678,8002

  Egglescliffe School

  Replacement of obsolete/leaking boilerplant and asbestos insulation

  Project including 10 schools

  678,8002

  Grangefield School

  Replacement of obsolete/leaking boilerplant and asbestos insulation

  Project including 10 schools

  678,8002

  Ian Ramsey Church of England Aided Comprehensive School

  Replacement of obsolete/leaking boilerplant and asbestos insulation

  Project including 10 schools

  678,8002

  1For NDS 1 grant was allocated for Stock, ton LEA-wide projects, part of which was used for work at each of three schools in the Stockton South constituency. The LEA will be able to say how much was allocated to each school.

  2Allocations shown are the totals for packages of projects within Stockton LEA which included the schools shown that are in the Stockton South constituency. The LEA will be able to say how much was allocated to each school.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 51W, on student finance, if he will make a statement on the outcome of his discussions with Scottish Ministers. [1711141]

  Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Deputy First Minister agreed that the Scottish Executive and the Department for Education and Skills would keep each other informed as they develop their policies on HE funding, and that the programme of Ministerial meetings on cross border issues would continue.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the evidential basis is for the estimation that 30 per cent. of full-time students will receive full combined grant in 2006/07. [169245]

  Alan Johnson
  Our estimate that around 30 per cent. of students will be eligible for the full grant of £2,700 in 2006/07 has been produced using:a specially commissioned survey from a sample of LEAs providing details of the actual incomes of students used in the assessment for entitlement to student support in 2002/03;
  54W
  Family Resources Survey (FRS) data to estimate the effects of changes to the definition of income introduced in 2004/05;
  forecasts of future inflation rates
  estimates of future earnings growth;

  The estimate does not take into account possible future changes in the demand for higher education from different income groups.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to promote the delivery of sustainable development within Government. [166785]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My Department is implementing an Environmental Management System at each of its sites. Various initiatives are in place within DfES to promote sustainable development within Government, including publicity on the internet, our internal website and hard copy notices and posters in all buildings.

  In addition we operate a number of recycling schemes. All of our toner and printer cartridges and our spent fluorescent tubes and light bulbs are recycled and the revenue generated contributes to costs incurred. Other initiatives include recycling cans, paper, batteries and textiles and we are constantly reviewing the position to extend the range of items recycled.

  Teachers
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many vacant(a) head teacher, (b) deputy head teacher and (c) teacher posts there were in (i) primary, (ii) secondary, (iii) special and (iv) all schools, expressed as a percentage of the total number of each, in each year since 1997, broken down by local education authority. [167573]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested has been placed in the Libraries. It shows deputy head teacher and classroom teacher vacancy rates in maintained nursery and primary, secondary and special schools by local education authority. Rates have not been provided for head and deputy head teachers in special schools because of the very small numbers involved. There were 10 head teacher vacancies in special schools in England in 2003 and 20 deputy head vacancies. For 2004 overall vacancy rates for head teachers were 0.5 per cent., deputy heads 0.8 per cent. and classroom teachers 0.7 per cent.. Overall vacancy rates by LEA will be published later in the year.

  Teaching Assistants
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching assistants there were in schools in South Ribble in(a) each of the last seven years and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [171709]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives the numbers of full time equivalent teaching assistants in maintained schools in South Ribble constituency in January of each year between 1997 and 2003, the latest year for which data are available.

  1997

  70

  1998

  70

  1999

  90

  2000

  90

  2001

  120

  2002

  100

  2003

  200

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching assistants there were in West Lancashire schools in each of the last seven years; and what the current figure is. [171489]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives the numbers of full time equivalent teaching assistants in maintained schools in the West Lancashire constituency in January of each year between 1997 and 2003, the latest year for which data are available.

  Number

  1997

  140

  1998

  150

  1999

  160

  2000

  180

  2001

  220

  2002

  180

  2003

  300

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  University Students
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students from Barnsley East and Mexborough are attending university; and how many of these students pay(a) no tuition fee and (b) a partial tuition fee. [170659]

  Alan Johnson
  In England and Wales students on full-time undergraduate courses and their families are expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their tuition only if they can afford to do so.

  For entry in 2002, there were 776 applicants domiciled in Barnsley LEA who were accepted through UCAS to full-time first degree and HND courses at UK institutions.

  The number and percentages of students in England and Wales in academic year 2002–03 (latest year for which data are available) who have been assessed to make a nil or partial contribution towards the cost of their tuition is shown in the table:

  England and Wales: academic year 2002–031

  Student support scheme student numbers thousands2

  Student support scheme students percentage2

  Nil contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/parents/spouse/partner3

  330

  43

  Partial contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/ parents/spouse//partner

  116

  15

  1Provisional.

  2Contributions towards the cost of tuition are assessed by local education authorities in England and Wales for students normally domiciled in their area and studying in the UK.

  3Includes students on courses where the fee support was not subject to income-assessment (e.g. PGCE courses, and some other ITT courses; and designated courses at private institutions)

  Source:

  F503G survey of local education authorities.

  National level data are published annually in the Department's Statistical First Releases.

  Data are collected from the local education authorities (LEAs) to produce national estimates and the data collection exercise does not allow for the production of firm figures below this level, and therefore data by constituency or local education authority are not available.

INTERNATEIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  St. Helena
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the £26.3 million previously committed by the British Government towards the building of an airport on St. Helena and if he will make a statement. [170215]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  It was included, as a possible DFID contribution, in last year's international invitation for possible private sector participation in developing air access for St. Helena. I announced on 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 1WS, that none of the responses offered a basis upon which, with DFID

  57W
  financial assistance as described in the invitation, DFID might enter negotiations. Instead, we are now investigating and costing all options to follow expected withdrawal of the present ship from service by around the turn of the decade, including possible development of air access through alternative arrangements. A specialist team will arrive on the island later this week to progress this work and to initiate geo-technical investigations on a possible airport site.

  Africa
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what evaluation has been carried out of the value to developing countries in Africa of the(a) United States American Growth and Opportunity Act and (b) EU Everything But Arms Initiative. [169723]

  Hilary Benn
  A publication of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) entitled: "Trade Preferences for LDCs: an early assessment of benefits and possible improvements" reference UNCTAD/ITCD/TSB/2003/8, published in 2003, includes an early assessment of the United States American Growth and Opportunity Act.

  The Everything But Arms Initiative (EBA) is delivered through the EU's Generalised Scheme of Preferences arrangement (GSP). The GSP is subject to an annual reporting mechanism. The most recent annual report covering the period of 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001 was produced by the European Commission on 6 June 2003. Given that the EBA initiative was introduced in March 2001, the analysis on EBA is limited in this report.

  There is also some analysis, albeit limited because of similar problems in collecting the most recent data, contained in the UNCTAD publication referred to above.

  Aid Projects (Asia)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid projects his Department expects to develop in Asia during the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [171246]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's bilateral programmes in Asia are focused on helping countries achieve the Millennium Development Goals. Projected spend on bilateral programmes in Asia, excluding countries of the former Soviet Union and Iraq, are:

  DFID allocation by programme

  £000

  South and East Asia and Pacific

  2003–04 Estimated Outturns

  2004–05 Plans

  2005–06 Plans

  Afghanistan

  72,000

  75,000

  75,000

  Bangladesh

  65,000

  100,000

  100,000

  China

  26,000

  45,200

  35,200

  India

  197,000

  250,000

  280,000

  Nepal

  26,000

  35,000

  47,000

  Pakistan

  64,000

  70,000

  74,000

  Asia Other1

  56,000

  93,700

  106,900

  Asia Directorate2.3

  4,000

  15,000

  15,000

  Asia Performance Fund Reserve

  4,000

  13,100

  51,900

  Total

  514,000

  697,000

  785,000

  2003/04 Estimated

  58W
  1Includes country programmes for Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Burma

  2Includes 2003–04 movement in working capital for the division

  3Covers regional funds and programmes including the Pacific region

  Source:

  DFID Departmental Report 2004 (http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Pubs/files/dr2004 default.htm)

  DFID's published Country Assistance Plans (CAPs) give details of proposed activities in the larger bilateral country programmes. Copies are placed in the House of Commons library. Finalised CAPs for Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India and Vietnam and draft CAPs for Burma and Nepal are available at: http://www. dfid.gov.uk/News/Consultations/files/caps.htm. CAPs for other recipients of significant bilateral aid in Asia are currently under preparation.

  Children's Welfare
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the children's parliament in Malawi in influencing public policy there. [171693]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has not made an assessment of the effectiveness of the children's parliament in Malawi in influencing public policy

  In Malawi, DFID prioritises support for the National Assembly, particularly to enable parliamentary committees to fulfil their oversight function and to strengthen citizen's interaction with Parliament. Through membership of the Government of Malawi Task Force on Support for Parliament, DFID notes that UNICEF prioritises support for the children's parliament in Malawi.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the contribution made by children to the improvement of sanitary practice in Bangladesh. [171698]

  Hilary Benn
  An estimated 110,000 children under five die each year from diarrhoeal disease in Bangladesh. In 1990 the figure was much higher at 260,000.

  There are a number of reasons for this improvement; access to improved water supplies increased from 94 per cent. to 97 per cent. and access to improved sanitation rose from 41 per cent. to 48 per cent. Improved hygiene behaviour also makes as important contribution but one which is more difficult to assess. One indicator is the use of soap or ash for hand washing after defecation—surveys suggest a current figure of 26 per cent. for Bangladesh.

  The individual contribution made by children in achieving the above improvements cannot be separated out. However, the DFID Bangladesh Water and Sanitation programme explicitly recognises their important role in promoting improvements in sanitary practice. For instance:

  (i) DFID'sprogramme with UNICEF and the Bangladesh Department of Public Health Engineering includes a School Sanitation and Hygiene Education component, through which children are encouraged to monitor sanitary practices in their immediate neighbourhoods, and
  59W
  (ii) DFID has been supporting an NGO (PHULKI) through our programme with WaterAid, which works explicitly with the children of garment workers, using child-to-child approaches for hygiene promotion.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the re-organisation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation has been completed. [171687]

  Hilary Benn
  The legal documents to establish the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC)'s new investment management company, Actis were signed on 2 April 2004. These will formalise the new arrangements that I advised Parliament about in my statement of 8 January 2004. However, there are a number of 'conditions precedent' that must be met before the documents can take legal effect. These are largely administrative measures and CDC and DFID staff are now working through with these. It is expected to complete them by the end of June. I shall make a further statement to Parliament at that time and I shall also be placing the relevant documents into the Library.

  Departmental Expenditure (Entertainment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what his latest estimate is of the amount spent by his Department on official entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [168997]

  Hilary Benn
  The following table shows recorded expenditure by DFID on entertainment for the years in question, to the nearest £000.

  £

  1996–97

  10,000

  1997–98

  24,000

  1998–99

  43,000

  1999–2000

  62,000

  2000–01

  48,000

  2001–02

  55,000

  2002–03

  82,000

  In 2003–04 DFID introduced a new method of assessing administration costs, which had previously been recorded on programme budgets. This included entertainment expenditure previously incurred by overseas offices. The provisional figure for 2003–04 was £246,000 and the projected figure for 2004–05 is £261,000. These changes have increased transparency and will enable DFID to manage administrative costs more effectively, but they mean that the 2003–04 figures and 2004–05 projections are not comparable with earlier years.

  The upward trend in entertainment expenditure reflects DFID's increased focus on wider development issues, and the expansion in its representation overseas; with increased devolution to a growing number of country offices.

  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.

  Ghana
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what work his Department is supporting to improve literacy in Ghana. [171247]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is preparing a new programme of £50 million over five years in support of the Government of Ghana's Education Strategic Plan (ESP). Increasing literacy is a key basic education target of the ESP. This programme follows DFID's five year £50 million Education Sector Support Programme, which similarly aimed to improve literacy levels.

  DFID also provided £200,000 between 2000 and 2003 towards the Ghana Institute of Linguistics, Literacy and Bible Translation Literacy Programme, which worked on adult literacy among 34 minority language groups.

  A recent survey has shown an improvement in literacy from 48 per cent. of Ghanaians aged 15 or above in 1997–8 to 53 per cent. in 2003.

  Global Fund
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research his Department has conducted on(a) the amount of disbursements made by the Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in 2003 and (b) the amount of money actually spent by recipient governments; and if he will publish his findings. [171210]

  Hilary Benn
  As a partner and Board member of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, DFID does not conduct its own separate research on the amount of disbursements made by the Global Fund or on money spent by recipient governments. The Global Fund is a public and private partnership and DFID works collaboratively with other partners through the Board to ensure that the financial reporting systems of the Fund are strong, and transparent.

  DFID is an active member of the Monitoring, Evaluation, Finance: and Audit (MEFA) Committee of the Fund. Part of the mandate of this Committee is to review the Global Fund's performance, including areas such as financial audit and results-based disbursement.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much has been pledged to the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; how much has been disbursed by the Global Fund; and how much has been spent on administration costs in that period. [171211]

  Hilary Benn
  The total amount pledged to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is currently US$5.3 billion. Disbursements by the Global Fund currently total US$ 285 million.

  Administration costs are kept low and are subject to regular review by the Board. DFID expects these costs to decrease over time as disbursement accelerates. For 2002, they were US$12.8 million and for 2003 they were US$31.8 million. Costs for the first quarter of 2004 were US$10 million. Operating costs are expected to decline as grant expenditure increases. The Global Fund operates in a transparent way and information—including budgets for its operating expenses—can be viewed on the Global Fund website at www.theglobalfund.org.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when in 2004 he estimates the Department's objective of securing relief of unsustainable debt for all heavily indebted poor countries will be achieved. [171690]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's current Public Service Agreement with HM Treasury sets the target of working to ensure that three-quarters of all eligible Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) committed to poverty reduction receive irrevocable debt relief by 2006. DFID is on track to meet this target.

  While progress in implementing the HIPC Initiative has not been as rapid as previously projected, the number of countries reaching Completion Point—the point at which irrevocable debt relief is granted—has increased in recent months. Five countries have reached Completion Point since December 2003 and DFID expects a further five before the end of this year. This would bring the number of countries at Completion Point to 18 out of the 27 eligible countries that have already passed Decision Point. Of the remaining nine countries, it is estimated that all will reach Completion Point by end 2006.

  Iraq
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many international aid workers have left the British controlled sector of Southern Iraq in the last month; [171153]

  (2) how many international aid workers have left Iraq in the last month; [171155]

  (3) how many international aid workers there were in the British controlled sector of Iraq on the latest date for which figures are available; [171154]

  (4) how many international workers there were in Iraq on the latest date for which figures are available. [171156]

  Hilary Benn
  Comprehensive statistics are not available on the numbers of people working for donor agencies in Iraq, nor of their movements in and out of the country.

  In addition to the deployment of their own staff, many donors, including DFID, contract individuals and companies to work in Iraq on particular projects and programmes for specific periods of time. The number of people working for each donor in Iraq is likely to vary from week to week.

  We are aware that some people working on reconstruction in Iraq may have left the country over the last month as a result of increased security concerns, and others may be delaying their arrival pending a stabilisation of the situation.

  DFID temporarily delayed the deployment of some consultancy staff during April. However, no staff have been withdrawn, and essential workers took up or resumed their postings in late April.
  62W
  Over the next two months, DFID aims to reduce the number of personnel seconded to the Coalition Provisional Authority as part of the process of handing over authority to an Iraqi Interim Government.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what his estimate is of the level of unemployment in(a) Iraq and (b) the British-controlled sector of Iraq immediately before the start of the recent conflict; [171172]

  (2) what his estimate is of the level of unemployment in the British-controlled sector of Iraq immediately after the cessation of hostilities in the recent conflict; [171173]

  (3) what his estimate is of the current level of unemployment in (a) Iraq and (b) the British controlled sector of Iraq; [171179]

  (4) what the level of unemployment in Iraq was immediately after the cessation of hostilities in the recent conflict; [171180]

  (5) what his estimate is of the level of (a) female unemployment, (b) male unemployment and (c) unemployment among workers under the age of 30 in (i) Iraq and (ii) the British-controlled sector of Iraq immediately after the end of hostilities in the recent conflict; [171181]

  (6) what his estimate is of the level of unemployment in (a) Iraq and (b) the British-controlled sector of Iraq immediately before the start of the recent conflict for (i) males, (ii) females and (iii) workers under the age of 30; [171182]

  (7) what his estimate is of the level of female unemployment in (a) Iraq and (b) the British-controlled sector of Iraq for workers under the age of 30; [171195]

  (8) what his estimate is of the level of (a) male and (b) female unemployment in (i) the British controlled sector of Iraq and (ii) Iraq. [171203]

  Hilary Benn
  No official figures on the Iraqi labour force exist, so only very broad estimates of unemployment are available. It is not possible to break these down accurately by age, gender or geographic region.

  Current estimates suggest that total unemployment levels now are broadly similar to those before the 2003 war. The United Nations and World Bank social and economic needs assessments, which were undertaken after the conflict last year, estimated that the unemployment rate before the 2003 war was around 30 per cent. Current unemployment rates are unofficially estimated at between 20 and 30 per cent. It is believed however that the rate may well be higher for those under 20-years-old.

  It is estimated that women make up only 20 to 25 per cent. of the workforce but figures are not available on the numbers of women seeking work, who would be classified as unemployed.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what proportion of international aid workers based in the British-controlled sector of Southern Iraq are Iraqi citizens; [171176]
  63W
  (2) what proportion of international aid workers in Iraq are Iraqi citizens. [171177]

  Hilary Benn
  Comprehensive figures are not available on the nationalities of staff working for donor agencies in Iraq. For several agencies, such as United Nations bodies, the World Bank and some NGOs, only Iraqi national staff are working in Iraq at present. In other cases, such as DFID and USAID, non-Iraqi staff are also working in-country.

  DFID aims to increase, as far as practicable, the numbers of Iraqis working on our reconstruction programmes.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what the level of inflation is in Iraq; [171198]

  (2) what the level of inflation was in Iraq immediately before the start of the recent conflict. [171204]

  Hilary Benn
  The pre-2003 conflict inflation rate is estimated to have been between 20 and 30 per cent. although the data is not considered to be very reliable. The Coalition Provisional Authority is working on the development of sound methodologies for measuring inflation in Iraq's post-Saddam era.

  Mr. John Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what proportion of Iraqi households have access to running water; [171199]

  (2) what proportion of Iraqi households in the British-controlled sector of Iraq currently have access to (a) running water and (b) electricity; [171200]

  (3) what proportion of Iraqi households in (a) Iraq and (b) the British controlled sector of Iraq had access to (i) running water and (ii) electricity immediately before the start of the recent conflict. [171201]

  Hilary Benn
  Until the Gulf War in 1991 safe water was accessible to over 95 per cent. of the urban and 75 per cent. of the rural population of Iraq. The last reliable pre-conflict figures are for the year 2000 when urban and rural coverage had dropped to 92 per cent. and 46 per cent. respectively. Deterioration of the system had been particularly severe in the south, including Basra, due to the discriminatory policies of the former regime.

  Access to safe water deteriorated further as a result of the conflict in 2003 and the subsequent looting. Estimates suggest that the immediate post-conflict coverage was 60 per cent. for urban and 30 per cent. for rural populations.

  Considerable work has taken place since the end of the conflict to improve the quantity, quality and reliability of water supplies. There are no reliable statistics of current coverage, but informal estimates by the Coalition Provisional Authority (South) indicate that, in the south, coverage has increased by 10–15 per cent. since May 2003. By the summer of 2004, water quality and volume in Basra is expected to have exceeded pre-conflict levels.

  The electricity supply in Iraq is measured by total power generated and the number of hours per day for which power is available. Recent reports by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) record that
  64W
  average electricity production is in the region of 4,000 megawatts (MW), approximately the same as before the 2003 conflict. A number of generating units are undergoing maintenance and should be back in service by the summer peak demand period. The CPA power generation target for 1 June 2004 is 6,000 MW, significantly above the pre-conflict levels.

  The most recent figures for the availability of power by governorate are as follows:

  Average hours of power available per day as of 1 April 2004

  Megawatts

  Southern Governorates under British Control

  Multanna

  18

  59

  Basrah

  24

  258

  Dhi Qar

  20

  103

  Maysan

  20

  64

  Najaf

  13

  88

  Other Governorates under British Control

  Najaf

  13

  88

  Qadisiyah

  14

  60

  Wasit

  11

  86

  Karbala

  19

  84

  Babil

  15

  100

  Anbar

  15

  175

  Salah Ad Din

  15

  210

  Baghdad

  17

  1,155

  Dyala

  15

  98

  Naynawa

  15

  360

  Dahok

  14

  90

  Arbil

  16

  —

  Tamim

  16

  134

  Sulamaniyah

  16

  —

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the total amount of investment has been in the Iraqi(a) public, (b) private and (c) voluntary sector, over the past year. [171202]

  Hilary Benn
  Statistics are not available on aggregate levels of investment by sector in Iraq.

  Maldives
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid has been provided by(a) the UK and (b) the EU to the Maldives Government in each of the last three years. [172053]

  Hilary Benn
  The information is as follows:

  (a) UK bilateral assistance to the Maldives totalled £286,000 in 2000–01, £83,000 in 2001–02 and £195,000 in 2002–03. Data for 2003–04 is not available yet for publication. UK assistance is part of the Small Grants Scheme, administered locally by the High Commission on behalf of DFID for poverty alleviation. Funds go mainly to small projects and institutions.

  (b) The European Union has given no aid to the Maldives government in 2000 and 2001. Data for 2002 and 2003 are not yet published.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of(a) Ordinary Written Questions to his Department were

  65W
  answered within five sitting days of tabling and (b) Questions for written answer on a named day received a substantive answer on that day in (a) the 2002–03 parliamentary session and (b) this parliamentary session, broken down by month. [171193]

  Hilary Benn
  We are unable to provide information in the format requested without incurring disproportionate cost. DFID endeavours to respond to all Parliamentary Questions within deadlines where possible. I refer the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross to the statement made by the Leader of the House on 3 March 2004,Official Report, column 907W.

  Poverty Reduction
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list in ascending order of progress the 16 key countries in Sub-Saharan Africa for which the Millennium Development Goal on poverty reduction was set. [171681]

  Hilary Benn
  The PSA target for poverty reduction relates to the entire region of Sub-Saharan Africa and is not based on the 16 key countries because comparable data over time are not available at the country level. The latest figures show that the percentage of the population below $1 a day1 in Sub-Saharan Africa is 49 per cent. (compared to a 1990 figure of 47.4 per cent.). The latest comparable figures for nine of our 16 key countries are given in the following table.

  Percentage of population below $1 a day1

  South Africa

  <2

  Kenya

  23.0

  Mozambique

  37.9

  Malawi

  41.7

  Ghana

  44.8

  Zambia

  63.7

  Nigeria

  70.2

  Ethiopia

  81.9

  Uganda

  82.2

  Congo, DR

  2—

  Lesotho

  2—

  Rwanda

  2—

  Sierra Leone

  2—

  Sudan

  2—

  Tanzania

  2—

  Zimbabwe

  2—

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  49.0

  1The percentage of the population living below the commonly used international $1 a day standard, measured in 1993 international prices and adjusted for local currency using purchasing power parities.

  2Not available.

  Primary Education
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had on improving access to primary education; and if he will make a statement. [171016]

  Hilary Benn
  Discussion with international agencies, partner governments and civil society on improving access to primary education is a continuing priority. Recent examples include strengthening the Fast Track Initiative led by the World Bank; improving girl's education in collaboration with UNICEF in support of 66W
  the 2005 gender equity MDG target; participating in the Global Campaign for Education for All (GCE), led by British NGOs, in which 460 MPs, and children's representatives took part; and providing education guidance for the Africa Commission.

  Both the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and I have also recently taken part in Parliamentary discussions—a Children's Parliament at Central Hall and an MPs' meeting, respectively— as part of the GCE Week of Action in April to discuss the importance of education for all children.

  Progress has been made in many countries with global enrolment in primary education increasing from 596 million in 1990 to 648 million children in 2000. However, with over 100 million still out of school, much still remains to be done.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made in providing primary education for girls in developing countries; and if he will make a statement. [164510]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Please accept my apologies for a slight error contained in the previous reply published on 31 March 2004,Official Report, column 1429W.

  Pursuant to that reply, the EFA Global Monitoring Report 200304 shows that the net enrolment ratio (NER) for girls' primary enrolment in developing countries has increased from 73.5 per cent. in 1990, to 78.9 per cent. in 2000. The ratio between girls and boys' enrolment rates, has also improved from 0.86 in 1990 to 0.93 in 2000 for primary education.

  However, much still remains to be done. DFID is planning to increase its investment in primary education to £1 billion over the next four years.

  Sustainable Development
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps he is taking to promote the delivery of sustainable development within Government. [165432]

  Hilary Benn
  The Department for International Development works with other departments to assist in the delivery of Sustainable Development (SD).

  The World Summit on Sustainable Development's Plan of Implementation provides the international framework for the promotion of sustainable development. The lead UK departments are DFID, DTI, FCO and Defra (coordinator), all represented on the Ministerial SD Task Force. DFID leads in four areas,
  Water and sanitation
  Integrating environment into poverty reduction strategies
  Access to clean energy
  Finance (volume and effectiveness of aid—joint lead with Treasury)

  The UN Commission on Sustainable Development tracks progress on United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)/World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) follow-up (including MDGs). It works to a two-year cycle—progress review years followed by policy development years. The 2004–5 biennium covers (1) water and

  67W
  sanitation, (2) human settlements, and (3) "Type 2" partnerships. DFID officials have been involved in the CSD 12 meetings just concluded (1/05/04).

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the likely impact on staffing levels of changes to the budget of the Commission for Racial Equality. [171328]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office, like other public sector bodies, is seeking to improve Value for Money. As part of this, it has set itself a target to generate significant savings in administration costs, for redirection to support front line services, over the next three years.

  We have agreed with Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) that, following a successful exercise last year to reduce its budget deficit, its administration costs should be reduced this year by 4.5 per cent., the same percentage as the Home Office. This will have some effect on staffing levels, which the CRE are assessing, but will not effect work to deliver key objectives.

  CCTV
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice is given by his Department on the provision and funding of CCTV in urban areas; and if he will make a statement. [171329]

  Caroline Flint
  Since 1997, the Home Office has provided a variety of funding, which has been used to establish and run CCTV schemes in large and small urban areas, as well as residential and rural locations. Under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV initiative, which ended in 2003, £170 million was invested in 684 CCTV schemes.

  Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have funding of £72.3 million in 2003–04 and £74 million in 2004–05 available for crime reduction initiatives under the Building Safer Communities Fund, which could include CCTV, and £50 million per annum to police BCUs in 2003–04 and 2004–05.

  Anti-Social Behaviour Act
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of powers contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003. [171330]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The majority of the powers in the Ant-Social Behaviour Act 2003 have now been commenced.

  This is the biggest single package of measures in tackling anti-social behaviour. They have been introduced after widespread consultation with communities and practitioners. The new powers are part of the Government's "Together Campaign" to help local people and agencies tackle the menace of yob behaviour.

  Migration (EU Accession States)
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the potential impact of migration from EU accession states on public services in the UK after 1 May. [171332]

  Mr. Browne
  The measures that we have taken to regulate the UK labour market and prevent access to benefits and housing by nationals of the accession countries who are not in work, should mean that nationals of those countries coming to the United Kingdom are likely, as a group, to place relatively low demands on key public services. They will also, of course, be contributing like everyone else to the costs of those services by the taxes they pay.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on police recruitment policy. [171333]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Our general policy is to ensure that our national recruitment standards programme attracts recruits in sufficient number and of the right quality. In particular, our policy is to encourage more ethnic minority, graduate and female applicants to the Police Service and ensure that police officer numbers do not fall below current record levels.

  Recruitment policy is drawn up in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities.

  Sex Offenders
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the resettlement of sex offenders within the community. [171335]

  Paul Goggins
  Those who receive a prison sentence of 12 months or more are supervised by the National Probation Service on their release from custody. Those who are assessed as the highest risk are supervised under the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements. The provision of stable accommodation is a major factor in the resettlement of offenders and approved probation and bail hostels have a key role to play.

  Serious Organised Crime Agency
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed Serious Organised Crime Agency. [171336]

  Paul Goggins
  Serious organised crime poses a substantial and sophisticated threat to the UK. The Serious Organised Crime Agency will provide an effective response by reducing organisational boundaries, linking intelligence and operations, and providing a single point of contact for all matters related to such crimes.

  Persistent Arsonists
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the current aftercare of persistent arsonists; and if he will make a statement. [171337]
  69W
  Caroline Flint
  The Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements we established in 2001 have provided the means by which all agencies involved in protecting the public from offenders—including persistent arsonists—can co-ordinate their efforts and provide a much closer supervision of high-risk offenders.

  The OPDM-led Arson Control Forum (established in April 2001) provides the strategic direction of the national fight against arson. The forum has also invested a total of £9.3 million in local arson prevention over three years.

  We will also be identifying young people with targeted measures before they become involved in offending as part of our new Prolific and Priority Offender Strategy.

  Terrorism (Mental Illness)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in respect of the arrangements for individuals suspected of having a terrorist connection or intent who may be deemed to be suffering from mental illness. [171338]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The prisons where those suspected of terrorist connections or intent are held have good medical facilities providing 24-hour cover. In addition, prisons have access to relevant hospitals, including secure hospitals, where referral is appropriate on medical grounds. Provisions therefore exist to deal with any mental or other health problems regardless of the reasons for detention.

  Where an individual is not detained in prison he will be treated within the national health system.

  Anti-Social Behaviour
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are being taken to build up local expertise in measures to tackle anti-social behaviour. [171339]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Tackling anti-social behaviour is a key priority for the Government. That is why we have launched the Together Campaign, ensuring local practitioners gain real expertise in tackling anti-social behaviour.

  A key part of the Together Campaign is the Together Academy and Actionline. The academies are designed to train front-line workers in the use of new and existing powers. In total there were 10 events held during March 2004 across England and Wales, training just over 2,000 academy graduates.

  The Actionline ensures new and existing powers and best practice are used and understood. There have been over 1,000 since March.

  The campaign will help improve the response to tackling anti-social behaviour by placing the focus within the heart of our communities, and providing them with the opportunity to work together and also the tools to take action to tackle anti-social behaviour.

  We have provided funding for every crime and disorder partnership across England and Wales and introduced specialist anti-social behaviour prosecutors to develop local expertise.

  Criminal Justice Interventions Programme
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on extending the criminal justice interventions programme. [171340]

  Caroline Flint
  Criminal Justice Interventions Programme (CJIP) was successfully introduced into 30 areas with the highest levels of acquisitive crime in April 2003. The full programme—which includes drug testing on charge, arrest referral and through care and aftercare packages—has been expanded to a further 36 areas in April 2004. In the CJIP areas, waiting times for treatment have fallen significantly over the past year and the numbers starting treatment increased by 47 per cent.

  Alcohol-related Violence
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what further action he proposes to reduce alcohol-related violence. [171334]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In March the Government launched the national alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. We intend to work together with all our stakeholders including the alcohol industry to implement all the recommendations in the strategy.

  At the end of April, I announced a clampdown to be led by Paul Evans, the former Police Chief, who was so successful in achieving results in Massachusetts.

  This will be a concerted enforcement campaign in the early summer to tackle under age drinking and selling alcohol to those already drunk. We want to rid our town centres of late night alcohol related violence. We will also work closely with local authorities, licencees and retailers to ensure that the full powers of the law are used effectively.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated cost of the current police advertising campaign warning of the dangers of terrorism is; and from which budget that cost is being met. [164278]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 31 March 2004]: There are currently two publicity campaigns that are being run warning of the danger of terrorism. One is the Life Savers Campaign and the other is the "Who owns this Bag?" campaign. The total cost of these campaigns is estimated at £355,500 and is being met jointly by the Metropolitan Police Service, the City of London Police, the British Transport Police, Transport for London and the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Ammonium Nitrate
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had on the security implications of the commercial sale of ammonium nitrate fertiliser. [166840]

  Ms Blears
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Elliot Morley) on 28 April 2004,Official Report, column 1002W.

  Criminal Record Checks
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he plans to charge charities for criminal record checks. [169860]

  Ms Blears
  The Criminal Records Bureau charges a fee for all Disclosures, except that Disclosures are issued free in the case of volunteers. We have no plans to charge volunteers.

  Departmental Computers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to update computer(a) hardware and (b) software standard packages used in his Department. [166364]

  Home Office area

  Updates planned or under consideration

  Core Home Office and parts of Immigration and Nationality Directorate

  On going programme of server infrastructure, desktop hardware and software refreshment underway, affecting all core Home Office users and approximately 7,000 IND users.

  Immigration and Nationality

  The current ICT service provider contract for the IND caseworking system expires shortly. Competitive tendering process for ongoing ICT service provision is in hand. An upgrade of network, desktop and server hardware and software are planned as part of contract.

  National Offender Management—Prisons Service

  Infrastructure rollout of PC's and telephones has completed. Service contract has a requirement for upgrade to hardware and software on two more occasions during the contract lifecycle.

  National Offender Management—Probation Service

  An ongoing programme upgrading servers, desktops and printers across the estate is underway. Latest versions of Microsoft Windows will be deployed on desktops.

  United Kingdom Passport Service

  Consideration underway for moving networks away Windows NT and for desktop refreshment replacing current ICT before end of useful life.

  Departmental Procurement Policy (Sea Bass)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his Department's policy to source sea bass used in catering outlets for which his Department is responsible from hand-line fishermen rather than pair trawlers. [167541]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office does not serve sea bass in any of the catering outlets for which it is responsible. Should this position change the Home Office would follow Department for Environment, Foods and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) policy, who are the lead Department on fisheries issues, on sourcing sea bass as follows:Defra supports the sourcing of sea bass from sustainable fisheries and handlining, as a relatively low impact method of fishing, can play a part in ensuring fisheries remain sustainable. However, the last report in 2003 by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas on sea bass advised that the level of exploitation of the stock at that time was sustainable and did not recommend closure of the offshore pair trawl fishery. There are currently no restrictions at a UK or Community level on the method of fishing that can be used to target bass. In addition, to address the dolphin bycatch problem associated with the pair trawl fishery, Defra-funded trials of a separate grid device to reduce dolphin bycatch are currently taking place, with the co-operation of the fishing industry.

  In these circumstances, Defra's policy is not to recommend a specific source of supply for sea bass at this stage.
  72W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  In line with Government procurement policy most Information Communication Technology (ICT) in the Home Office is now delivered through service contracts which include a requirement to update both software and hardware to ensure that technologies are kept up to date and do not reach end of usable life. While here are major projects managing step changes of both software and hardware there is also ongoing work to ensure that both are up to date and relevant to the business use the ICT is being put to. The extent to which either is fully up to date depends on the relevance of up to date technologies to Government business requirements. All ICT investments need also to pass the test of best value and be subject to appropriate investment justification.

  The following table illustrates updates to software and hardware planned or under consideration.

  Drugs
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated level of drugs-driven crime for the UK was in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [168726]

  Caroline Flint
  Recorded crime figures, which are used to measure trends in crime, include statistics on drugs offences, such as possession, and on property crimes, such as burglary, but do not record whether the latter are related to an offender's drug habits. There are therefore no figures currently available for levels of drug-driven crime over the last five years.

  The Home Office sponsored New English and Welsh Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (NEW-ADAM) survey, which involved interviewing and drug testing those arrested by the police, provides an insight into the proportion of crimes that are drug related. However, these figures are not nationally representative.

  Analysis of the data from the first eight sites in the survey, collected during 1999–2000, showed that 65 per cent. of arrestees tested positive for one or more illegal drug, with up to 29 per cent. testing positive for opiates (including heroin) and/or cocaine (including crack). Those arrestees reporting no drug use in the year before this study reported an average of 46 acquisitive crimes compared to 432 among heroin and/or cocaine/crack users.

  Identity Cards
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has collated on countries which have suffered terrorism since 1986 and which, while suffering from terrorism, used identity cards; and which of these countries used cards with biometric data. [169728]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]: Unfortunately, the information requested is not available. Neither the Home Office nor the Foreign Office have records on terrorist incidents which date back to 1986.

  The Government has made it clear that the key to an effective identity card scheme is the security of the issuing process and rigorous and consistent procedures for using the card, together with the inclusion of biometrics stored on a central database.

  This is where the proposals for a UK identity card scheme differ from card schemes in many other countries which do not have the kind of biometric security that is proposed for the UK scheme.

  The Government believes that a secure identity card scheme would disrupt the use of false identities by terrorist organisations, for example in the money laundering and organised crime, which support terrorist activities.

  As I set out in my evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on 4 May 2004, this is an assessment shared by the Director General of the Security Service and indeed also by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

  Internet Watch Foundation
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what analysis he has undertaken of the Internet Watch Foundation's Annual Report 2004; and if he will make a statement. [166799]

  Ms Blears
  We welcome the Annual Report of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) 2003, which was published in March 2004, and congratulate the IWF on their achievements.

  The report shows a continued increase in the number of reports made to the IWF, to just under 20,000 in 2003. The report also highlights the fact that only 1 per cent. of illegal content identified by IWF in 2003 was hosted in the UK: this represents a significant improvement from 18 per cent. in 1997, and demonstrates the willingness of UK industry to work effectively to remove illegal content. These figures also demonstrate the continuing need for international co-operation to deal with illegal content on the internet: the report shows that the IWF themselves have active partnerships with hotlines and other agencies abroad, and support the UK police in their efforts to encourage such co-operation.

  Overall, the report clearly shows the value of a co-operative approach involving a wide variety of partners in combating child pornography on the Internet and other
  74W
  illegal content. It shows a welcome increase in the number and range of companies supporting the IWF, and particularly the involvement of companies from sectors not previously engaged with the IWF. The involvement of such groups as mobile telecommunications providers, search engines and the finance industry in discussions with the IWF and others to reduce access to illegal content is further demonstration of the value of this approach.

  Prisons
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessments of(a) Private Finance Initiative and (b) market testing have been carried out by the Prison Service since January 2000; who carried out the work; and what the main findings were. [167363]

  Paul Goggins
  In late 2000 the Prison Service commissioned Patrick Carter, then a non-executive director of the Strategy Board for Correctional Services, to consider how best to develop the contribution of the private sector, particularly the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), to achieving the objectives of the Prison Service. Mr. Carter reported in January 2001. The main findings relevant to the question were that past market tests demonstrated beyond doubt the value of the competitive process in driving down costs and improving performance in public sector prisons, that PFI had proved successful in attracting capital investment and delivering high quality prisons and that competition should continue. Ministers welcomed the report.

  Security Services
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to provide more information to the public on the protection work done by the security services. [166036]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Security Service (MI5) has a long standing role and depth of experience in providing protective security advice to Government and those sectors of the business community critical to the national infrastructure. The service has recently expanded its work in this area into a new structure, the National Security Advice Centre (NSAC). As part of the expansion, the service launched its upgrade website (www.mi5.gov.uk) on 30 April. This provides a substantial body of material offering practical advice on sensible security precautions for business organisations and anyone with responsibility for the safety of others. Its purpose is to put the terrorist threat into context and set out sensible security precautions. The website is publicly accessible and will be updated regularly.

  The website complements information for the public on the Home Office, UK Resilience, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Metropolitan Police sites. It represents a further step forward in the drive to put more information about the terrorist threat in the public domain. Advice on protection against electronic attack will remain the responsibility of the National Infrastructure Security Co-ordination Centre (NISCC) (www.niscc.gov.uk).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Security Threat (Mox Plutonium)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she has initiated a review of the security of the sea transport of Mox plutonium fuels in response to the heightened international threat from terrorism. [171652]

  Mr. Timms
  Any such future shipment will be carried out in accordance with the Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003, which are administered and enforced by The Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS). OCNS will not allow a shipment to proceed until all necessary security measures, commensurate with the threat pertaining at the time, are in place. It is Government policy not to disclose details of these security arrangements.

  Berkeley Nuclear Research Laboratories
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what physical protection measures exist at the Berkeley nuclear research laboratories in Gloucestershire against the accidental or deliberate crash of an aircraft onto the site; and whether these have been enhanced since 2002. [171649]

  Mr. Timms
  The UK's civil nuclear sites apply stringent security measures regulated by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator. The security regulator works closely with the Health and Safety Executive, the safety regulator, which provides advice on the safety implications of events, including external hazards such as plane crashes, at nuclear installations. Security at nuclear sites is kept under regular review in the light of the prevailing threat and has been significantly enhanced since the terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001. It is Government policy not to disclose details of these measures which could potentially be of use to terrorists.

  Businesses
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many businesses have started up in Wigan since 1997; [169315]

  (2) how many new businesses have been established in Wigan since 1997. [169317]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank's latest survey of business creation includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start-ups in England and Wales, including 500 in Wigan Local Authority (which contains the constituency of Wigan), in the fourth quarter of 2003. The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before. There were 1,900 business start-ups in Wigan Local Authority in 2003. Data for Local Authorities are not available for before 2003.
  76W
  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for Wigan Local Authority (which includes the constituency of Wigan) are shown below for the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in Autumn 2004.

  VAT Registrations: 1997–2002

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Wigan

  640

  635

  620

  670

  580

  630

  Source:

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

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government has taken to help small businesses in Sittingbourne and Sheppey since 1997. [170292]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Enterprise Grants of more than £391,000 and Research and Development Grants of more than £587,000 have been awarded to SME's in Sittingbourne and Sheppey since 1997. In addition, an application for a Freight Facilities grant (to enable businesses to transport their goods by means other than by road) resulted in a company receiving more that £403,000.

  The total number of businesses in Swale is currently 3,828. Penetration of the business population by Business Link Kent has increased fourfold since 1997. The number of unique businesses that have been assisted by the Business Link has risen from 9 per cent. in 1997–98 to 36 per cent. in 2003–04.

  Around 60 businesses have been recognised and 52 committed to Investors in People (KP) during the period as a result of an intervention with Business Link Kent.

  In the past two years, a number of specific European funded programmes have significantly assisted 28 companies in Sittingbourne and Sheppey by providing Mentors who have undertaken various projects in the companies to enable them to develop their business.

  Women Entrepreneurs in Swale were targeted in a programme during 2001–02, 128 women attended and 26 new businesses started as a result.

  Coalminers' Compensation
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many respiratory test centres have been paid by her Department for medical assessment for the coalminers' compensation scheme; by whom they are run; and what Government payments they have received. [170786]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: At present, the Department's respiratory disease medical providers are Atos Origin who are currently responsible for 29 test centres and two mobile test centres. The total cost to the Department for the provision of the medical assessment process since 1999 is £146 million.
  77W
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of claimants have received(a) interim payments and (b) full and final settlements of the claims registered by the top 10 solicitors, determined by number of claims lodged, for respiratory disease and vibration white finger under the coalminers' compensation scheme. [170787]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: As of 4 May 2004 the figures are as follows:

  Top 10 Solicitors1

  2Percentage of Claimants who have received an Interim payment

  3Percentage of Claimants who have received a full and final settlement

  Beresfords Solicitors

  0.46

  7.97

  Thompsons

  19.13

  29.73

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  14.17

  32.08

  Raleys Solicitors

  12.08

  28.40

  Browell Smith & Co.

  13.10

  22.88

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  8.82

  24.69

  Avalon

  0.27

  1.57

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  7.66

  30.27

  Watson Burton

  8.19

  30.41

  Barber & Co.

  0.06

  4.23

  1Top 10 Solicitors are in descending order and based on the number of claims received

  2Total number of claimants who have received an interim

  3Total number of settlements include claims settled by denial/withdrawal

  A very large number of claims for respiratory disease have been registered in the last six months and will not yet have been through to the stage of a possible payment.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many privately funded medical assessments have been received under the coalminers' compensation scheme where the claimant has rejected the assessments paid for by the Government under the scheme. [170788]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: The Department's Contractors do not record whether claimants have privately funded their own medical assessment.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many different claims handling agreements were signed by Government under the coalminers' compensation scheme; with whom; by whom and when. [170789]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: The Claims Handling Agreements (CHA) for respiratory disease and Vibration White Finger were negotiated with the claimants' solicitors. Separate CHAs were negotiated with the Union of Democratic Miners (UDM), the only difference being costs which are lower.

  The agreements are:

  Respiratory disease CHAs:

  England and Wales—signed in September 1999

  Scotland—June 2000

  Australia and New Zealand—January 2003

  UDM—November 1999

  VWF CHAs:

  England and Wales—All signed in January 1999

  Scotland

  UDM

  78W
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what amount is budgeted by Government for paying solicitors under the miners' compensation scheme for(a) 2004, (b) 2005 and (c) 2006. [170790]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: The figures according to the forecast at the end of 2003 are:

  £million

  Financial year

  COPD

  VWF

  2003–04

  126.20

  21.56

  2004–05

  154.28

  38.11

  2005–06

  181.50

  23.30

  The forecasts will be revisited in the light of the number of claims now received in the respiratory disease scheme.

  Payments made to solicitors will of course depend on the volume of cases processed and offers accepted.

  Miners' Compensation Scheme
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims have been registered under the coalminers' compensation scheme for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vibration white finger by Beresfords Solicitors in each year since the scheme began to the latest date for which figures are available. [171640]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As of 7 May 2004 the figures are as follows:

  COPD

  VWF

  1995

  0

  5

  1996

  17

  23

  1997

  4

  29

  1998

  120

  45

  1999

  373

  413

  2000

  2,697

  4,270

  2001

  1,872

  1,196

  2002

  6,788

  5,317

  2003

  50,914

  347

  2004

  16,886

  0

  Total

  79,671

  11,648

  Note:

  The COPD claim receipts are those claims that are fully registered, i.e. exclude partially registered claims (website claims yet to be fully registered on ICMS due to a submission error during input) and claims in the holding policy (pool of claims accepted with minimum data, awaiting further information to permit cross referencing and duplicate checks prior to full registration).

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average final settlement for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vibration white finger was for the top 10 solicitors as determined by fees charged to her Department under the miners' compensation scheme. [170740]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As of 6 May 2004 the figures are as follows:

  Top 10 Solicitors1

  2Average full and final settlement (£)

  Thompsons

  9,187

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  9,390

  Raleys Solicitors

  8,683

  79W

  Top 10 Solicitors1

  2Average full and final settlement (£)

  Browell Smith and Co.

  8,175

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  4,373

  Graysons

  4,420

  Beresfords Solicitors

  1,679

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  4,532

  Watson Burton

  4,851

  Towells Solicitors

  8,581

  1'Top 10' solicitors are in descending order and based on solicitors costs received.

  2Average full and final settlements include claims denied/withdrawn.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which 10 solicitors had the most new claims lodged under the miners' compensation scheme in 2004. [170741]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As at 6 May 2004 the figures are as follows:

  Top 10 Solicitors1

  Claim Receipts in 20042

  Raleys Solicitors

  19,890

  Beresfords Solicitors

  16,886

  Avalon

  13,797

  Browell Smith & Co.

  13,363

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  13,180

  Thompsons

  12,820

  Delta Legal

  6,818

  Corries

  4,750

  AMS Law

  4,697

  Union of Democratic Mineworkers

  4,145

  1'Top 10' solicitors are in descending order and based on the number of claims received.

  2Claim receipts are those claims that are fully registered. These figures exclude claims registered partially on the website (yet to be fully registered within ICMS due to a submission error during input) and claims held within the holding policy (pool of claims accepted with minimum data, awaiting further information to permit cross referencing and duplicate checks prior to full registration).

  Departmental Annual Report
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether any of the grant-in-aid to countries of the former Soviet Union in respect of nuclear legacy programmes mentioned at paragraphs 16.18 to 16.21 of her Department's Annual Report, Cm 6216, has been(a) used and (b) earmarked for future use to help deal with the surplus military plutonium stockpile in Russia. [170983]

  Mr. Timms
  £70 million over 10 years is allocated to help deal with the disposition of surplus Russian military plutonium. The precise details of the disposition programme have not yet been agreed between Russia and the US and, as a result, none of the UK allocation has so far been spent. Consideration is therefore being given to the use of these funds to assist in closing down the three remaining plutonium-producing reactors in Russia.
  80W
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [171078]

  Ms Hewitt
  The cost incurred by the Department for design and artwork of the latest Departmental Report (April 2004) was approximately £9,036. This figure includes the costs incurred in placing an electronic version of the report on the Departmental website. Other costs of printing and publication were met directly by the publisher, The Stationery Office Limited (TSO), and did not fall to the Government. TSO recoups these costs; through sales and uses its commercial judgment as to the number of copies printed. The latest departmental report was only published on 28 April 2004 and 469 copies were sold at the cover price (£32) by TSO or through its accredited agents and other booksellers within the first week.

  The Department is in the process of circulating some 430 complimentary copies to Ministers, Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, Select Committee Members and staff, the Parliamentary Libraries, DTI officials and external Board Members (including in agencies and NDPBs), officials in other Government Departments and journalists.

  Departmental Procurement (Sea Bass)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her Department's policy to source all sea bass used in catering outlets for which her Department is responsible from hand-line fishermen rather than pair trawlers. [167544]

  Ms Hewitt
  DTI follows the guidance issued by Defra on this issue. Defra supports the sourcing of sea bass from sustainable fisheries and handlining as both are relatively low impact methods of fishing.

  Departmental Publications
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the newspapers, magazines and periodicals her Department(a) produces and (b) funds, stating (i) the title and subject matter, (ii) the cost to her Department in 2003–04, (iii) the number produced, (iv) the readership and (v) the cost per publication. [168861]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department does not hold this detailed information centrally. To provide this information could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  Disconnections (Utilities)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment she has made of the burden of proof in the warrants process for disconnection; and if she will make a statement; [170376]
  81W
  (2) when she next expects to meet the Chief Executive of Ofgem to discuss disconnections to residential customers. [170377]

  Mr. Timms
  The DTI has discussed, and will continue to discuss as appropriate, disconnections matters with Ofgem. With DTFs encouragement, Ofgem has been in discussion with gas and electricity suppliers about the arrangements governing disconnections, particularly for vulnerable customers. Ofgem has now issued an industry consultation paper that sets out proposed revisions to, and clarification of, those arrangements. The arrangements governing the warrants process are set out in the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954, as amended. If a supplier wishes to disconnect, it must give the customer two days' notice of its intention to visit the premises. It has the right of entry to disconnect, but, if the customer is not at home or refuses entry, it may only exercise this right after it has obtained a warrant from a court. The court may require evidence of the debt, and of the supplier's efforts to recover that debt. The customer should be advised when and where the supplier will apply for a warrant, and can defend the application.

  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the reduction in the planned growth budget for the Equal Opportunities Commission. [168064]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly set targets for all government departments to achieve spending efficiencies.

  My Department, like others. seeks to deliver its demanding objectives as efficiently as possible. I set similarly high standards for our Agencies and non-departmental public bodies, including the Equal Opportunities Commission. I have therefore asked the EOC to make a reduction in its budget for 2005–06 and 2006–07. I am confident that the EOC will meet the challenge of reducing its operational costs while continuing its excellent work of promoting gender equality in 21stcentury Britain.

  Fathers Direct Conference
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the date was of the press release issued by the Institute of Directors making reference to women of childbearing age referred to in her speech of 5 April at the Fathers Direct conference; and if she will make a statement. [1720278]

  Ms Hewitt
  The press release issued by the Institute of Directors (IoD), while Ruth Lea was Head of Policy Unit, around the time of the introduction of the new work and parent laws that I referred to was dated 3 April 2003. In summarising the views expressed by the IoD regarding the impact on women of childbearing age I82W
  also drew on other press releases issued which criticised the steps the Government have made to increase the provision of family-friendly policies. These were issued on 17 April 2001 and 4 March 2002.

  I used my speech to highlight the initial evidence on the impact of the flexible working legislation is showing that many parents and employers are taking advantage of flexible working to both their benefit. Since the law was introduced almost 800,000 parents of children under six have had their request for flexible working either fully or partly accepted and the proportion of requests being refused has reduced by almost a half.

  Fuel Cell Technologies
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the steps taken to engage UK industry in the development of fuel cell technologies; and if she will make a statement. [171280]

  Mr. Timms
  The Energy White Paper contained a number of commitments on fuel cells. These involved the development of institutional support for the emerging UK fuel cell industry. We have made good progress in taking these forward. Fuel Cells UK was established in May 2003 with pump-priming support from DTI. Fuel Cells UK played the leading role in developing a UK Fuel Cell Vision, which was launched at the Grove Fuel Cell Symposium in September 2003. Also launched at that event was the Fuel Cells Forum, an IT based knowledge transfer network, informing UK stakeholder of worldwide activity and allowing the opportunity to easily engage business, academia and the Regions.

  DTI has supported industrial fuel cell R&D under the DTI Advanced Fuel Programme since 1992. Funding for Collaborative Research and Development in Fuel Cells is now available as part of the Technology Programme, launched on 26 April. The DTI will continue to engage with industry to identify and address the technical and non-technical barriers to the deployment of fuel cell technologies in order to support UK Business.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support will be given to those UK companies involved in the development of fuel cell technologies. [171281]

  Mr. Timms
  The DTI has supported industrial R and D on fuel cells since 1992, under the DTI New and Renewable Energy Programme, with a value of approximately £2 million per year. DTI has recently reviewed and simplified its business support products. In future, fuel cell proposals may be eligible for funding under the DTI Collaborative Research and Development product, part of the DTI Technology Programme. A call for proposals (which includes fuel cells) is currently open. Details are available on the DTI website.

  Basic research in universities on both fuel cells and hydrogen is supported by the Engineering and Physical

  83W
  Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), most recently under its SUPERGEN initiative. The Carbon Trust is also able to support fuel cell and hydrogen projects, including taking strategic investments.

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

  Insurance
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on proposals under discussion in the European Council working group to abolish gender discrimination in insurance claims. [168897]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government has welcomed the development of European sex discrimination legislation through an Equal Treatment Directive. The Government strongly supports most of this Directive, but is aware of concerns about some aspects, including the effects of prohibiting the use of sex-based factors in insurance pricing. The UK will continue to negotiate constructively to achieve a final agreement that reflects UK priorities and concerns.

  International Development
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what further steps she proposes to promote international trade with developing countries; [169371]

  (2) what trade proposals she has to enable countries in Africa to increase levels of trade with the UK. [1693721]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The best opportunity for promoting trade with developing countries is a successful and ambitious result from the Doha Development Agenda in the World Trade Organisation. We are working closely with the European Commission, other member states and other governments to secure this. While the Doha Round remains our top priority, we are also working with the Commission on the revision of the EU's Generalised System of Preferences, which offers preferential access for developing countries to the now even larger European market, and totally tariff and quota free access for the Least Developed Countries, many of which are in sub-Saharan Africa. In addition, negotiations for Economic Partnership Agreements with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries are under way.

  The forthcoming Trade and Investment White Paper will consider, among other issues, the trade framework between the EU and developing countries. The UK is also supporting capacity building in developing countries in trade policy and negotiations to the tune of £165 million over three years, by supporting organisations such as the Centre for WTO Law and the
  84W
  South Centre. We hope that the Commission for Africa, announced by the Prime Minister on 26 February, will consider what more can be done to help specifically African countries reap the benefits of increased world trade.

  Large Combustion Plants Directive
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment the Government have made of the impact on the United Kingdom coal industry of introducing a national emissions reduction plan in order to implement the Large Combustion Plants Directive. [171238]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have commissioned independent research into the potential impact on United Kingdom coal production of the alternative routes to implement the Large Combustion Plants Directive. The results of this research will help to inform the choice of implementation route and will be published in due course.

  Liabilities Management Unit
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the members of her Department's liabilities management unit; what the qualifications of each are; and what the permanent place of employment of each secondee to the unit is. [170978]

  Mr. Timms
  The DTI organisational structure contains a Coal Liabilities Unit and a Nuclear Liabilities Management Unit.

  There are 39 staff in the Coal Liabilities Unit, 37 of whom are civil servants and two of whom are seconded from our claim handlers IRISC.

  There are 15 staff in the Nuclear Liabilties Management Unit, consisting of four civil servants and 11 secondees, from BNFL, UKAEA and RW Newchem.

  In addition, both Units have contracts with a number of consultants to provide additional support and advice.

  London Development Agency
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many London Development Agency board members have(a) current and (b) recent business experience. [1687101]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is as follows.

  (a) 11.

  (b) 11.

  Manned Space Travel
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government support is available for research into manned space travel. [170454]

  Ms Hewitt
  In December 2003 the Government published its Space Strategy, which targets investment at those projects that offer the best commercial opportunities, scientific knowledge and environmental information, rather than national prestige. As we do not believe that human spaceflight programmes fall within these targets, we are focusing on the robotic exploration
  85W
  of the solar system. For example we are currently examining the scientific and industrial benefits of participation in the European Space Agency's Aurora programme.

  Micro-satellites
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her assessment is of British industry's readiness to take advantage of the market for launching micro-satellites; and what action her Department is taking to improve that readiness. [170453]

  Ms Hewitt
  In December 2003 the Government published clear priorities in its support for the UK space industry, the particular strengths of which lie in the Earth observation, satellite navigation and satellite communications sectors, both in their supply-side and in their fast-growing downstream segments. While the Government are alert to the need to ensure access to space, including for our leading-edge micro-satellite industry, we believe that the current over-supply in the global commercial launches market makes intervention unnecessary.

  New Businesses (Oldham, West and Royton)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses have been established in Oldham West and Royton since 1997. [170936]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank's latest survey of business creation includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start-ups in England and Wales, including 400 in Oldham Local Authority (which contains the constituency of Oldham West and Royton), in the fourth quarter of 2003. The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before. There were 1,900 business start-ups in Oldham Local Authority in 2003. Data for Local Authorities are n 3t available for before 2003.

  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for Oldham Local Authority (which contains the constituency of Oldham West and Royton) are shown in the table for the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in autumn 2004.

  VAT Registrations: 1997–2002

  Oldham

  1997

  480

  1998

  470

  1999

  465

  2000

  480

  2001

  440

  2002

  510

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002, Small Business Service, available from: www.sbs.gov.uk/statistics/vatstats.php

  VAT registrations do not capture all start-up activity. Businesses are unlikely to be registered if they fall below the compulsory VAT threshold, which has risen in each year since 1997. Similarly, businesses that de-register
  86W
  will not necessarily have closed. Only 1.8 million out of 3.8 million enterprises were registered for VAT at the start of 2002.

  North Sea Energy Production
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the value of contracts for oil and gas production platforms in the North sea in areas for which the UK Government granted licences was awarded to UK-based firms in each of the last five years. [170410]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on UK companies winning contracts from UKCS oil and gas operators is compiled only for major fields, such as Millom (approved 1999), Leadon (2000), Clair (2001), Goldeneye (2002) and Buzzard (2003). The involvement in these projects by UK-based companies with the necessary capability ranged from around 60 per cent. to 75 per cent. by contract value over this period.

  Nuclear Security
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the main points were of the agreement reached with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the exchange of nuclear security information to which reference is made at paragraph 16.17 of her Department's Annual Report, Cm 6216. [170989]

  Mr. Timms
  The agreement between the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Trade and Industry facilitates the exchange of classified information regarding the safety and security of civil nuclear installations. Such agreements are vital in combating the threat of global terrorism.

  Omega Site (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact of the development of the Omega site in Warrington on(a) Warrington and (b) the regional economy. [171019]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not made an assessment of the impact of the development of the Omega site in Warrington. Omega South is one of the North West Development Agency's strategic regional sites. It has the potential to create some 12,000 jobs and it is essential that the development of this scale and significance is consistent with both national and regional planning policies.

  Pilot Joint Taskforce
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual cost to her Department of participation in the Pilot joint taskforce on the future of the UK oil and gas industry(a) has been and (b) is expected to be in the next five years; and how her Department measures value for money from participation in the Pilot taskforce. [170977]

  Mr. Timms
  provides the PILOT Secretariat, plus around £100K annually in direct support of industry initiatives and other related activity.
  87W
  DTI's financial commitment to PILOT is expected to remain the same for the next £5 years, subject to continual review and reflecting the situation in the UKCS (United Kingdom Continental Shelf).

  PILOT has set itself a number of challenging objectives that includes specific targets for production, investment and job creation. These objectives are transparent and measurable and DTI continually monitors progress.

  Post Office
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place in the Library details of the business case underpinning the Post Office's closure proposals for the Fylde constituency. [171800]

  Mr. Timms
  No. Under the public consultation process, Post Office Limited supplies extensive information to assist stakeholders and other interested parties in their consideration of post office closure proposals, but detailed financial information is, necessarily, commercially confidential.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will urge Post Office Limited to make more time for consultation available to(a) the public and (b) other interested bodies when post offices are being considered for closure. [172069]

  Mr. Timms
  No. The public consultation period for proposed closure of post offices under Post Office Limited's urban reinvention programme has already been extended from four to six weeks. In addition, Postwatch receives notification of proposals two weeks in advance, and Members of Parliament one week in advance, of the start of public consultation. Local authorities are invited to provide relevant information, in advance, on infrastructure and regeneration projects to assist Post Office Limited in preparing its proposals.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the performance of Royal Mail delivery services in Hendon constituency. [170192]

  Mr. Timms
  Delivery services are the operational concern of Royal Mail Group and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Premium Rate Telephone Numbers
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to reduce the incidence of companies providing misleading information regarding premium rate telephone numbers; and if she will make a statement. [169377]

  Mr. Timms
  The regulation of Premium Rate Services is a matter for the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information

  £

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Smart and Enterprise Grant

  485,754

  1,007,191

  332,605

  76,000

  51,000

  Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (following on from the Teaching Company Scheme)

  25,500

  20,000

  77,000

  76,000

  51,000

  88W
  Services (ICSTIS). Their Code of practice sets out the requirement for companies to provide clear pricing information and specifically prohibits the use of misleading pricing information.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations and discussions she has had regarding misleading information by companies charging premium rate costs for telephone services; and if she will make a statement. [169378]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no recent representations on this matter. Misleading information about such services is a matter for the Premium Rate Services regulator, the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS).

  Regeneration (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money her Department has spent on the South Hampshire Priority Area for Economic Regeneration in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04; and how much is budgeted to be spent in (i) 2004–05 and (ii) 2005–06. [165319]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 1 April 2004]: The DTI, alongside a number of other Government Departments, funds the South East of England Development Agency (SEEDA) to catalyse and carry out economic development and regeneration activities in the South East region. Funds are provided to SEEDA as a Single Budget and it is not possible to separate out DTI funded activity within the Agency's work. Activity by the Agency is however very relevant to the DTIs economic development objectives and is an important element of spend in the South Hampshire Priority Area for Economic Regeneration.

  SEEDA's priority areas are based on Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) 9. SEEDA has spent some £34 million in 2001–02, £32.6 million in 2002–03, and £20.4 million in 2003–04 in the South Hampshire Priority Area for Regeneration, which for RPG purposes includes Portsmouth, Southampton, Fareham, Gosport, Havant and Eastleigh.

  Known allocated spend in 2004–05 will be in the order of £10 million with further expenditure of around £9 million in 2005–06. The amount spent may, however, vary from this, for example, because of land and property spend in 2005–06 for which there is not a current estimate. Future expenditure will be determined through the Area Investment Framework process which the Agency has developed, which defines local priorities and brings together not just SEEDA funding but multiple mainstream funding streams.

  Besides this, investment made directly by the Department of Trade and Industry in the area is as follows.
  89W
  Phoenix Fund

  A sum of £839,000 has been allocated from the Phoenix Fund for two projects in the area within the period. This grant is not annualised but is drawn down as spent.

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee

  In addition the Small Firms Loan Guarantee (SFLG) guaranteed 38 loans in the year 2001–02 valued at £2.15 million, 37 loans in 2002–02 valued at £2.9 million and 66 loans in 2003–04 valued at £4 million. These figures do not equate to spend. Government expenditure only arises if there is a subsequent default and the guarantee is called upon. Figures for future years are not available as SFLG is demand led.

  Business Link Wessex

  Spend in South Hampshire by Business Link Wessex on providing business support to SMEs is approximately £1.3 million per year for the years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04. Expenditure in 2004–05 will be of the same order. The budget for 2005–06 is not yet firm.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list, for each of the nine regional development agencies in England,(a) the aggregate amount of forward funding commitments entered into by the Agency at 31 March and (b) the annual budget of the Agency for financial year 2004–05. [169491]

  Jacqui Smith
  The figures are set out in the following table; the information on commitments has been provided by the Regional Development Agencies.

  £million

  Budget for 2004–05

  Committed spend in relation to 2004–05

  Advantage West Midlands

  245

  245

  East of England Development Agency

  99

  65

  East Midlands Development Agency

  124

  47

  London Development Agency

  379

  260

  North West Development Agency

  358

  346

  ONE North East

  237

  224

  South East England Development Agency

  130

  96

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  130

  127

  Yorkshire Forward

  266

  245

  Regulations
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the regulations that have been(a) introduced and (b) removed by her Department in each year since 1990. [169165]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 28 April 2004]There have been 1713 regulations introduced by the Department in the period 1991 to 2003. A listing of these Statutory Instruments will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  There is no centrally held information about the regulations removed during the period. But a recent OECD Economic Survey of the United Kingdom
  90W
  noted that "economic and administrative regulations inhibiting competition and barriers to trade are amongst the lowest in the OECD".

  Renewables Obligation
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the implications for the renewables obligation of the liquidation of Atlantic Electric and Gas; and whether its renewables obligation liabilities have been acquired by another going concern. [171385]

  Mr. Timms
  My officials are discussing the implications for the renewables obligation of the liquidation of Atlantic Electric and Gas with Ofgem. At this stage it is too early to assess the impact on the renewables obligation.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will assess the effectiveness of the mechanism of the trading of renewable obligation certificates (ROCs), with specific reference to the liquidation of an energy company possessing ROCs. [171386]

  Mr. Timms
  In the event of the liquidation of an energy company possessing ROCs, the ROCs are one of the company's assets and can be sold by the liquidators, either to a company acquiring the business of the insolvent supplier or separately to another purchaser.

  Small Business Office, Brussels
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the planned(a) resource budget, (b) administration costs and (c) staff numbers are for 2004 of the Small Business Office in Brussels sponsored by her Department. [168449]

  Nigel Griffiths
  For the financial year 2004–05 the budget provided by the Small Business Service for the UK SME liaison office in Brussels (Smallbusinesseurope) is £127,500.

  Two full time staff are engaged in the office's work, and a university placement student is also employed for 10 months each year.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 28 April 2004,Official Report, columns 43–44WS on small business service, how much financial support her Department intends to provide for the Phoenix Fund Building scheme from April; and for what period. [171611]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The total budget for the Phoenix Fund is £50 million from April 2004–March 2006. From that, the following allocations have been made to those parts of the Fund referred to in the written ministerial statement of 28 April 2004,Official Report, columns 43–44WS:
  City Growth Strategies—£3.5 million
  Building on the Best element of the Phoenix Development Fund—£13.4 million
  Building on the Best element of the Challenge Fund for Community Development Finance 1nstitutions—£8.4 million.
  91W
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the devolution of Small Business Services. [169102]

  Nigel Griffiths
  As announced in the 2004 Budget statement the Government will devolve regional and local Business Link services to the RDAs, within a framework for setting national standards and services to be developed by the Small Business Service, the RDAs and other Government Departments funding business support. The Government intend to implement devolution from April 2005, and will publish more details on these new arrangements in the 2004 Spending Review.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to protect small businesses from late payments. [168905]

  Nigel Griffiths
  This Government has done more than any other to specifically address the problem of late payment. We introduced the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 which allows small businesses to claim interest and debt recovery costs on late paid invoices and also gives representative organisations the right to challenge unfair contract terms on behalf of SMEs.

  The Government helped to create the Better Payment Practice Group (BPPG) a cooperative forum of Industry associations and Government that seeks to improve the payment culture in the UK. The BPPG provides a range of information and advice to all businesses, its website www.payontime.co.uk includes a guide to using the legislation as well as other tools.

  A recent survey by the REL Consultancy Group looked at average days payable outstanding (DPO) and concluded that UK companies' payment performance is 33.6 days against 42.4 days for Europe as a whole, whilst countries such as Italy (67.9) and France (63.4) perform considerably less well.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government has taken to help small businesses in Oldham West and Royton since 1997. [1709351

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Business Link Operator for North Manchester has provided assistance to 887 businesses in the Oldham West and Royton constituency since 2001. The Small Business Service was set up as an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry in April 2000. Contracts were exchanged with a national network of 45 Businesses Link operators (seven in the North West) to provide Business Support to small and medium sized enterprises from April 2001. Before this date Government Support to businesses was provided through Training and Enterprise Councils and the SBS does not have access to this data.

  The 887 companies have received assistance on Business Finance, Environmental, E-Services, High Growth, International, Innovation Technology and Design, Micro Support, Supply Chain, and Workforce Development and other Account Management assistance.
  92W
  Eight companies have received offers of grant from the Research and Development Grant scheme with a total value of £195,000.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many new businesses have been established in Preston since 1997; [169672]

  (2) how many new businesses have started up in Preston since 1997. [169678]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays Bank's latest survey of business creation includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start-ups in England and Wales including 2,600 in Lancashire County (which contains the constituency of Preston), in the fourth quarter of 2003. The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before. There were 10,200 business start-ups in Lancashire County in 2003. Data for counties are not available for before 2003.

  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for Preston local authority and South Ribble local authority (parts of both include the constituency of Preston) are shown in the table for the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in Autumn 2004.

  VAT registrations: 1997–2002

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Preston

  465

  420

  410

  395

  365

  345

  South Ribble

  275

  300

  255

  280

  240

  250

  Source:

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

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

  Software Patents Directive
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's stance is on the proposed EU Software Patents Directive. [171107]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government continues to support the thrust of the proposal put forward by the European Commission for a Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions that clarifies the existing position and reduces uncertainty in this field. Recent discussions on this subject have taken place between my officials and officials of other Member States with a view to a discussion in the Competitiveness Council on 17 and 18 May 2004. My Department continues to work with interested parties and other Member States to achieve a Directive that offers benefits for both innovators and users of this technology in the UK and Europe.

  Steel Industry
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the(a) level and (b) effects on the UK steel industry of steel dumping in Europe; and if she will make a statement. [167847]

  Mr. Timms
  None. Complaints about dumping in the European Union relating to steel or any other product and its effects on the Community industry, including the UK, are assessed by the European Commission against the criteria laid down in the EC's Basic Anti-dumping Regulation. The European Commission determines whether dumping has occurred and the extent to which the industry has been injured. If it finds dumping and injured, it may recommend anti-dumping measures which usually take the form of additional duties. It is then up the Member States, including UK government officials, to support or oppose any Commission recommendation for anti-dumping measures.

  Sub-post Offices (Leicester)
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many(a) benefit, (b) postal order and (c) Girobank transactions were completed in each of the last five financial years by the sub-post offices at (i) 30 Went Road, Birstall, Leicester and (ii) 778 Melton Road, Thurmaston, Leicester; [170638]

  (2) what the cost to Post Office Ltd. was in each of the last five financial years of keeping open the sub-post offices at (a) 30 Went Road, Birstall, Leicester and (b) 778 Melton Road, Thurmaston, Leicester. [170639]

  Mr. Timms
  These are operational maters for Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Sustainable Energy
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to promote sustainable technologies to generate power supplies in future. [169370]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government's target for renewables is that, by 2010, 10 per cent. of our electricity sales will come from renewable sourced electricity. The target is challenging as we are starling from a low base.

  The Government's main policy mechanism for achieving the target is the Renewables Obligation (and Renewables Obligation Scotland) Introduced in April 2002, it places an obligation on all licensed electricity suppliers to supply a specified and growing proportion of their sales from electricity generated from a range of eligible renewable sources.

  Through the Renewables Obligation (RO), we are looking to accelerate the development of renewables in a wide range of sources and technologies. In order to encourage a more vigorous and diverse renewable energy sector, the Government has allocated a total of £350 million over four years for capital grants and research grants to promote forms renewable energy that are further from becoming commercially competitive. This includes among other things grants of £ 117 million for offshore wind, £66 million for energy crops and
  94W
  biomass, £25 million for solar photovoltaics (PV), £10 million for community schemes and £5 million for wave and tidal demonstration projects.

  The Government additionally has a target of achieving at least 10 gigawatts of good Quality combined heat power (CHP) capacity by 2010 and published its Strategy for CHP to 2010 on 26 April of this year confirming its continued aim towards that target. CHP is a highly fuel-efficient energy technology which (puts to use waste heat produced as a by-product of the electricity generation process and) can make a significant contribution to the UK's sustainable energy goals.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to make a statement on the first annual report on sustainable energy; and what form such a statement will take. [170279]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, wrote on 26 April to Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) informing them that the Government was publishing on that day the first annual report on the Energy White Paper, among other documents, and that copies of the report had been placed in the Libraries of the House. My right hon. Friend also made a written ministerial statement on 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 37WS, announcing that the annual report had been published and that copies had been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no plans to make a further statement.

  Tokamak Experimental Reactor
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress being made to build the International Tokamak Experimental Reactor. [170165]

  Ms Hewitt
  The international partners are trying to reach a compromise on the two proposed locations for ITER that will be acceptable to the whole ITER partnership. Extensive negotiations are also taking place between the candidate hosts Europe and Japan to see whether the issue can be resolved bilaterally.

  Unsolicited Faxes
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and industry what steps her Department is taking to protect consumers from unsolicited faxes. [171348]

  Mr. Timms
  Individual subscribers are offered protection from unsolicited direct marketing faxes under the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 and the sending of such faxes is prohibited unless individuals have given their prior consent.

  Corporate subscribers are protected from receiving unsolicited direct marketing faxes if they have previously notified the sender that they do wish to receive such faxes or have been registered for at least 28

  95W
  days with the Fax Preference Service (FPS), which is an "opt-out" scheme and is run on Ofcom's behalf by the Direct Marketing Association.

  Utilities (Disconnections)
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the benefits of expanding the moratoria on disconnections for vulnerable groups beyond the winter months; and if she will make a statement. [171315]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Last month, Ofgem issued an industry consultation paper that set out proposed revisions to, and clarification of, the arrangements for gas and electricity disconnections. This should ensure that vulnerable customers are not, in the future, disconnected. I very much welcome this development, which will benefit vulnerable customers throughout the year.

  West Lancashire
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses have started up in West Lancashire since 1997. [171725]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Barclays bank's latest survey of business creation includes non-VAT registered firms and shows that there were 115,000 business start-ups in England and Wales, including 2,600 in Lancashire county (which contains the constituency of West Lancashire), in the fourth quarter of 2003. The latest yearly figures show 465,000 business start-ups in England and Wales in 2003. This represents a 19 per cent. increase on the year before. There were 10,200 business start-ups in Lancashire county in 2003. Data for counties are not available for before 2003.

  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for West Lancashire local authority (which contains the constituency of West Lancashire) are shown as follows for the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in autumn 2004.

  VAT registrations: 1997–2002

  West Lancashire

  Number

  1997

  260

  1998

  245

  1999

  290

  2000

  265

  2001

  285

  2002

  265

  Source:

  Business Start-ups and Closures: VAT Registrations and De-registrations 1994–2002, Small Business Service, available from: www.sbs.gov.uk/statistics/vatstats.php

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

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of the(a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by his Office over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170806]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) today,Official Report, 10 May, c. 4W.

  Dr. Salim Abu Hunak
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he raised the case of Dr. Salim Abu Hunak, held in Abu Salim Prison in Tripoli, when he recently met Colonel Gadaffi; and what action the Government is taking to make progress towards the release of Dr. Hunak. [171645]

  The Prime Minister
  My discussions with Colonel Gadaffi on 25 March focused on international and regional security issues.

  We are aware of the case of Salem Abu Hanak and are monitoring developments.

  We remain concerned about Libya's human rights record and will continue to press Libya to implement its recent announcements to sign international agreements against torture and abolish the "People's Courts".

  Early Retirement
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister how many employees in his office took early retirement in the last financial year; and at what total cost. [171729]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  House of Lords
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the peers appointed since 1997 who are members of Northern Ireland political parties, broken down by party. [171741]

  The Prime Minister
  Since the beginning of 1997, five Ulster Unionist Party working peers have been appointed: Lord Molyeaux of Killead, Lord Rogan, Lord Laird, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass and Lord Kilclooney.

  House of Lords Appointments Commission
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times the House of Lords Appointments Commission has met since its formation. [172009]

  The Prime Minister
  The full House of Lords Appointments Commission has met 26 times since its formation.

  Menus
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he is consulted on the menus at functions where he is the host. [171779]
  97W
  The Prime Minister
  Catering at official functions held at No. 10 Downing Street is provided by a variety of approved caterers. Menus are created to suit the nature of the function and to take into account the dietary needs of guests.

WALES

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [171082]

  Mr. Touhig
  The 2004 Wales Office Annual Report cost £11,515. The minimum order of 250 copies were printed for the Wales Office, of which 112 copies were provided free of charge to: all Welsh MPs; all members of the Welsh Affairs Committee; all Assembly Members; the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Department for Constitutional Affairs; the Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Wales; and, the Permanent Secretaries of the National Assembly for Wales and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. A further four copies were laid in the House.

  The Stationary Office (ISO) also printed a further 600 copies for their own stores. As the report has only recently been published, TSO are unable to provide figures on purchases from their stores.

  Farming
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many farms in Wales, comprising what land areas and in what locations, have restrictions applied to them in respect of land use as a result of the residual radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. [169879]

  Mr. Touhig
  The figures show the number of farms in Wales, their location and area of land covered by restrictions on the movement of sheep, as a result of the residual radioactivity from the Chernobyl nuclear accident. There have been no restrictions on land use as a result of the Chernobyl accident.

  Restrictions in Wales at 30 April 20041

  Number of farms

  359

  Land area (hectares)

  53,000

  Location

  Snowdonia, North Wales

  1Statistics provided by the Food Standards Agency

  Mold Flood Alleviation Scheme
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales Government about providing exceptional costs to implement the Mold Flood Allevation Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [169774]
  98W
  Mr. Touhig
  I understand that the National Assembly has made £3.713 million available to the Environment Agency, this financial year, to support flood defence works within its approved programme. It is up to the Agency to determine priorities within its budget. The Agency is currently reviewing its capital programme, to see how it can maximise the funding available for the Mold scheme.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (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; [170762]

  (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. [170763]

  Mr. Touhig
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, during session 2002–03 the following parliamentary questions were tabled:290 (Ordinary Written Questions) of these 41 per cent. were answered within five sitting days.
  42 (Named Days) of these 61.9 per cent. were answered on the specified date.

  For 2003–04:
  91 (Ordinary Written Questions) of these 52.7 per cent. were answered within five sitting days.
  6 (Named Days) of these 100 per cent. were answered on the specified date.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Business Rate
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to take steps to enable business rate income to remain with local authorities; how much business rate was collected by the London Borough of(a) Waltham Forest and (b) Redbridge in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [171445]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The amounts of business rates collected in 2002–03, the most recent year for which figures are available, are:

  (a) London Borough of Waltham Forest: £35.412 million

  (b) London Borough of Redbridge: £38.511 million

  These figures are taken from the QRC4 return from each authority.

  The Office of Deputy Prime Minister is planning to introduce the Local Authority Business Growth Incentives scheme from April 2005. This scheme will allow retention of some business rates revenue by local authorities whose areas experience business rates

  99W
  growth above a predetermined threshold. We shall issue a consultation paper about the preferred scheme in the summer.

  The Balance of Funding Review, which I chair, has received evidence for and against the complete return of business rates to local authority control. The Review is due to report in the summer.

  Business Rates (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was collected in business rates in Chorley in each of the last three years. [172108]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The figures for National Non Domestic Rates (NNDR) collected in Chorley in each of the last three years are tabled as follows:

  £

  In year collection

  2001–02

  16,300,841

  2002–03

  16,824,868

  2003–04

  16,672,318

  The figures for 2003–04 have been calculated, but as yet not audited and certified by the Audit Commission.

  Amounts of council tax uncollected at the end of the financial year

  £ thousand

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Inner London

  City of London

  27

  40

  49

  37

  38

  41

  66

  Camden

  6,100

  6,082

  5,220

  4,700

  4,610

  4,389

  5,215

  Greenwich

  3,448

  3,410

  3,725

  4,324

  4,019

  4,331

  4,146

  Hackney

  5,997

  6,435

  8,371

  11,859

  13,085

  11,301

  9,652

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5,075

  5,084

  3,627

  3,425

  3,363

  3,156

  2,916

  Islington

  6,431

  4,509

  4,542

  4,269

  4,441

  3,869

  5,664

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,007

  2,123

  2,068

  2,085

  2,079

  2,550

  2,842

  Lambeth

  8,694

  8,729

  9,186

  7,377

  9,012

  7,864

  6,373

  Lewisham

  5,846

  3,817

  4,134

  3,849

  3,593

  3,834

  4,183

  Southwark

  6,259

  7,934

  9,126

  10,324

  7,168

  5,905

  5,141

  Tower Hamlets

  2,712

  3,016

  2,976

  3,244

  3,493

  3,397

  3,215

  Wandsworth

  4,937

  3,637

  2,730

  2,668

  2,478

  2,597

  2,175

  Westminster

  2,009

  2,145

  1,981

  2,471

  3,186

  3,027

  3,010

  Total inner London

  59,542

  56,961

  57,735

  60,632

  60,565

  56,261

  54,598

  Outer London

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,043

  1,134

  1,208

  1,466

  1,848

  1,840

  2,966

  Barnet

  3,798

  3,691

  3,944

  3,908

  4,019

  4,008

  4,223

  Bexley

  1,575

  2,486

  2,914

  2,803

  2,737

  2,866

  2,804

  Brent

  3,833

  4,069

  3,591

  4,664

  4,363

  5,314

  6,897

  Bromley

  1,724

  1,795

  2,181

  2,942

  3,037

  3,440

  3,829

  Croydon

  4,954

  5,096

  5,390

  6,961

  7,236

  5,592

  5,070

  Haling

  2,723

  2,765

  3,037

  3,737

  4,838

  4,738

  4,642

  Enfield

  4,204

  4,445

  3,775

  4,015

  3,878

  4,225

  4,597

  Haringey

  9,177

  8,314

  7,488

  7,915

  6,290

  5,867

  4,526

  Harrow

  1,502

  1,496

  1,674

  2,187

  1,151

  963

  2,091

  Havering

  1,466

  1,142

  1,757

  2,669

  2,344

  2,905

  3,258

  Hillingdon

  2,639

  2,491

  2,399

  3,098

  2,985

  2,641

  3,964

  Hounslow

  3,095

  3,683

  3,173

  3,541

  3,536

  4,064

  4,398

  Kingston upon Thames

  921

  2,118

  3,127

  2,727

  2,906

  2,166

  2,059

  Merton

  2,201

  1,932

  2,319

  2,396

  2,420

  2,697

  2,319

  Newham

  4,703

  4,881

  4,926

  5,342

  5,475

  5,298

  4,294

  Redbridge

  1,840

  1,763.

  1,937

  2,403

  2,748

  2,869

  3,073

  Committee of the Regions
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the representatives to the Committee of the Regions will come from the elected members to the proposed regional assemblies. [171782]

  Mr. Raynsford
  At present, in addition to nominations received from the Local Government Association, each English regional chamber and the Greater London Authority nominate one member and one alternate to be proposed by the Government as English members of the Committee of the Regions.

  As stated in the white Paper, Your Region, Your Choice: Revitalising the English Regions (Cm 5511—May 2002), the Government intends that in those regions where an elected regional assembly is established, the assembly will take the role for its region currently exercised by the regional chamber. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will consult on the detail of the nomination process in advance of nominations for the committee to be instituted in 2006.

  Council Tax (Greater London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the total of unpaid council tax in Greater London, broken down by borough, in each year since 1997. [170502]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Tabled are figures for the amounts of council tax payable for each financial year from 1996–97 to 2002–03 that had not been collected by the end of the year to which they related.
  101W

  Amounts of council tax uncollected at the end of the financial year

  £ thousand

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,564

  1,507

  2,187

  2,100

  2,134

  1,886

  2,040

  Sutton

  720

  1,039

  1,323

  1,303

  1,366

  1,553

  1,673

  Waltham Forest

  3,378

  3,738

  5,659

  6,066

  6,357

  5,313

  4,141

  Total Outer London

  57,060

  59,585

  64,009

  72,243

  71,668

  70,245

  72,864

  Total Greater London

  116,602

  116,546

  121,744

  132,875

  132,233

  126,506

  127,462

  1Amounts relate only to the financial year shown: arrears carried forward from earlier years are not therefore included.

  In addition, the total level of council tax arrears includes amounts uncollected from previous years. Reliable figures for these are not currently available for individual local authorities. It is estimated, however, that nationally, the level of arrears carried forward from previous years is currently equal to approximately twice the amount not collected in-year.

  Emergency Vehicles (Speed Cameras)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list(a) the official meetings he has had with the Mayor of London since July 2000 and (b) the dates and subject of each meeting. [170567]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has had no official meeting with the Mayor of London since July 2000.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the cost to fire and rescue authorities of dealing with the paperwork resulting from fire engines on emergency calls captured on speed cameras contravening speed limits. [170734]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) on how many occasions in each of the last 12 months fire authority vehicles on emergency calls have been captured on speed cameras contravening speed limits in each fire and rescue authority; [170735]

  (2) how many administrators were involved, and at what annual cost, in each fire and rescue authority to deal with paperwork resulting from emergency vehicles captured on speed cameras contravening speed limits. [170732]

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

  Fire Authority Precepts
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many complaints he received about the precepts of combined fire authorities for 2004–05 between 10 February and 28 April; [171404]

  (2) how many complaints hi' received about the Hereford and Worcester Combined Fire Authority's precept for 2004–05 between 10 February and 28 April. [171405]
  102W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Over the last three months the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received a large volume of correspondence about council tax, some covering specific local authorities and others about the council tax system in general. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Football Stadium, Falmer
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 348W, on the football stadium, Falmer, if he will define the nature of representations received following the closure of the inquiry into the proposal for a football stadium at Falmer, East Sussex, which he deems to be relevant in his consideration of the report from his planning inspector. [171513]

  Keith Hill
  The Inspector's report into the applications made by Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club Ltd. for a new stadium at Falmer is currently before the First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for decision, which will be made on the basis of all the available evidence. Representations received after the close of the public inquiry will be taken into account, so far as they are relevant, in making that decision. For reasons of procedural propriety, it is not possible to discuss the nature of the post-inquiry representations received. However, it will be clear from the decision letter what matters have been taken into account and the weight that has been accorded to any particular matter.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is currently engaged in a reference back exercise where he is inviting comments from the relevant parties about issues arising since the close of inquiry. Representations made in relation to this exercise will be copied to those parties. Given the hon. Member's interest in the case, copies of the reference back correspondence will be sent to the hon. Member.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will take into account all comments received in making his decision.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister on what date he received the report from his planning inspector into the proposal for a football stadium at Falmer, East Sussex; and for what reasons he has not yet announced his decision. [171540]
  103W
  Keith Hill
  The Inspector's report into the applications by Brighton and Hove Albion Football Club Ltd. was received by the First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 11 December 2003.

  A decision has yet to be made because my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is currently engaged in a reference back exercise in relation to this case, which was initiated on 19 March 2004. Comments from the relevant parties about issues arising since the close of inquiry have been invited, specifically representations received about the draft Brighton and Hove Local Plan. It is my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's view that this exercise will enable him to take a more fully informed decision. It should not be read as an indication of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's attitude to the proposals generally one way or the other.

  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will take into account all comments received in making a decision on the application. Given the hon. Member's interest in the case, copies of the reference back correspondence will be sent to the hon. Member.

  Green Belt
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what acreage of land identified as green belt in 1997 has been subsequently declassified, broken down by county; and what acreage classified as non-green belt in 1997 has since been classified as green belt, broken down by county. [171539]

  Keith Hill
  The hectares of land classified as non-Green Belt in 1997 but classified as Green Belt in 2003 and land declassified as Green Belt between 1997 and 2003 are tabled as followed.

  Changes to the extent of Green Belt in England: 1997–2003 hectares

  New classified Green Beltland

  Declassified Green Beltland

  Berkshire

  10

  0

  Cheshire

  1,080

  0

  Derbyshire

  0

  60

  Dorset

  160

  0

  Durham

  280

  0

  Essex

  160

  0

  Hertfordshire

  20

  30

  Kent

  0

  20

  Lancashire

  3,850

  270

  London

  0

  20

  Merseyside

  0

  160

  North Yorkshire

  760

  60

  Northumberland

  12,810

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  190

  Somerset

  120

  0

  South Yorkshire

  670

  0

  Staffordshire

  130

  0

  Surrey

  110

  50

  Tyne and Wear

  0

  110

  West Midlands

  200

  0

  West Yorkshire

  0

  340

  Total

  20,360

  1,310

  Housing
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the effect of the Starter Homes Initiative on the residents of Oldham, West and Royton. [170878]

  Keith Hill
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer given on 29 April 2004,Official Report, column 1228W.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his assessment of how the change in the level of council funding for housing has affected the residents of West Lancashire since 1997. [171546]

  Keith Hill
  Since 1997 allocations of capital funding to local authorities for housing purposes have risen consistently by about 15 per cent. per annum on average. This includes the Major Repairs Allowance we introduced in 2001–02 specifically for the improvement of local authority stock alongside the Decent Homes standard which sets out minimum standards to be met by 2010. West Lancashire's allocations in the period 1997 to 2003–04 have risen by over 300 per cent. In addition to this welcome increase there has been support through the Community Housing Task Force and Government Office for the North West that has helped the local authority and its tenants to choose the best strategy for long term improvement.

  16 local authorities in the North West have transferred all their stock, and five local authorities have transferred part of their stock. This has unlocked £1,739 million in private finance, of which £553 million has gone to local authorities in capital receipts, with the remaining £1,186 million going directly into renovating and maintaining the transferred properties. Four local authorities have schemes on the programme that have not yet transferred, three of which have had positive ballot results. Ellesmere Port and Neston, Halton, Hyndburn, Macclesfield and West Lancashire have been granted places on the 2004 programme.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he plans to announce the decision on the 2004 housing stock transfer programme. [171266]

  Keith Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 May 2004,Official Report, column 8OWS.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much money from Government(a) grants and (b) contracts, Ordnance Survey has used to support its commercial aerial activities. [153755]

  Yvette Cooper
  None.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reason Ordnance Survey rejected Getmapping's bid for the Millennium Map to be adopted as the Imagery Layer in Digital National Framework in November 2001. [153757]

  Yvette Cooper
  Ordnance Survey takes third party data into its databases only after full and careful consideration of content, quality, price and management of intellectual property rights associated with the data
  105W
  being evaluated. The OJEU process is always used for this purpose when there are alternative sources. To ensure value for money, the costs. benefits and quality of Ordnance Survey's own in-house capability is taken into consideration in these evaluations.

  The reasons for rejecting particular third party data are confidential between Ordnance Survey and the third party.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many sales Ordnance Survey made of the Millennium Map during the period of its contract as a re-seller of the map. [153759]

  Yvette Cooper
  Ordnance Survey gave notice to terminate its contract with Getmapping for distribution of Getmapping products in April 2002.

  Statistics of commercial sales of partners' products by Ordnance Survey are confidential between Ordnance Survey and its partners.

  Planning
  John Mann
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the key performance indicators for local authorities are for the delegation of planning decisions to officers. [171432]

  Keith Hill
  The Local Government Association and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have jointly published revised guidance on schemes of delegation. The document is called "Delivering Delegation" and apart from re-affirming policy on delegation, the document also details the types of decisions that can be delegated and provides best practice models of delegation schemes. This is agreed to be a more effective way of ensuring appropriate levels of delegation than measurement through a formal performance indicator.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the current and projected elements of the Your Say campaign; and what the total estimated cost is of each. [169259]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 366W.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what security the proposed regional assemblies would have to give in order to borrow cash. [171498]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects the provisions on security for money borrowed by elected regional assemblies to be similar to those for local authorities following the Local Government Act 2003.

  Swarcliffe Pathfinder Scheme
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects final approval to be given for the Pathfinder Scheme for Swarcliffe to proceed. [171758]

  Keith Hill
  Final approval for the Swarcliffe scheme to proceed will be issued following the submission and approval of the Scheme's Final Business Case.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Castlereagh College
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action has been taken to ensure Castlereagh College is able to offer assistance and training to people who face redundancy in the Castlereagh/East Belfast and Strangford areas; and if he will make a statement. [171028]

  Mr. Spellar
  As part of its role in supporting local economic development, Castlereagh College is well placed to offer assistance and training to people facing redundancy in the Castlereagh, East Belfast and Strangford areas. Of particular relevance is the College's new service, "Conexus" which links the College's vocational, employability and business programmes. The range of services offered by Conexus includes:individual career advice and guidance;
  individual guidance on learning and retraining opportunities;
  identification of learning needs and the development and delivery of tailored solutions;
  a range of programmes to enhance employability and provide qualifications linked to industry's needs; and
  extensive links with other economic agencies and local employers.

  Cigarettes
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when he expects to reply to the questions, reference(a) 159955 and (b) 159956, tabled by the hon. Member for East Antrim on 8 March 2004; [172047]

  (2) how many container loads of cigarettes have been reported stolen in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months for which records are available; [159956]

  (3) what the (a) total number of cigarettes and (b) total amount of tobacco seized by Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland was in the last 12 months for which records are available. [159955]

  Mr. Pearson
  I am sorry for the delay in replying.

  Regarding the number of container loads of cigarettes stolen in Northern Ireland (question reference 159956), a substantial search of records is required to collate the information requested. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with this information once it is available. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library.

  The total quantity of cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco seized by Customs in 2002–03 (question reference 159955) is set out in the Annual Report of the Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise published in December 2003, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library. The location of a seizure is by no means an indication of the location of the illicit market for which they are bound. Specifically in Northern Ireland in 2002–03 Customs seized 31.5 million cigarettes and 731 kilos of hand rolling tobacco.

  Disabled People (Education)
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision is being made to assist disabled people in undertaking courses at each of Northern Ireland's universities. [171004]
  107W
  Mr. Gardiner
  The Department for Employment and Learning has in place a number of specific actions designed to promote access to Higher Education by students with disabilities. These include a funding premium, special project funding and capital funding. The universities might, for example, use this funding to provide specialist equipment or specific support for students with a disability.

  The Department also provides the universities with special project funding under the "Improving Provision for Disabled Students" initiative. Queen's University Belfast (QUB) has received special project funding to support a Disability Services Co-ordinator, and to support a project entitled "To Enhance Employment opportunities for Students with Disabilities". The University of Ulster (UU) has received special project funding to establish, in partnership with QUB Institute, a register of freelance professional and non-professional support workers, including dyslexia support workers, readers and notetakers, to assist students with disabilities.

  QUB and UU have received Disability Capital Funding from the Department, which is aimed at assisting the universities in funding essential capital works to provide, for example, ramps, lift adaptations, disabled toilets, carparking for the disabled, alarm system adaptations for the deaf and visually impaired and automatic doors.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in place to encourage energy efficiency in Northern Ireland. [168191]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Statutory responsibility for energy efficiency in Northern Ireland is shared between a number of Government Departments and Agencies which have committed approximately £16 million in programmes sponsored during 2003. In addition the private sector is also playing an active role.

  The Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment is responsible for overall energy policy, including the development of a strategic and co-ordinated approach to energy efficiency. In addition, Invest NI promotes energy efficiency in the industrial and commercial sectors and provides a programme of support to businesses. During January 2004 Invest NI ran the Northern Ireland Energy Show attended by almost 1,000 delegates. A programme of 10 master classes, facilitated by industry experts, supported the exhibition.

  The Department for Social Development has lead responsibility for energy efficiency in the domestic housing sector, working closely with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Details of the housing measures are contained in the Home Energy Conservation Report which is published annually and copied to all Northern Ireland MPs and MLAs. A copy is available in the Library.

  Northern Ireland Electricity manages the Customer Energy Efficiency Levy programme, with an annual fund of approximately £3.8 million, 80 per cent. of which is used for 'whole house' solutions in homes that are likely to be at risk from fuel poverty.
  108W
  The Energy Savings Trust funds two Energy Efficiency Advice Centres which provide free and impartial energy advice to domestic consumers.

  The Carbon Trust, with funding support from Invest NI, manages the "Action Energy" programme, including promotional events, advice on energy efficiency best practice, and interest free loans for energy efficiency projects to small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Over the past three years, through over 800 energy audits with North Ireland businesses, the Action Energy programme has identified energy savings in excess of £30 million.

  The Department of Finance and Personnel operates a programme of energy efficiency measures in the public sector that includes the:
  Benchmarking of each building occupied by a public body for its energy performance and emissions of carbon dioxide;
  Provision of additional funding to enable public bodies to implement energy saving improvements to buildings which cannot be funded from normal budget allocations;
  Provision of training courses in energy awareness and management for relevant staff throughout all Government Departments; and
  Purchase of electricity generated from renewable sources (green electricity) where this represents value for money.

  Football
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy not to draw from the £8 million Soccer Strategy budget the money required to bring the Windsor Park stadium up to the required standard to permit the World Cup qualifying matches against England and Wales to be held at the stadium. [170202]

  Angela Smith
  To date, no element of the £8 million Soccer Strategy budget has been earmarked for Windsor Park. However, an indicative sum of £3 million has been earmarked from Soccer Strategy monies for playing facilities generally. Bringing Windsor Park up to the required standard for the World Cup qualifiers against England and Wales could be considered as part of the playing facilities component of the Strategy but I would emphasise that responsibility for resolving any deficiencies at Windsor Park, and identifying appropriate sources of funding for that purpose, rests with the IFA and the owners of the venue.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been allocated to bring Windsor Park stadium up to the required standard to permit the World Cup qualifying matches against England and Wales to be held at the stadium. [170203]

  Angela Smith
  Responsibility for bringing Windsor Park stadium up to the required standard to permit the World Cup qualifiers against England and Wales to be held at the stadium tests with the governing body of Football in Northern Ireland, the Irish Football Association (IFA), and the owners of Windsor Park, Linfield FC. As no request for Government funding has been received either from the IFA or Linfield FC for this purpose, no Government money has been allocated.
  109W
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the nature is of the relationship between Windsor Park and the Northern Ireland international football team in relation to the staging of international fixtures. [1702051

  Angela Smith
  Responsibility for staging international football matches rests with the Irish Football Association (IFA). Under an agreement, between Linfield Football Club and the IFA the home internationals are staged at Windsor Park.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what Government assistance has been provided for the Irish Football Association's youth development programme through its School of Excellence. [170244]

  Angela Smith
  Government has provided via the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, a £1.6 million funding package for the Irish Football Association's (IFA) Youth Development Programme over a three-year period. This funding package is directed to the IFA's Football Development Centres rather than a School of Excellence. So far 25 youth Football Development Centres, have been established across Northern Ireland with a total spend of £1.2 million to date.

  Independent Monitoring Commission
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what sanctions are available to the Government regarding the Independent Monitoring Commission Report and its conclusions in respect of Sinn Fein. [170455]

  Mr. Spellar
  Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as amended by the Northern Ireland (Monitoring Commission etc.) Act 2003 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2004 (S.I. 2004/1164), my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, may take steps to reduce financial assistance to Assembly parties or the pay of Members of the Assembly for a period of up to 12 months if(a) the Monitoring Commission has made a report containing a recommendation about steps which are steps that the Assembly might consider taking were section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 not in force; and (b) the taking of those steps would have required the passing of an Assembly resolution in relation to a political party.

  The Secretary of State must also be satisfied either that the party in question is not committed to nonviolence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means; or that the party is not committed to such of its Members as might become Ministers or junior Ministers observing the other terms of the pledge of office.

  La Mon Bombing
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland purs uant to the answer of 30 March 2004,Official Report, column 1332W, whether search and log records
  110W
  for the night of 17 February 1978 have been retained in a location other than within the investigations file and HM Coroner's reports relating to the La Mon bombing. [165692]

  Mr. Pearson
  Further to the answer that my right hon. Friend (Jane Kennedy) gave the hon. Gentleman on 30 March 2004,Official Report, column 1332W, I am advised that further inquiries have been carried out as a result of the hon. Gentleman's Question by the District Commander of Castlereagh into the retention of any search records and logs for the La Mon bombing in 1978. The inquiries were carried out in Castlereagh District Command Unit, Ards District Command Unit and in other DCUs where persons were arrested in connection with the incident, however no search records or logs have come to light.

  I understand that force policy in respect of search records was first issued in 1983.

  Lyric Theatre (Belfast)
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the amount of Lottery Art Fund money being made available for the re-development of the Lyric Theatre in Belfast. [168471]

  Angela Smith
  Since 1996 the Arts Council Lottery Fund has made awards totalling £95,000 towards proposals for the re-development of the Lyric Theatre. The Council also awarded £2 million in-principle in December 2003 towards the costs, estimated at £117 million, of rebuilding the Theatre on its current site. With an annual income of approximately £7 million (dependent on ticket sales) the Arts Council is not in a position to make large capital awards.

  Decisions on individual arts lottery awards are a matter for the Arts Council and are made independently of Government, although I welcome the awards made.

  The current condition of the Lyric Theatre is one of a number of identified weaknesses in Belfast's arts infrastructure. My Department is working with the Arts Council to develop an investment strategy for addressing these deficiencies, building on the lottery funding already committed by the Arts Council.

  National Stadium
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on(a) the progress with the search for a site for the proposed National Stadium for Northern Ireland and (b) the proposed timescale of the project. [170242]

  Angela Smith
  Recently, I invited the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) to undertake a robust business planning exercise to consider whether a multi-sports stadium to accommodate Soccer, Rugby and Gaelic Games is a long-term. commercially viable proposition in revenue terms. The issue of location is not being addressed at this stage but may be considered if the viability of a multi-sports stadium is established.

  Planning Policy
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in reviewing the remit and powers of the Planning Appeals Commission; and if he will make a statement. [169921]

  Angela Smith
  The Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) was subject to a quinquennial review during 2002 and the report of that review is available on the OFMDFM website (http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/pac/pacreport/index.htm).

  The purpose of the quinquennial review was to consider three main issues: the need for the functions performed by the PAC, organisational options for delivery of these functions and the performance of the PAC in meeting the needs identified.

  There are no plans at present to conduct a further review.

  Police Service
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Police Service of Northern Ireland will be adopting the colour vision requirements arising from his Department's review of the medical assessment process for police recruits. [170204]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Home Office undertook a review of police recruitment medical standards. Part of this work entailed a review of the eyesight standards relating to both visual acuity and colour vision. The work was completed last year and the recommendations introduced in England and Wales.

  When the new standard was introduced PSNI considered the findings. An area of concern centred on the fact that the new standards took no cognisance of handling firearms safely since this is not a requirement for officers in England and Wales.

  It was therefore decided not to adopt the new standard until the particular circumstances pertaining to PSNI were reviewed. A research project has been established to ascertain the justifiable requirements for visual standards for recruits to PSNI.

  PSNI are presently awaiting the findings of this research, which will be considered in association with the standards in England and Wales.

  Policing Board
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many meetings of(a) the Northern Ireland Policing Board, (b) its sub-committees and (c) other events related to their membership each member of the board (i) was entitled to attend and (ii) actually attended. [170406]

  Mr. Pearson
  The information requested in respect of meetings of the Northern Ireland Policing Board is detailed in the following table.

  In respect of the information relating to attendance at sub committees and other events I would invite my hon. Friend to write directly to the Chairman of the Policing Board for Northern Ireland at the following address.
  112W

  Professor Desmond Rea,

  Chairman

  Policing Board for Northern Ireland,

  Waterside Tower,

  31 Clarendon Road,

  Clarendon Dock.

  Belfast

  BTI 3BG.

  Attendance at Northern Ireland Policing Board meetings held during the period 4 November 2001 to 30 April 2004

  Member

  Number of meetings attended (possible)

  Mr. Alex Attwood

  28 (29)

  Mr. Denis Bradley (Vice Chairman)

  28 (29)

  Viscount Brookeborough

  25 (29)

  Mr. Joe Byrne

  27 (29)

  Mr. Fred Cobain

  28 (29)

  Mr. Ivan Davis

  5(5)

  Mr. Brian Dougherty

  27 (29)

  Mr. Sam Foster

  23 (24)

  Mr. Barry Gilligan

  28 (29)

  Mr. Willie Hay

  26 (29)

  Mr. Tom Kelly

  21 (29)

  Lord Kilclooney

  18(29)

  Mr. James Leslie

  5(5)

  Mrs. Pauline McCabe

  28 (29)

  Mr. Alan McFarland

  24 (24)

  Mr. Eddie McGrady

  22 (29)

  Mrs. Rosaleen Moore

  25 (29)

  Mr. Ian Paisley Jnr.

  29 (29)

  Prof Desmond Rea (Chairman)

  29 (29)

  Mr. Suniel Sharma

  21 (29)

  Mr. Sammy Wilson

  29 (29)

  Notes:

  1. The total number of board meetings that it would have been possible for each member to attend is shown in brackets.

  2. Mr. Ivan Davis and Mr. James Leslie left the board on 19 February 2002 and were replaced by Mr. Sam Foster and Mr. Alan McFarland on 20 February 2002.

  School Transport
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will amend the relevant legislation to reduce the number of pupils Translink is entitled to carry on each school bus journey. [171002]

  Angela Smith
  Home-to-school bus transport was the subject of an extensive inquiry instigated by the Northern Ireland Assembly's Environment Committee. The Department of the Environment is at present engaged in the initial stages or preparing a Regulatory Impact Assessment of the Committee's main recommendations, including those aimed at reducing the number of children permitted to travel on each bus. The way forward will be considered in the light of findings arising from this exercise.

  Tourist Board
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much capital grant has been paid by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board in each parliamentary constituency during the last five years. [170436]

  Mr. Pearson
  The total capital grant paid by the NITB in each parliamentary constituency during the last five years is as follows.
  113W

  Financial assistance paid to all tourism projects by constituency

  £

  Constituency

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Total

  Across all constituencies and Cross border

  5,295

  76,143

  54,740

  34,842

  500

  171,520

  Belfast, East

  38,300

  2,200

  2,000

  10,500

  26,000

  79,000

  Belfast, North

  213,256

  232,515

  15,529

  5,000

  2,000

  468,300

  Belfast, South

  555,579

  1,335,651

  1,941,769

  16,686

  13,801

  3,863,486

  Belfast, West

  3,461

  20,000

  741,500

  20,000

  0

  784,961

  East Antrim

  4595

  74,613

  1,004,280

  132,330

  700

  1,252,518

  East Londonderry

  58,975

  680,564

  424,041

  394,880

  30,114

  1,588,574

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  490,529

  513,891

  1,529,299

  216,671

  3,000

  2,753,390

  Foyle

  394,825

  671,388

  516,529

  2,606,564

  26,189

  4,215,495

  Lagan Valley

  5,600

  73,716

  23,837

  27,788

  3,800

  134,741

  Mid Ulster

  44,738

  37,786

  230,574

  119,655

  30,825

  463,578

  Newry and Armagh

  160,642

  387,311

  1,442,727

  1,749,394

  46,693

  3,786,767

  North Antrim

  386,518

  952,746

  1,060,944

  119,013

  10,573

  2,529,794

  North Down

  52,106

  43,939

  12,527

  10,700

  26,000

  145,272

  South Antrim

  1,290,105

  52,856

  93,735

  98,842

  2,000

  1,537,538

  South Down

  1,165,554

  2,335,992

  821,966

  286,707

  15,555

  4,625,774

  Strangford

  356,175

  69,390

  248,675

  5,000

  65,911

  745,151

  Upper Bann

  70,185

  2,059

  46,136

  13,806

  500

  132,686

  West Tyrone

  149,069

  356,287

  235,418

  4,369

  0

  745,143

  Totals

  5,481,507

  7,919,047

  10,446,226

  5,872,747

  304,161

  30,023,688

  Triple Test (Pregnant Women)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidelines have been issued to each of the Northern Ireland health boards regarding the triple test for pregnant women. [171797]

  Angela Smith
  I refer the hon Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 25 March 2004,Official Report, column 954W.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when he expects the appeal lodged with the social security commissioners by John Sheridan of Birkenhead to be heard. [171444]

  Mr. Lammy
  Mr. Sheridan's application to set aside the previous Commissioners' ruling of 6 January 2004, which deemed the application for Leave to Appeal to be Out of Time, is currently before a Social Security Commissioner for consideration of the grounds. A notice will be issued to all parties in the coming weeks.

  19th Century Census
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs in which year MyFamily.com. Inc. is likely to make the census for(a) 1861, (b) 1871, (c) 1881 and (d) 1891 available on the internet. [171705]

  Mr. Leslie
  The census returns 1861–1891 for England and Wales are included in the non-exclusive licence granted by the National Archives to MyFamily.com. The timing of the public release or the material covered by non-exclusive licences is entirely a matter for the company concerned.

  MyFamily.com has announced on its website that the 1891 Census returns for England and Wales are now available online. The 1871 Census returns are also in the
  114W
  early stages of release on their website. There is currently no information on its website relating to the release of the 1861 or 1881 Census returns.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs when the nonexclusive licence was granted to MyFamily.com Inc. to digitise the decennial population census return from 1841 to 1901; and at what rate a royalty charge is made for the licence. [171706]

  Mr. Leslie
  MyFamily.com was granted a non-exclusive licence agreement with the National Archives to digitise and distribute images of the enumerators' census returns for England and Wales 1841–1891 in June 2002, with a subsequent amendment in September 2002 to include the 1901 Census returns.

  In line with HMSO guidelines, the royalty rate for such a non-exclusive licence is a flat 7 per cent. of net revenues.

  Crown Courts
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what guidance is given to Crown courts regarding the provision of facilities for the press; and if he will make a statement. [171573]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Court Standards and Design Guide sets out the accommodation requirements for courts and includes provision for a press assembly room at all Crown court centres for use by members of the press attending court. The number of courtrooms in the building determines the size of the room. Dedicated seating for members of the press is also provided within each courtroom. Additional facilities can be made available for the press where there is a specific need, such as when a court is hearing a case attracting high public interest.

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs
  115W
  what percentage of the (a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by his Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170794]

  Mr. Leslie
  The vast majority of my Department's catering requirements are provided by contracts which include the provision of crockery, cutlery and glassware. When my Department procures these products directly it is done locally, on an ad hoc basis. Detailed information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  European Constitution Referendum
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what his policy is on the apportionment of public funds to the(a) No and (b) Yes campaigns on the European Constitution Referendum. [170985]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 makes the Electoral Commission responsible for distributing public funds to the designated organisations that will serve as the No and Yes campaigns in any referendum. The legislation provides for grants from the Electoral Commission of up to £600,000 to be distributed to each designated organisation.

  Each designated organisation is allowed to send one referendum address free of charge; to use, on application, public rooms such as schools and libraries free of charge for holding public meetings in the 28 days ending with the day before the date of the poll; and is entitled to referendum campaign broadcasts, the length and frequency of which will be determined by the licensing body having regard to any views expressed by the Electoral Commission.

  Fine Collection
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the collection of fines imposed by magistrates' courts in(a) Chorley, (b) Leyland, (c) Preston, (d) Blackburn and (e) West Lancashire. [172067]

  Mr. Leslie
  Data on the collection of fines is collected at Magistrates' Court Committee (MCC) level. I am therefore only able to provide data for Lancashire MCC as a whole. There has been a steady improvement in the

  £

  Name of Initiative

  Funding 2001

  Funding 2002

  Funding 2003

  Establishment of a mental Incapacity Consultative Forum involving a wide range of stakeholders including organisations representing older people.

  —

  5,000

  5,000

  Review and improvement of the procedures for creating Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPAs) to better enable people to plan for the future by delegating decision making about financial affairs to relatives, friends or professionals in the event of loss of mental capacity.

  —

  No funding involved as the professionals involved in the working group did so on a voluntary basis.

  No funding involved as the professionals involved in the working group did so on a voluntary basis.

  Research project—The role of the Public Guardianship Office in safeguarding vulnerable adults against financial abuse (Funded by the Public Guardianship Office)

  —

  —

  60,000

  Publication of the Draft Mental Incapacity Bill

  —

  —

  Ongoing

  Making Decisions Booklet—Planning for future incapacity

  —

  —

  10,000 approx.

  116W
  fine collection performance of Lancashire MCC over the last year. The payment rate stood at 90 per cent. in the last quarter of the 2003–04 financial year, against the national payment rate of 76 per cent. for the same period.

  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the collection of fines imposed by magistrates' courts in Stockton South. [171463]

  Mr. Leslie
  Data or the collection of fines is collected at Magistrates' Court Committee (MCC) level. I am therefore only able to provide data for Cleveland MCC as a whole. There has been a steady improvement in the fine collection performance of the Cleveland MCC over the last year. The 2003–04 payment rate stands at 91 per cent. at the end of March 2004 against the national payment rate of 76 per cent. in the last quarter of the 2003–04 financial year.

  Older People
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs for what(a) initiatives, (b) campaigns and (c) advisory bodies relating to older people his Department and its predecessor (i) is responsible and (ii) has provided funding since 2001; and what the cost in each year was for each one. [166241]

  Mr. Lammy
  For the last two years, my Department has been a member of the Employers Forum on Age and paid a subscription of £2,115 in 2002 and again in 2003.

  My Department is also responsible for policy on mental incapacity, which affects a significant number of older people, and plans to introduce legislation better to protect those affected by incapacity.

  From 1 April, the Public Guardianship Office, whose role is to protect the finances of people with mental incapacity has embarked on a project to raise awareness of its services. Activities are being piloted in Dorset and will include things such as having leaflets in doctors' surgeries, as well as being available to district and practice nurses. In formation will also be given to Pension Service staff running pension clinics/surgeries, as well as to relevant local authority staff

  Details of other relevant initiatives are provided in the table below:

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Brazil
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the UK Government has made to the Government of Brazil over its stance on international inspection access to its uranium enrichment facilities. [170864]

  Mr. MacShane
  As with all other states that have not done so, we regularly urge Brazil to sign and ratify the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which covers access to facilities by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors.

  Discussions between the Government of Brazil and the IAEA concerning access are continuing, and we look forward to a satisfactory outcome in due course.

  Colombia
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the plans of President Uribe in Colombia to pass a constitutional amendment in order to allow him to run for a second term; and if he will make a statement. [170239]

  Mr. Rammell
  Through our Embassy in Bogota we are monitoring the on-going debate within Colombia on the question of allowing a serving or former President to stand for re-election. Clearly such a step must be agreed through the proper constitutional channels. This is an internal matter for the people of Colombia and their elected representatives to decide. and one that would involve a lengthy legislative process including approval from the country's Constitutional Court. In any event, we will continue to work with the democratically elected Government of Colombia on issues of mutual interest.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Colombian Government concerning the protection of human rights defenders in that country; and if he will make a statement. [170241]

  Mr. Rammell
  We make frequent representations to the Government of Colombia on human rights matters, including the important issue of the safety of human rights defenders. Human rights are at the heart of our policy towards Colombia. Our Embassy in Bogota last discussed these issues with the Colombian Government on 21 April. The need to respect human rights defenders and the work of their organisations was highlighted in the statement by the Chairperson on "the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia" at the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva only last month. It was also underlined in the EU statement on Colombia at the same forum.

  Cuba
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and. Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the mission in Havana concerning the commencement of the trial of the human rights dissident Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva. [170268]
  118W
  Mr. Rammell
  Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva was tried and found guilty, at his trial on 26 April 2004, of disrespect for authority, public disorder, disobedience and resisting arrest. He was sentenced to four years. At the time of his trial. Mr. Leiva had already spent two years in jail without trial. He was released by the court on 26 April, under terms similar to parole. The trial was originally scheduled for 27 April but was brought forward by a day at short notice, presumably to avoid attendance by international observers.

  The EU regularly issues statements condemning the imprisonment of human rights activists, and most recently, on 12 March 2004, we again called upon the Cuban Government to release without delay all the imprisoned dissidents.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government requested observer status at the trial in Cuba of Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva; and if he will make a statement. [170269]

  Mr. Rammell
  Officials of the British Embassy in Havana did not request observer status at the trial, but have followed Juan Carlos Gonzalez Leiva's case closely and have been in regular contact with his family. Embassy officials spoke to Mr Leiva on Tuesday 27 April, a day after his trial.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government has made to the Cuban Government concerning the imprisonment of human rights activists in Cuba; and if he will make a statement. [170270]

  Mr. Rammell
  UK policy on Cuba is governed by the EU Common Position, which has human rights enshrined as its key principle. The EU regularly issues statements condemning the imprisonment of human rights activists and other political prisoners. Most recently, on 12 March 2004 we called upon the Cuban Government to reflect on the significance of the granting of the UNESCO World Press Freedom Prize to Raul Rivero and again called for the release of all the imprisoned dissidents. I also raised our concerns at these imprisonments with the Cuban Ambassador in London.

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which former officials of the Department have asked for permission to join(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers. (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst and Young and (d) KPMG. [156902]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [pursuant to his answer, 3 March 2004, Official Report, c. 978W]: I have become aware that Sir Andrew Woods, ex-Ambassador to Moscow sought permission in April 2000 to join Ernst and Young, and took up the appointment in May 2000. This was listed in the Fourth Report of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. I am unaware of any former officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who since 1998 have asked for permission to join PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte & Touche or KPMG.
  119W
  To locate individual requests from officials earlier than 1998 would incur disproportionate costs.

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money, and what assistance in kind, his Department is giving to support the Conference on the proposed EU Constitution organised by the Federal Trust and scheduled to take place on 1 and 2 July 2004; and how much money his Department(a) has committed and (b) plans to commit to support events which are favourably disposed towards UK accession to a treaty creating an EU constitution. [169390]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office will provide a speaker and £2,000 to fund the associated lunch for the conference to take place on 1 and 2 July organised by the Federal Trust for Education and Research and the University Association for Contemporary European Studies (UACES). This is an academic event co-organised by the main coordinating body of academics interested in Europe (UACES), and seeks to debate rather than 'promote' the draft EU Constitutional Treaty. Agreement has not yet been reached on the EU Constitutional Treaty and decisions on funding of related events will be taken in due course.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what way the proposed European constitution takes into consideration cultural and religious diversity. [171308]

  Mr. MacShane
  Article 1.3.3 of the draft EU Constitution states that, as one of its objectives, "the Union shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced". Article 1.51 makes it clear that while religion remains a matter for individual Member States, the Union equally respects the status of all religious and secular organisations.

  European Council of Ministers
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the transitional arrangements for voting and (b) the qualified majority voting requirements in the Council of Ministers. [171499]

  Mr. MacShane
  Under the terms of the 2003 Treaty of Accession, which came into force on 1 May 2004, the new Member States have been incorporated into the present system of voting in the Council of Ministers.

  The allocation of votes when the Council is required to act by a qualified majority is as follows:

  Belgium

  5

  Czech Republic

  5

  Denmark

  3

  Germany

  10

  Estonia

  3

  Greece

  5

  Spain

  8

  France

  10

  Ireland

  3

  Italy

  10

  120W

  Cyprus

  2

  Latvia

  3

  Lithuania

  3

  Luxembourg

  2

  Hungary

  5

  Malta

  2

  Netherlands

  5

  Austria

  4

  Poland

  8

  Portugal

  5

  Slovenia

  3

  Slovakia

  3

  Finland

  3

  Sweden

  4

  United Kingdom

  10

  For their adoption, acts of the Council require at least 88 votes in favour cast by at least two-thirds of the members.

  This will continue until the new voting arrangements under the Treaty of Nice come into effect on 1 November 2004.

  Gaza Strip
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning the effect of border restrictions on the ability of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency to distribute emergency food aid to refugees in the Gaza Strip. [171119]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have made clear to the Israeli Charge in London and to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Israel, our view that the restrictions placed on UN Relief and Works Agency aid operations at Erez crossings are inconsistent with Israel's acknowledgement that humanitarian assistance should be provided to the Palestinian population. We have urged the Israeli Government to ensure aid agencies have clear guidelines concerning access to Gaza and that restrictions are significantly eased. The EU Presidency was lobbied along similar lines.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Indonesia concerning(a) the attack by masked gunmen on Christians at the Tabernacle Church, in Kilo Village, Poso District, Sulawesi, (b) the murder of the Reverend Freddy Wuisan, (c) the shooting of Rosia Pilongo, the Dean of the Law Department of Sintuwu Maroso University, Silawesi, and (d) the shooting of Jhon Christian Tanalida close to Poso City, Silawesi. [168574]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Ambassador in Jakarta last raised our concerns about the situation in Central Sulawesi, including the cases referred to at a meeting with the Coordinating Minister for Welfare on 20 April 2004. We continue to urge the Indonesian Government to do all they can to ensure the safety and security of communities that have been affected by the violence in Central Sulawesi.
  121W
  Together with our European partners we are in regular dialogue with the Indonesian Government and urge them to encourage religious freedom, maintain law and order and promote reconciliation in areas of conflict. We also seek opportunities to work with the Indonesian authorities on measures to resolve inter-communal violence in areas such as Sulawesi. We welcome the Indonesian Government's initiatives to bring peace to its troubled provinces.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many incidents of(a) unlawful destruction of property and (b) collective punishment there were in each month since the end of the original major conflict in Iraq, in the sector controlled by the British occupying forces. [168078]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK strongly denies allegations that we have been involved in collective punishments, including the destruction of property, and would fully investigate any such allegation. Where property or land has been destroyed during the course of coalition activities we understand that the owners have been compensated.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether all public servants acting on behalf of the United Kingdom in Iraq after the hand-over of sovereignty will continue to enjoy legal immunity in Iraqi law. [170184]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are finalising the detailed arrangements for the transition. An important element of those arrangements will be to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to safeguard the legal position of UK public servants after the handover of power to the Iraqi Interim Government.

  Israel (Targeted Assassinations)
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards Israel's targeted assassinations policy. [169853]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have repeatedly made clear to the Government of Israel that their policy of targeted assassinations is illegal, unjustified and counter-productive. Both Israel and the Palestinians must refrain from actions that may further escalate tensions, including any more such killings.

  Maldives
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's relations with the Maldives. [172054]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK enjoys good relations with the Maldives, a fellow member of the Commonwealth. The British High Commissioner in Colombo (accredited to the Maldives) visits regularly, most recently from 19 to 22 March when he met the Foreign Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs among others.
  122W
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Commonwealth has taken to encourage multi-party politics in the Maldives. [172055]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is for the Commonwealth Secretariat to comment on any action they may have taken to encourage multi-party politics in the Maldives. The Commonwealth Secretary General visited the Maldives in January 2003.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official contacts his Department has had with representatives of the Democratic Party of the Maldives. [172056]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Officials in London and at our High Commission in Colombo (accredited to the Maldives) have met representatives of the Maldivian Democratic Party several times, most recently on 24 March.

  Nuclear Non-Proliferation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what means other than the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty the Government are seeking to use to(a) strengthen the inspection and monitoring of uranium enrichment facilities and (b) restrict the extension of such facilities. [171037]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 6 May 2004]: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement of 25 February 2004, Official Report, columns 46–49WS, on Weapons of Mass Destruction, recent experience has shown there is a need for more wide-ranging inspections of national nuclear industries. The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Additional Protocol provides the basis for carrying out such inspections. We seek universal adherence to the Additional Protocol and believe suppliers of nuclear technology should increasingly see this as a key commitment when they judge export licence applications. We are working with partners to enhance the effectiveness of the IAEA and strengthen its ability to ensure that nations comply with their safeguards agreements.

  There is a strong argument that states which fail to comply with their safeguards obligations should forfeit the right to develop the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly the enrichment and reprocessing capabilities which are of such proliferation sensitivity. This would not deprive them of the possibility of constructing and running civil nuclear power stations but would prevent a seemingly civil programme masking a weapons programme.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the UK Government have taken to(a) support and (b) implement the Proliferation Security Initiative. [171038]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 6 May 2004]: Since the launch of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) in May 2003 the UK has been one of a core group of countries working to drive the initiative forward. This has involved intensive worldwide lobbying efforts in

  123W
  support of the Statement of Interdiction Principles agreed at Paris in September 2003. To date, more than 60 countries have expressed their support for PSI and their intention to apply its principles.

  We want the PSI to become an established, accepted and effective part of the international security architecture. To that end, we are working with partners in the context of the International Maritime Organisation to make it an internationally recognised offence to transport weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their delivery systems and related materials on commercial vessels. To extend the legal base of interdiction operations we are opening negotiations with major commercial flag states to allow for the boarding of vessels which may be carrying cargoes which could be used in WMD programmes. We are currently examining a range of measures to deter proliferators and further raise the political and economic costs of trafficking in WMD.

  We will continue to take the necessary steps to strengthen our capacity to act effectively as and when required to take action consistent with the PSI Statement of Interdiction Principles.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps the Government have taken to prevent the proliferation of missile and nuclear weapon technology from North Korea. [171039]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 6 May 2004]: The Government support fully the six-party talks process aimed at ensuring compliance by North Korea with the ideals of a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, and persuading them to comply with their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  We are also playing a principal role in the Proliferation Security Initiative which, while it does not specifically target any particular state, aims to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and technology associated with such weapons.

  Peru
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what reports the UK mission in Peru has received concerning the date of the review of the case of Walter Cubas Balathazar; and if he will make a statement; [170240]

  (2) what representations the Government have made to the Peruvian Government (a) in support of Mr. Cubas Balathazar and (b) in opposition to his detention; and if he will make a statement. [170277]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our Embassy in Lima raised the matter with the Ministry of Justice in July and November 2002, and again this April. We understand from the Peruvian authorities that the first hearing of Walter Cubas Balathazar's re-trial before the normal criminal justice system will be held on 14 May 2004. Our Embassy will continue to monitor closely this and all other similar cases. We support the Peruvian Government's efforts to improve and protect human rights for all Peruvians. We maintain a good dialogue with Peru on human rights.

DEFENCE

  Arctic Convoys
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of those who served on the Arctic convoys during the Second World War received the Russian 40th Anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War medal. [170357]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Royal Navy Medal Office issued approximately 15,000 Russian 40th Anniversary of Victory in the Grey t Patriotic War medals during the early 1990s to eligible Royal Navy, Royal Marine, Army, Royal Air Force and Merchant Navy personnel. It would not be possible to provide a more precise figure without a manual trawl through the relevant service records at disproportionate cost. In addition the Russian Embassy in London issued medals directly to members of both the Russian Convoy Club and the North Russia Club but the numbers involved are not known.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of those who served on the Arctic Convoys during the Second World War received the Atlantic Star. [170358]

  Mr. Caplin
  There is no definitive Medal Roll which indicates how many people received the Atlantic Star. It would not, therefore, be possible to establish how many recipients of the Atlantic Star sailed in Arctic waters on the convoys to Russia without undertaking an individual check of all the wartime personnel records which could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of the cost to the Department of awarding a medal for service on the Arctic convoys. [171121]

  Mr. Caplin
  It is not possible to determine with any certainty how many people served in Arctic waters during the Second World War, but it is estimated that more than 95,000 Royal Navy personnel may have done so. The cost of issuing a new medal to Royal Navy veterans alone, incl Acting staff costs and the cost of the medal itself, would be at least £14 million if all those eligible or their next of kin applied.

  Catterick Barracks (Medical Personnel)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many medical personnel are based at Catterick Barracks, broken down by(a) service, (b) rank and (c) specialisation. [170004]

  Mr. Caplin
  There are 32 medical personnel, six GPs and 26 Combat Medical Technicians, based at Catterick Garrison, all of whom are Army personnel. They are ranked as follows: two Lieutenant Colonels; one Major; three Captains; one Colour Sergeant; three Sergeants; four Corporals; five Lance Corporals and 13 Privates.

  Defence Agencies (Scotland)
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many people worked for(a) the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency in Scotland and (b) the Defence Secondary Care Agency in

  125W
  Scotland on 1 April; what the overall personnel costs were for each agency (i) on that date and (ii) on 1 April 2003; and if he will make a statement; [170439]

  (2) how many people worked for the (a) Veterans Agency, (b) British Forces Post Office, (c) Defence Vetting Agency and (d) Defence Medical Education and Training Agency in Scotland on 1 April; what the overall personnel costs were for each agency (i) on that date and (ii) on 1 April 2003; and if he will make a statement; [170443]

  (3) how many people worked for (a) the Armed Forces Personnel and Administration Agency, (b) the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre, (c) Defence Estates and (d) the Defence Geographic and Imagery Intelligence Agency in Scotland on 1st April; what the overall personnel costs were for each agency (i) on that date and (ii) on 1st April 2003; and if he will make a statement; [170447]

  (4) how many people worked for (a) the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, (b) the Defence Export Services Organisation in Scotland, (c) the Defence Medical Services in Scotland and (d) the Base Repair Organisation in Scotland on 1 April; what the overall personnel costs were for each agency (i) on that date and (ii) on 1 April 2003; and if he will make a statement; [170441]

  (5) how many people worked for the (a) Defence Transport and Movements Agency, (b) Medical Supplies Agency, (c) Defence Communications Services Agency and (d) Defence Storage and Distribution Agency in Scotland on 1 April; what the overall personnel costs were for each agency (i) on that date and (ii) on 1 April 2003; and if he will make a statement; [170444]

  (6) how many people worked for the (a) RAF Personnel Manning Agency, (b) RAF Training Group Defence Agency, (c) Warship Support Agency and (d) Defence Procurement Agency in Scotland on 1 April; what the overall personnel costs were for each agency (i) on that date and (ii) on 1 April 2003; and if he will make a statement; [170445]

  (7) how many people worked for (a) the Disposal Services Agency, (b) the Pay and Personnel Agency, (c) the Defence Aviation Repair Agency and (d) the Meteorological Office in Scotland on 1 April; what the overall personnel costs were for each agency (i) on that date and (ii) on 1 April 2003; and if he will make a statement; [170442]

  (8) how many people worked for (a) the Naval Manning Agency, (b) Service Children's Education, (c) the Duke of York's Royal Military School and (d) the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency in Scotland on 1 April; what the overall personnel costs were for each agency (i) on that date and (ii) on 1 April 2003; and if he will make a statement; [170446]

  (9) how many people worked for the (a) Army Personnel Centre, (b) Army Training and Recruiting Agency, (c) Defence Dental Agency and (d) Defence Bills Agency in Scotland on 1 April; what the overall personnel costs were for each agency (i) on that date and (ii) on 1 April 2003; and if he will make a statement. [170448]

  126W
  Mr. Caplin
  Information on the number of Service personnel at regional level is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Information on Civilian personnel at regional level for 1 April 2004 and for personnel expenditure by the organisations named for 2003–04 is not yet available.

  The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency was disestablished on 1 July 2001, when two new organisations, QinetiQ plc and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), were created. QinetiQ is a public limited company, and all operational inquiries should be directed to its Chief Executive. DSTL remains a part of the Ministry of Defence.

  The Defence Secondary Care Agency was abolished on 1 April 2003 and its education functions transferred to the Defence Medical Education and Training Agency; its remaining functions were transferred to Defence Medical Services.

  I will write to the hon. Member in due course and a copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Defence Personnel (Vale of York)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects details of numbers of service and civilian personnel in the Vale of York for July 2003 to become available; [170000]

  (2) how many service personnel were serving in the Vale of York on 27 April. [170001]

  Mr. Caplin
  Service personnel data by local authority is published in Tri-Service Publication (TSP) 10. Currently the Defence Analytical Services Agency are reviewing the source data and process by which location statistics are produced so data from TSPIO as at 1 July 2002 is the latest available. An investigation into the viability of the inclusion of Parliamentary Constituency data will be conducted as part of the review. The target date for completion of the review is December 2004.

  The number of civilian personnel working for the Ministry of Defence as at 1 July 2003 in Yorkshire and the Humber was 3,080. The latest available figure is 3,160 as at 1 March 2004.

  The numbers are for permanent, full-time equivalent staff, non-industrial and industrial, including Trading Funds and excluding those on career breaks, long term sick leave, secondment etc. Reliable data are not available as follows:

  Government Office Region level.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the meetings at which his Department has been present regarding the delivery of sustainable development across Government as co-ordinated by the Ministerial Sub-Committee of Green Ministers; [171803]

  (2) what work his Department's Green Minister has undertaken in the last three months in that capacity; and what meetings his Department's Green Minister has attended in the last 12 months in that capacity. [171802]
  127W
  Mr. Caplin
  I represent the Ministry of Defence on the Ministerial Sub-Committee of Green Ministers. It has been established practice under successive Governments not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees. This practice is now formalised by Exemption 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. However, my work as the Ministry of Defence's Green Minister involves regular correspondence outside that committee with Government Ministers in order to ensure that the Ministry of Defence's interests in environmental and sustainable development issues are fully and properly represented.

  Iraq
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the number of(a) private military companies and (b) British private military companies working in Iraq. [166133]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are not aware of any private military companies (UK or otherwise) operating in Iraq in military operations. A number of British (and other) private security companies are providing security advice and assistance to the reconstruction effort. The number of security personnel working in Iraq fluctuates, but we are aware of up to 1,000 British nationals working in this sector.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any member of the UK armed forces has been charged in relation to the deaths of civilians in Iraq caused by Coalition action. [170226]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]:) As at 30 April 2004, no member of the United Kingdom armed forces had been charged in relation to the deaths of civilians in Iraq.

  Land Release (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 22 April 2004,Official Report, column 662W on land releases (Hampshire), when he expects to complete the review on estate rationalisation relating to (a) Arborfield, (b) Deepcut and (c) Bordon/Whitehill. [170469]

  Mr. Caplin
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State advised in his written statement on 25 November 2002,Official Report, column 2WS, the Defence Training Review identified Arborfield, Deepcut and Bordon as sites that are likely to be surplus to Defence requirements.

  Any decisions on any of these sites will be announced to the House in the usual way but none have been taken to date.

  Low Flying
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid in compensation to farmers for livestock losses caused by low flying military aircraft in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales in each year since 1994. [170874]
  128W
  Mr. Caplin
  The information is not held in the format requested, but the value of compensation paid (inclusive of legal costs) in relation to livestock losses caused by low flying military aircraft in England, Scotland and Wales for each financial year since 1994 is as follows:

  £

  Amount paid

  1993–4

  337,569

  1994–5

  259,814

  1995–6

  261,328

  1996–7

  169,092

  1997–8

  169,867

  1998–9

  401,326

  1999–2000

  220,112

  2000–1

  491,663

  2001–2

  272,334

  2002–3

  236,453

  2003–4

  330,082

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training sorties have been undertaken within the mid-Wales military tactical training area by military aircraft flying below 250 feet in each year since 1994 for which figures are available. [170875]

  Mr. Caplin
  The amount of military low flying that takes place in the United Kingdom is better expressed in hours rather than by number of sorties, which can vary significantly from minutes to several hours. The information is only available for the last four training years, as previously the data was compiled in a different manner. The figures for the training year 2003–04 are due to be published in the next statement on the pattern of military low flying that will be available to the House in Summer 2004.

  The following information reflects the actual amount of operational low flying carried out within 7T, the tactical training area in mid-Wales. These statistics are consistent with the information provided annually in the statement on the pattern of military low flying.

  Training year

  1999–2000—38 hours 8 minutes

  2000–01—25 hours 21 minutes

  2001–02—30 hours 23 minutes

  2002–03—33 hours 12 minutes

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) representations and (b) complaints have been received by the (i) RAF and (ii) Department about low flying military aircraft in (A) England, (B) Scotland and (C) Wales in each year since 1994. [170876]

  Mr. Caplin
  In maintaining our records we do not differentiate between representations and complaints; all complaints, whether received centrally or at individual establishments are recorded on a central database and it is not possible to distinguish between them. Detailed records are only retained for three years; it is therefore not possible to provide the information requested for earlier years.

  The number of complaints received based on information provided by the complainant for (A) England, (B) Scotland, (C) Wales regarding military low flying over the last three training years are outlined in the table.
  129W

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  England

  3,003

  3,194

  3,248

  Scotland

  759

  687

  831

  Wales

  496

  454

  488

  Isle of Man

  0

  1

  1

  No county provided

  11

  13

  11

  Total

  4,269

  4,349

  4,579

  MOD Sites (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on his Department's land bounded by Halliday Crescent, Melville Road and Henderson Road in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [169403]

  Mr. Caplin
  The site formed part of the married quarter estate transfer to Annington Homes in November 1996. No trace of any records can be found on any research for the site, although legal searches into title in connection with the sale would have been completed at the time.

  Nepal
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the items of military equipment gifted to the Government of Nepal since January 2000. [170991]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 12 March 2004,Official Report, column 1789W by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Rammell) which listed all equipment gifted to the Government of Nepal under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool. In addition to this, a Departmental Minute has recently been placed before the House of Commons setting out the intention to gift two Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) Islander aircraft, radios and Explosive Ordnance Disposal equipment to the Government of Nepal.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the methods the Government employs to ensure that military helicopters it has provided to the Royal Nepalese Army are only used for logistical, medical and humanitarian purposes. [170992]

  Mr. Ingram
  A letter of agreement was signed by the Nepalese Chief of the Army Staff and by HM Ambassador. This set out the understanding on which the two MI-17 transport helicopters were being gifted to the Government of Nepal. In particular, it was specified that the helicopters were being gifted as part of the non-lethal support the UK provided to support the Government's campaign against the Maoist insurgency. It was further agreed that combat and attack roles were precluded for the lifetime of the aircraft, and that the helicopters would only be used for logistic, humanitarian and medical purposes. We have no grounds to believe that the aircraft gifted by the UK have been misused.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 339W, on nuclear contingent liability arrangements, what criteria he used to determine what constituted an objection. [171120]

  Mr. Ingram
  The ways in which a Member of Parliament can object to a contingent liability are as detailed in Government Accounting 2000 Paragraph 26.4.7.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the importance of nuclear deterrence as a military strategy in the war against terrorism. [170212]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 January 2004,Official Report, column 577W, to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson).

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many NSQEP personnel in the UK are able to maintain the UK's nuclear weapons and naval nuclear reactors; what their age profile is; what their names are; and if he will make a statement; [170323]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the adequacy of the supply of people suitably qualified and experienced to maintain (a) the UK's nuclear weapons and (b) the Royal Navy nuclear reactors; what steps the Government is taking to secure the supply of people with such qualifications; and if he will make a statement. [170354]

  Mr. Ingram
  In the United Kingdom, there are some 10,000 (as at December 2002) Nuclear Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel (NSQEP) who are able to support the MOD's nuclear weapon and nuclear propulsion programmes. Personal details of these individuals are not held centrally in the MOD. However, the number of shore-based NSQEP employed by the MOD in support of these programmes is some 1,400. Their average age is 49.

  Throughout 2002 the MOD's NSQEP Head of Profession actively participated in a cross-Government Department Nuclear and Radiological Skills study that provided an estimate of the adequacy of personnel to support the UK's nuclear and radiological sector. The report identified that while there is no immediate overall general cause for concern, there are a number of shortages in some disciplines. There are, however, concerns about the general age profile and the supply of suitably qualified and experienced personnel to replace those who retire over the next 15 years. One aspect of the Government response to the Nuclear and Radiological Skills study, in line with the Government Skills Strategy, was the development and licensing, in March 2004, of a Sector Skills Council for the UK's nuclear sector. The MOD's NSQEP Head of Profession co-ordinates Defence Nuclear skills interests at the Industry Nuclear Skills Group and engages closely with the Sector Skills Council.
  131W
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on safety reviews conducted on nuclear submarines. [171000]

  Mr. Ingram
  Safety reviews on nuclear submarines are conducted routinely at several levels in accordance with rigorous and well-rehearsed procedures. Prior to sailing, rigorous checks are undertaken to validate all aspects of a vessel's seaworthiness. Regular safety reviews, that comply fully with legal requirements, are also carried out on board to ensure the material state of the submarine is monitored and maintained.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on research and development of low yield nuclear weapons in the UK. [170211]

  Mr. Ingram
  No such research or development is being undertaken.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost is of(a) designing and (b) manufacturing a new nuclear warhead; and if he will make a statement. [170337]

  Mr. Hoon
  The December 2003 Defence White Paper clearly stated the Government's position that decisions on whether to replace Trident are likely to be required in the next Parliament. The costs of the design and manufacture of any nuclear warhead would depend on a range of factors, and these will be considered as part of any such decision.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the age profile is of the staff of(a) his Department's Chief Scientific Advisor and (b) the maintenance contractor SERCO who possess the qualifications necessary to (i) maintain the design intent of the current nuclear warheads and (ii) design the next generation of warheads; and if he will make a statement. [170338]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are several staff working in the Chief Scientific Adviser's area in support of, and providing advice on the nuclear weapons programme, a number of whom have previously worked at AWE. However, with the exception of one AWE secondee, they are not "qualified" to conduct nuclear warhead design work, since only AWE plc, the design authority under the contract, can "qualify" people to undertake such work.

  MOD's contract for the management and operation of AWE sites is with AWE Management Limited (AWE ML), a consortium of three equal partners, including SERCO. Responsibility for the day-to-day management of AWE sites is delegated to a separate company, AWE plc, which is owned by AWE ML.

  It is not possible to categorise the capabilities of qualified AWE plc personnel in the way requested. However, the following table provides data on those AWE plc employees engaged in maintaining the relevant research and development capabilities who are formally qualified to degree level and above.
  132W

  Age range

  Percentage age of total formally qualified and employed in R and D

  Numbers employed in R and D who are qualified to degree level and above

  20 to 30

  26

  212

  31 to 40

  34

  282

  41 to 50

  23

  194

  51 to 60

  15

  121

  60 plus

  2

  21

  Total

  100

  830

  Wind Farms
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many wind farm applications his Department has been consulted upon; and to how many of these objections were made. [171515]

  Mr. Caplin
  Under arrangements agreed with the British Wind Energy Association, Civil Aviation Authority and DTI, the Ministry of Defence is voluntarily consulted by wind farm developers. Since 1 January 2000, the date from which accurate records have been maintained, some 3,139 proposals have been received of which we have been unable to approve 1,040.

  As regards formal planning applications for the construction of wind farms upon which MOD has been consulted by the planning authority, some 58 have been notified, of which we have objected to nine.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Over-70s Payment
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the £100 payment for people aged 70 or over that was announced in the 2004 Budget statement will be made. [170531]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The intention is for the payments to be made automatically with the 2004–05 winter fuel payment, to those who are eligible and who do not need to claim it, before the end of the year. People who do not get a winter fuel payment will need to claim the one-off payment from the Department for Work and Pensions before 31 March 2005.

  Child Support Agency
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the Child Support Agency will be able to refund the money owed to the constituent of the hon. Member for Walsall. North, ref: 321042956341. [169296]

  Mr. Pond
  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.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr David Winnick, dated 10 May 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  133W
  You asked, when the Child Support Agency will be able to refund the money owed to the constituent of the hon. Member for Walsall North ref: 321042956341.

  As individual cases are confidential I will write to you separately about it. This is in line with Para 12, Part 2, of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Correspondence
  David Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the hon. Member for Walsall, North will receive a reply from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency to his letter of 24 March concerning a constituent, ref. PCO 130778. [172013]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. David Winnick, dated 10 May 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked when the honourable Member for Walsall North will receive a reply from the Chief Executive of the Child Support Agency to his letter of 24th March concerning a constituent, ref PCU 130778.

  A full response to your letter of 24 March was issued on 7 May 2004. I apologise for the delay in providing this.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 1 April with regard to Mr. Alan McCabe. [172261]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 4 May.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of families containing one or more children in receipt of disability living allowance have incomes below 60 per cent. of median contemporary incomes(a) before and (b) after housing costs, excluding any disability living allowance received. [170643]

  Maria Eagle
  30 per cent. of families with children, in receipt of disability living allowance have incomes below 60 per cent. of median contemporary income before housing costs. 42 per cent. of families with children, in receipt of disability living allowance have incomes below 60 per cent. of median contemporary income after housing costs.

  Notes:

  Figures are for 2002–03, the latest date for which data are available.

  Estimates are for Great Britain.

  Estimates relate to the household's status at the time they were interviewed for the FRS.

  The estimates are based on sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for tenure, council tax band and a number of other variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error, and to remaining variability in non-response which is not corrected by the grossing regime.

  134W

  The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

  The question has been interpreted and presented as those families in receipt of disability living allowance, who have children. The alternative interpretation, which would look at families where a child is in receipt of disability living allowance, cannot be presented due to insufficient sample sizes of this group.

  For the purpose of calculating whether a family is below 60 per cent. of median income, any DLA received has been excluded from the household income. The median income of the population is the same as that used in HBAI, and therefore has not been recalculated following deduction of disability living allowance.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS).

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of(a) single people under pension age, (b) couples under pension age and (c) adults under pension age have incomes below 60 per cent. of median contemporary incomes (i) before and (ii) after housing costs, excluding any disability living allowance received. [170644]

  Mr. Pond
  The information requested is presented in the table:

  Percentage with incomes below 60 per cent. of median contemporary income

  (i) Before housing costs

  (a) Single people under pension age

  20

  (b) Couples under pension age

  13

  (c) Adults under pension age

  16

  (ii) After housing costs

  (a) Single people under pension age

  30

  (b) Couples under pension age

  16

  (c) Adults under pension age

  21

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for 2002–03, the latest date for which data are available.

  2. Estimates are for Great Britain.

  3. Estimates relate to the household's status at the time they were interviewed for the FRS.

  4. Estimates for 'couples under pension age' include all individuals under SPA who cohabit with a partner.

  5. The estimates are based on sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for tenure, council tax band and a number of other variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error, and to remaining variability in non-response which is not corrected by the grossing regime.

  6. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS).

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of(a) single female pensioners, (b) single male pensioners, (c) pensioner couples and (d) all pensioners have incomes below 60 per cent. of median contemporary incomes (i) before and (ii) after housing costs excluding attendance allowance or disability living allowance received. [170645]

  Mr. Pond
  The requested information is presented in the table.
  135W

  Percentage with incomes below 60 per cent. of median contemporary income

  (i) Before housing costs

  (a) Single female pensioners

  26

  (b) Single male pensioners

  21

  (c) Pensioner couples

  28

  (d) All pensioners

  27

  (ii) After housing costs

  (a) Single female pensioners

  25

  (b) Single male pensioners

  21

  (c) Pensioner couples

  30

  (d) All pensioners

  28

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for 2002–03, the latest date for which data are available.

  2. Estimates are for Great Britain.

  3. Estimates relate to the household's status at the time they were interviewed for the FRS.

  4. Estimates for 'pensioner couples' includes all individuals over SPA who cohabit with a partner. 'Single pensioners' are defined as those over SPA.

  5. The estimates are based on sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for tenure, council tax band and a number of other variables. Estimates are subject to both sampling error, and to remaining variability in non-response which is not corrected by the grossing regime.

  6. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS).

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will extend eligibility for the higher rate of the mobility component of the disability living allowance to people who become disabled after the age of 65 years to enable them to benefit from the Motability Scheme. [170990]

  Maria Eagle
  No. It is normal for pensions and benefits schemes to contain different provisions for people at different stages of their lives, and the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance is focussed on providing extra help to people who are severely disabled early, or relatively early, in life.

  Based on the need for personal care, attendance allowance provides help with the disability-related extra costs of people who experience the onset of disability after age 65. This help is part of the wide range of support that the Government make available to older people so that they can have a decent and secure income in retirement and share fairly in the rising prosperity of the country.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the measures introduced to improve the working conditions of disabled workers in South Ribble over the last seven years. [172141]

  Maria Eagle
  We have a number of measures in place nationally to help improve conditions for disabled people at work, as well as measures to improve their 136W
  access to services generally. None of these are specific to South Ribble, but all are available to disabled people who live and work here.

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

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

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

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

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the number of incapacity benefit claimants covered by the new incapacity benefit pilot projects in(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [170459]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: We have projected that there will he approximately 14,000 new claims for incapacity benefits (Incapacity Benefit and Income Support on the grounds of incapacity) in the pilot areas during 2003–04, and 65,0001 during 2004–05. The pilots will continue to the end of 2005–6 when we estimate that there will be approximately 66,000 new claims.

  In addition, all the pilot provision is available to existing incapacity benefit recipients in the pilot areas, numbering approximately 193,000. Their participation is currently on a voluntary basis.
  1The number of pilots. in 2004–05 will increase from three to seven, hence the higher projection of new claims.
  137W
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of possible savings generated by the new incapacity benefit pilot projects in each year from 2004–05 to 2008–09. [170460]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: One of the purposes of the incapacity benefit pilot projects is to establish whether there is scope for savings to support further re-investment in this and other Government priority areas. We believe that the pilots have the potential to generate savings which will outweigh the projected pilot costs of approximately £40 million a year. However there has been limited previous success in this area on which to make a firm assessment of the financial implications.

  The primary purpose of our agenda for reform of incapacity benefits is to help considerably greater numbers of those with health conditions and disabilities to achieve their aspirations to return to employment and to avoid long-term incapacity.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost of extending the new incapacity benefit pilot projects to all incapacity benefit claimants. [170461]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]We estimate that the cost for a full year at national level of the provision now available to new claimants in the incapacity benefit reform pilots Ind the additional provision for existing recipients announced in the recent Budget and due to be introduced early next year, would be of the order of £700 million–£800 million.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of ('a) the startup costs and(b) the annual running costs of the new incapacity benefit pilot projects, broken down by cost of (i) personal advisers, (ii) the new return to work credit, (iii) condition management courses and (iv) other costs. [170462]

  Maria Eagle
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: The startup costs for the Incapacity Benefit Reform Pilots were all incurred in the 2003–04 financial year and amounted to £6,137,080.

  The unconfirmed running costs for the Incapacity Benefit Reforms Pilots during 2003–04 are shown as follows and the latest estimates for the running costs from 2004 to 2006 are as outlined:

  £

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Personal advisers

  625,895

  3,020,839

  3,160,150

  Return to Work Credit

  248,560

  5,594,400

  9,038,400

  Condition Management Programme

  887,500

  8,651,211

  8,202,00

  Other costs

  3,577242

  22,733,550

  19,599,450

  The figures for the Personal Advisers also include some costs for processing Incapacity Benefit which cannot be separated out.

  The majority of the 'other1 costs given above consist of estimated funding to help customers find and maintain employment, either directly through, for example, New Deals, Work Based Learning for Adults and Access to Work, in-work support and the adviser discretionary fund, or indirectly through better medical assessments, training and evaluation of the project.
  138W
  These costs do not include the additional provision for existing clients announced in the recent Budget.

  Incapacity Benefit (Rhondda)
  Chris Bryant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in each ward in the Rhondda constituency have received incapacity benefit in each year since 1992. [170987]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the table.

  People claiming incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance in the Rhondda constituency broken down by ward

  August

  Ward name

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Cwm

  Clydach

  475

  460

  425

  435

  430

  Cymmer

  800

  780

  780

  800

  805

  Ferndale

  610

  585

  600

  570

  575

  Llwyn-y-pia

  405

  385

  390

  400

  380

  Maerdy

  690

  645

  635

  630

  625

  Pentre

  675

  660

  660

  650

  645

  Pen-y-graig

  845

  800

  810

  820

  805

  Porth

  785

  750

  720

  735

  725

  Tonypandy

  455

  450

  435

  440

  450

  Trealaw

  585

  595

  575

  620

  575

  Treherbert

  915

  910

  865

  820

  780

  Treorchy

  955

  935

  900

  905

  910

  Tylorstown

  805

  805

  795

  760

  730

  Ynyshir

  490

  490

  465

  480

  475

  Ystrad

  835

  820

  815

  845

  820

  Notes:

  The figures are a snapshot of all claimants of incapacity benefit (including credits only cases) and severe disablement allowance at August each year.

  Wards are based on 2003 ward boundaries.

  All benefit counts have been rounded to a multiple of five to protect the confidentiality of individual claimants.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, Department for Work and Pensions.

  Income-related Benefits
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of employees in his Department are in receipt of income-related benefits. [168606]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department does not hold this information.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library copies of the(a) disabled access audit of 1 Steephill Road, (b) consultation document dated June 2002 and list of recipients, (c) specification of requirements for a Jobcentre Plus centre, as issued to his property advisors and (d) responses received to (b) relating to the Jobcentre Plus roll-out in the Isle of Wight. [169170]

  Jane Kennedy
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  No responses were received to the consultation document dated June 2002.

  Mayor of London (Meetings)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on what dates he has held official meetings with the Mayor of London since July 2000; and what the subject of each meeting was. [171439]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Since July 2000, I have held no official meetings with the Mayor of London.

  ME
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many ME sufferers were(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful in their applications for disability living allowance in the last 12 months. [171342]

  Maria Eagle
  For the year ending 30 November 2003, there were approximately 2,200 new awards for customers whose primary disabling condition is ME, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or other Post Viral conditions. Information on unsuccessful claims to Disability Living Allowance by sufferers of ME is not available.1
  1When inputting an unsuccessful claim to the computer system from which these figures are drawn, a disability code, which highlights the main disabling condition, is not input.
  Note:
  Figures taken from 5 per cent, samples. Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred. From November 2002, the methodology for producing these figures was changed to allow statistics to be published much sooner. This has resulted in a small increase in the reported caseload. This is because some cases which have actually terminated but have not yet been updated on the computer system are now included.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much was spent on advertising the Pick it Up, It's Yours campaign in(a) national newspapers and (b) the regional and local press; and what the basis was for the decision on which publications would carry the advertisements. [170590]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The total cost of publicity for the Pick It Up It's Yours campaign in 2003–04 was £15,580,000. The cost for press advertising media was £6,086,146 which is broken down as follows:

  £

  National press

  4,752,598

  Regional press

  1,308,352

  Other press

  25,196

  The Department uses the Government's publicity agency COI Communications to buy media. Media are selected on the basis of the most cost effective method of reaching the target audience.

  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of(a) single men, (b) single women and (c) couples are expected to be entitled to pension credit in October; and how many of these will be entitled to (i) guarantee credit alone, (ii) savings credit alone and (iii) both guarantee and savings credit. [170642]
  140W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Estimates of the numbers of people eligible for pension credit, based on data from the Family Resources Survey for 2002–03, will be available later this month. The information will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his Department advertises pension credit in any language other than English. [172004]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Pension credit advertising has appeared in the following languages other than English:TV—Welsh
  Radio—Gujarati, Punjabi, Cantonese and Hindi
  Press—Welsh, Bengali. Cantonese, Gujarati, Punjabi and Urdu.

  Pensions
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the Government will make changes to the current system to ensure that all women have access to a basic state pension in their own right. [170966]

  Malcolm Wicks
  All women have access to a state pension. They become entitled to a basic state pension by paying, being treated as paying or being credited with national insurance contributions. The amount of basic state pension will depend on the number of qualifying years built up before they reach state pension age.

  However, additional policies such as home responsibilities protection exist to enable people to acquire a higher amount of basic state pension.

  Property Disregards
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason the rules relating to property disregards are different for pensioners moved from income support to pension credit. [169455]

  Malcolm Wicks
  1 t was always our intention that the capital disregards on second properties should be the same in all income-related benefits.

  Currently in Income Support, the main property occupied as the home is ignored unless any part of it could be reasonably sold off separately. The value of any second property is normally taken into account, but there are a number of exceptions. In particular, the value of a second property which is occupied by someone who is aged 60 or over of incapacitated and who is a relative of the Income Support claimant or their partner is ignored.

  We have recently discovered that due to an oversight, this rule was not carried forward into Pension Credit legislation when the principal regulations were drafted. This means that the disregard only applies if the occupier is a close relative of the Pension Credit claimant themselves. We will make the changes needed to the legislation to ensure that this is corrected at the earliest opportunity.

  Meanwhile, we will be considering extra-statutory payments to anyone who has lost out.

  Recruitment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of recruitment of civil servants
  141W
  for the Department was in each financial year since 1996–97, broken down by (a) delegated or contracted out recruitment procedures and (b) recruitment procedures carried out by the Department. [158175]

  Maria Eagle
  The majority of external recruitment at all levels within DWP is carried out on a direct basis by the Department. However, for it small number of vacancies, particularly of a specialist or senior nature, the services of a recruitment agency may be used.

  The information is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Social Security Advisory Committee
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish the Quinquennial Review into the Social Security Advisory Committee. [171855]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Quinquennial Review into the Social Security Advisory Committee will be published in the next two weeks.

  Statutory Maternity Pay
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many women have(a) requested and (b) received statutory maternity pay since its introduction; and if he will 'mike a statement on the success of the take-up of this entitlement. [169297]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]: The information is not available in the format requested.

  Employers are not required to make returns on the numbers of women to whom they pay Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP). However, numbers are estimated from the returns employers make to the Inland Revenue for the SMP they recover.

  Between 1987, when SMP was introduced, and 2001–02 it is estimated that approximately 4.1 million women have received SMP.

  A recent survey found that 93 per cent. of eligible women received Statutory Maternity Pay.

  Sure Start Maternity Grant
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many mothers in Battersea have(a) applied for and (b) obtained the Sure Start maternity grant. [167640]

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

  Sure start maternity grants in South West Thames social fund district

  Applications

  Awards

  2000–01

  1,360

  1,165

  2001–02

  1,678

  1,400

  2002–03

  1,952

  1,487

  2003 to October

  1,494

  978

  142W

  Sure start maternity grants in South West Thames interim district

  Applications

  Awards

  November and December 2003

  479

  325

  Sure start maternity grants in Lambeth. Southwark and Wandsworth Jobcentre Plus district

  Applications

  Awards

  January to March 2004

  1,627

  1,162

  Notes:

  1. Data is not available by Parliamentary Constituency. Battersea Parliamentary Constituency used to be part of South West Thames Social Fund District. This District was involved in a very complex set of interlocking boundary changes affecting most of Greater London and some neighbouring areas, which took place from April 2003 to January 2004. Changes affecting South West Thames Social Fund District happened in November 2003 and the district then became known as South West Thames interim district. Changes to this district occurred in January 2004, resulting in the formation of Lambeth, Southwark and Wandsworth Jobcentre Plus district. Battersea Parliamentary Constituency was part of South West Thames interim district and is now part of Lambeth, Southwark and Wandsworth Jobcentre Plus district. The three areas for which data is given above are thus different, so the data is not comparable.

  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 is 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.

  Winter Fuel Allowance (Oldham, West and Royton)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many senior citizens in Oldham, West and Royton have benefited from the winter fuel allowance since 1997. [170951]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of senior citizens in the Oldham, West and Royton constituency who have 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

  15,840

  2000–01

  17,330

  2001–02

  17,270

  2002–03

  17,170

  2003–04

  17,160

  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.

TREASURY

  Child Benefit
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the total funding allocation for his Department was in 2003–04 for child benefit. [170820]

  Ruth Kelly
  The funding provision for 2003–04 for child benefit can be found on page 524 in the Central Government Supply Estimates 2004–05, (published April 2004).

  National Minimum Wage (Oldham, West and Royton)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many workers in Oldham, West and Royton have benefited from the national minimum wage. [170946]

  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. Meacher, dated 10 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of workers in Oldham, West and Royton who have benefited from the national minimum wage (NMW). (170946)

  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies are not available.

  However, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) calculates estimates of the number of jobs paid less than NMW rates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions. A guide to measuring low pay and associated articles and data can be found on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk = 5837&Pos = l&ColRank = l&Rank = 272

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many teenage girls(a) below the age of 16 years and (b) over the age of 16 years fell pregnant in (i) 2003–04 and (ii) each of the previous five years. [171070]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Tim Loughton, dated 10 May 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many teenage girls (a) below 16 and (b) over 16 conceived in (i) 2003/4 and (ii) each of the previous five years. (171070)

  For this purpose, teenagers are interpreted as the under 18 age group, in line with the target set by The Government Strategy on Teenage Pregnancy.

  The table gives the number of conceptions among girls aged under 16, 16 and 17 in England and Wales for 1997 to 2001, the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Age at conception

  Under 16

  16

  17

  1997

  8,271

  14,058

  21,029

  1998

  8,452

  13,802

  21,865

  1999

  7,945

  13,334

  20,749

  2000

  8,114

  13,153

  20,081

  20011

  7,891

  13,103

  19,972

  1Provisional.

  144W
  Numbers of conceptions are estimated from registrations of births and notifications of abortions. Miscarriages before the 24th week of gestation are not included.

  Average Earnings
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the average earnings of(a) women and (b) men in (i) Lancashire and (ii) the North West. [172070]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 10 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what assessment has been made of the average earnings of (a) women and (b) men in (i) Lancashire and (ii) the North West. (172070)

  Average earnings are estimated from the 2003 New Earnings Survey (NES) and are provided for full-time employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was unaffected by absence during the pay period, by their place of work. This is the standard definition used for MRS tables. The NES does not collect data on the self employed and people who do unpaid work.

  The 2003 NES estimates that the total average weekly earnings of full-time adult employees in Land in table A22.1 for males and A23.1 for females, and arc available on the National Statistics wcbsite at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/clownloads/theme_labour/NES2003_Analyses_By_Region/NES2003_Analyses_By_Region.pdf

  The NES, carried out in April of each year, is the most comprehensive source of earnings information in Great Britain. It is a 1 per cent. sample of all employees who are members of pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) schemes, but because of its sampling frame, it has difficulty capturing data on people with very low pay. It is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff earning below the tax threshold.

  The New Earnings Survey publication criteria ensures that all estimates are undisclosive and of reliable quality. A number of estimates have been removed from the published tables for these reasons.

  Butterfield Review
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what effect the proposed merger of the Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise will have on(a) plans to establish an independent Customs and Excise prosecutions office and (b) the implementation of other recommendations in the Butterfield Review; and if he will make a statement; [171051]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the implementation of the recommendations of the Butterfield Review; [171059]

  (3) to what extent lawyers acting on behalf of HM Customs and Excise have relinquished responsibility for prosecutions resulting from Customs investigations; [171061]

  (4) pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 8 December 2003, Official Report, column 72–3WS on the Butterfield Review, when he intends to establish an

  145W
  independent Customs and Excise prosecutions office; what practical issues he is discussing with the Attorney- General regarding the creation of an independent Customs and Excise prosecutions office; and if he will make a statement. [171062]

  John Healey
  As indicated in the joint statements I made with the Attorney-General on 15 July and 8 December 2003, the Government have accepted the recommendations contained in Mr. Justice Butterfield's report in respect of Customs and Excise's investigative practices, and that offences investigated by Customs officers should be prosecuted by an independent prosecuting authority. These are being implemented.

  Legislation will be required to establish fully the independent prosecuting authority and we aim to introduce this in the course of this year.

  Prior to legislation being put in place, it is our aim to continue as far as possible the separation of the prosecution function from Customs and Excise begun following the Butler report of 14 April 2000. Various options are currently being examined with several steps already agreed, including appointing a new director for the organisation and amending the Memorandum of Understanding agreed on 9 January 2003—in line with the Gower Hammond report of 5 December 2000—between myself, the Attorney-General and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. This Memorandum of Understanding concerns the conduct, resourcing and accountabilities for Customs and Excise prosecutions under the auspices of the Attorney-General as well as the arrangements for the prosecution of offences investigated by Customs officers. That Memorandum can be found at Appendix 9 of the Butterfield Report and makes it clear that since 1 April 2002 those lawyers who prosecute criminal cases arising from Customs investigations are accountable to the Attorney-General for the conduct of those prosecutions rather than to Treasury Ministers or the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The amendments envisaged include the role of the new director.

  Among the practical issues presently under discussion with the Attorney-General are the future relationship between the independent prosecuting authority, the new revenue department and the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA).

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had recently with the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd. on expansion of credit unions in the UK. [168800]

  Ruth Kelly
  Treasury Ministers and officials meet with representatives of ABCUL regularly to discuss a wide range of issues. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings, as provided for under Exemption 7(b) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Treasury meetings are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Code, as appropriate.

  Customs and Excise
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when HM Customs and Excise were first 146W
  informed of the discovery of the informant record for Mr. Alfred Allington; and for what reasons the existence of this record was not referred to in the Butterfield Review; [171048]

  (2) if he will make a statement on effects of excise diversion fraud on London City bonded warehouses; [171049]

  (3) whether he intends to re-open the Butterfield Inquiry following recent court evidence concerning Mr. Alfred Allington's relationship with HM Customs and Excise; [171058]

  (4) pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 8 December 2003, if he will make a further statement on the practices and procedures of disclosure, associated investigation techniques and case management in HM Customs and Excise criminal cases; [171060]

  (5) when (a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department were first informed of the existence of the informant record for Mr. Alfred Allington; and if he will make a statement; [171074]

  (6) how many prosecutions relating to London City Bond (a) have been reviewed, (b) are to be reviewed and (c) have been overturned. [171075]

  John Healey
  The effects of the excise diversion frauds involving the London City Bond warehouse, and the validity of HM Customs and Excise's practices and procedures of disclosure, associated investigation techniques and case management in criminal cases, were fully considered in independent reviews by Mr. John Roques and Mr. Justice Butterfield, both of which are available in the Library of the House. Recommendations arising from those reviews are being implemented, as announced most recently in the Written Ministerial Statements of 15 July and 8 December 2003 by the Attorney-General and I.

  24 London City Bond-related cases have been reviewed. There are no further cases to be reviewed. 48 convictions, in 8 cases, have to date been overturned on appeal, of which 5 appeals (totalling 35 convictions) had been heard before the Customs and Excise Prosecutions Office launched its wider review of cases following the decision in November 2002 to offer no evidence in London City Bond-related cases before Liverpool Crown Court.

  Customs has trawled all areas of the Department for any material of potential relevance. Where further disclosable material has been uncovered, it has been passed directly to the Metropolitan Police to assist their investigation into the circumstances of the collapse of the London City Bond cases, and to Mr. Justice Butterfield. That trawl, by Customs officials, brought to light the record relating to Mr. Alfred Allington at the end of June 2003; the documents were handed over to Mr. Justice Butterfield in mid July. The Customs and Excise Prosecutions Office informed the Attorney-General of the Alf Allington informant record issue on 20 January 2004, as part of a general briefing about the review of London City Bond-related cases. A copy of that submission was sent to me on that date. It would not be proper to comment on the significance of this

  147W
  material, and whether it gives rise to any need to re-open Mr. Justice Butterfield's review, until any other proceedings to which it is relevant have been completed.

  Employment (Oldham, West and Royton)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the(a) change and (b) percentage change was in full-time permanent jobs in Oldham West and Royton from 1997 to 31 December 2003; [1709031

  (2) how many new jobs have been created in Oldham West and Royton since 1997. [170904]

  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. Meacher dated 10 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about full-time jobs and jobs created in Oldham West and Royton. (170903, 170904)

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

  The attached table shows the information requested, relating to all jobs and full-time jobs, in Oldham West and Royton Parliamentary Constituency, for 1997 and the latest year available, 2002.

  Information is not available about whether the jobs were permanent.

  Number of full-time employees and total number of employees in Oldham West and Royton Parliamentary Constituency: 1997 and 2002

  percentage

  Full-Time

  Total

  Number of employees

  1997

  31,400

  45,000

  2002

  32,100

  45,300

  Change from 1997 to 2002

  Absolute

  700

  300

  Percentage

  2.3

  0.7

  1Employee jobs only, not self-employed jobs

  Source:

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

  Fuel Cell Technology
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what fiscal incentives are available to UK companies involved in the development of fuel cell technologies; and if he will make a statement. [171264]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor announced in Budget 2002 that hydrogen would be exempt from fuel duty for a limited period, to encourage further development and early take-up. Budget 2002 also introduced enhanced capital allowances for investments in hydrogen fuelling infrastructure. In addition, companies developing fuel cell technologies can benefit from research and development tax credits, announced in Budget 2000. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for other measures to support the development of fuel cell technologies, including through the Advanced Fuel Cells Programme. The Carbon Trust, which is funded by revenue recycled from the Climate Change Levy, supports the development of innovative technologies.

  Income Tax
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how income tax receipts as a percentage of the total tax take have varied over the last 20 years. [171310]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested can be found on the Inland Revenue website: www.inlandrevenue. gov. uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-2.pdf Personal tax credits are classified as negative income tax in these statistics to the extent that they offset the income tax liability of the family. This affects the figures from October 1999 onwards. Total tax take is defined as net taxes and social security contributions. The data are not published as a series. However the figure for 2002–03 can be found in the Budget 2004 Financial Statement and Budget Report, Table C8.

  Inland Revenue Guidance
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange for the Inland Revenue to publicise the hardship provisions in its Code of Guidance on overpayments. [170096]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave my hon. Friend, the Member for Glasgow Anniesland (John Robertson) on 21 January 2004,Official Report, column 1259W and the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on 27 February 2004, Official Report, columns 570–71W.

  Job Vacancies (Oldham, West and Royton)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask t he Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in Oldham West and Royton in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [1708981

  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. Meacher dated 10 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in Oldham West & Royton. (170898)

  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records the number of unfilled vacancies in the Manchester travel-to-work area was 9,767 on average during 1997. This represents only a proportion of all the vacancies available, as not all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.

  Figures are not available for Oldham West &Royton alone because the vacancies are allocated to local Jobcentres, not according to constituency boundaries, and because of the practice of notifying some vacancies centrally with one Jobcentre taking vacancies for others in the same district.

  Jobcentre vacancy statistics were withdrawn from National Statistics in September 2001 as a result of distortions to the data, which occurred following the introduction of new administrative procedures by Jobcentre Plus. Comparable figures for vacancies in 2003 are therefore unavailable.

  Results from the ONS Vacancy Survey were released as National Statistics from July 2003, but are not available for local areas.

  Productivity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to(a) increase the productivity and (b) cut the costs of his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [171882]
  149W
  Ruth Kelly
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the Budget that the Government are setting a stretching but realistic target for the whole public sector to deliver efficiencies of 2.5 per cent. a year over the three years of the 2004 Spending Review period. Meeting this target would deliver efficiency gains equivalent to £20 billion a year by 2007–08. The administration costs of all Departments are to be capped at or below the 2005–06, nominal level for 2006–07 and 2007–08. The Budget set out detailed proposals for meeting this target in relation to DWP, IR and HMCE.

  All Departments continue to work closely with Sir Peter Gershon to prepare detailed efficiency proposals for consideration in the 2004 Spending Review. Departments' agreed efficiency programmes will be published in parallel with the Spending Review settlement.

  Public Sector Employment
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he expects employment in the public sector, excluding the areas of health and education, to change from financial year(a) 2004–05 to 2005–06 and (b) 2005–06 to 2006–07. [171259]

  Mr. Boateng
  A gross reduction of at least 54,000 civil servants by 2008 was announced in the Budget, and further reductions will be realised as efficiency plans are implemented. This will reflect back office workforce reductions and redeployment to the frontline.

  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on variations in the workforce employed in the public sector in England over the last 20 years. [171312]

  Mr. Boateng
  Public sector workforce figures are set out in ONS Labour Market Trends (September) publication.

  Public Spending
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) change and (b) percentage change he expects in levels of public spending excluding health, education and defence (i) in 2004–05 compared with 2003–04 and (ii) in 2005–06 compared with 2004–05. [171243]

  Mr. Boateng
  The latest figures for spending in these years for education were set out in table 1.2 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) 2004 (CM6201), and on every function in tables 3.8 and 3.9 of PESA 2004.

  Statutory Paternity Pay
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many men have(a) requested and (b) received statutory paternity pay since its introduction; and if he will make a statement on the success of the take-up of this entitlement. [169299]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]: The statistics requested are not currently available.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to complete the process whereby families in receipt of income support and jobseeker's allowance move on to the child tax credit. [169393]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) on 11 March 2004, Official Report, column 1645W.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in receipt of(a) income support and (b) jobseeker's allowance have been moved on to the child tax credit. [169395]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) on 11 March 2004, Official Report, column 1645W.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will compensate those people who have received tax credit payments above the level to which they were entitled because of administrative errors and who are to have future payments reduced as a result. [170050]

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what compensation is available to people whose(a) working tax credit and (b) family tax credit payments are improperly stopped; and if he will make a statement. [171090]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Members to what I said during the debate in the House on 7 July 2003,Official Report, column 860.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects awards for(a) child tax credit and (b) working tax credit in 2003–04 to be finalised. [170220]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Richard Burden) on 19 November 2003, Official Report, columns 1099–1100W.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the payment of working tax credit from the start of the current financial year and the adequacy of computer systems; [171088]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the payment of family tax credit from the start of the current financial year and the adequacy of computer systems. [171089]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The new IT systems for tax credits were introduced as planned. As at 5 April 2004, there are 6.0 million families benefiting from tax credits. The publication date of the next issue of tax credits statistics by the Office for National Statistics will be announced in due course.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment has been made of hardship caused to families as a result of the way tax credit overpayments are being recovered. [165418]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Additional payments were made in 2003–04, to help ensure that paying back tax credits overpayments did not cause hardship. In addition,
  151W
  because of the increased generosity of Child and Working Tax Credits the overall level of support to low and moderate income families is higher, reducing the risk of hardship.

  The Inland Revenue's Code of Practice 26, "What happens if we have paid you too much tax credit?", sets out the rules that the Inland Revenue follows when adjusting an award to recover an overpayment.

  As the Code sets out, the maximum amounts by which payments would be reduced is 10 per cent. for claimants receiving the maximum award; 100 per cent. for claimants receiving only the family element of Child Tax Credit and 25 per cent. for all other claimants.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the amounts of over-payments made to people through the working tax credit scheme; how many people have been overpaid; what arrangements are in place to enable people to manage to pay back these amounts; and if he will make a statement; [166041]

  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will conduct a review of the(a) investigation and (b) recovery of over-payments of (i) child and (ii) working tax credits by the Inland Revenue; and if he will make provision for claimants to appeal against (a) overpayment decisions and (b) recovery actions. [167058]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: I refer the hon. Members to the replies I gave the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) on 3 February 2004, Official Report, column 828W, and the hon. Member for Norfolk North (Mr. Lamb) on 22 March 2004, Official Report, column 664W.

  Tax Evasion
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many prosecutions the Inland Revenue has attempted to bring under the Finance Act 2000 for income tax evasion; what the value was of the revenue the Inland Revenue has attempted to recoup; how many attempted prosecutions have been successful; and how much has been recouped by the Treasury as a result. [167510]
  152W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Board of Inland Revenue has prosecuted, in total, 215 individuals since the introduction of the new offence in S144, Finance Act 2000. Most have involved charges of cheating the public revenue or false accounting. The total includes eight people who have been successfully prosecuted using the offence in section 144 of Finance Act 2000 of fraudulently evading income tax. There have been no acquittals in cases where charges were brought under that offence. In the eight cases successfully prosecuted, approximately £100,000 tax loss has been recouped.

  There are presently a further eighteen cases where criminal proceedings involving the offence in Finance Act 2000 are in the course of being instituted.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many PAYE scheme notices were sent out by the Inland Revenue to companies it had been notified were dormant and would file nil returns in each tax year since 1997. [167585]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are various PAYE scheme notices, such as reminders to pay and employers' end of year returns. No such notices should have been issued since 1997 where the relevant PAYE scheme record has been noted as "dormant". IR hold records for companies on a number of different IT systems. Some PAYE notices may have been issued for dormant companies where records held on other IR systems have been noted "dormant" but the PAYE scheme record has not. No numbers of such cases are available.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of penalty notices following the 31 January 2004 deadline for filing tax returns were sent out by 7 February. [167586]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In line with previous years, 90.6 per cent. of self assessment tax returns for 2003–04 were filed on time. Over 1 million returns were filed electronically. The Inland Revenue issued 952,766 Late Filing Penalty Notices on 17 February 2004 for returns not submitted by the due date.

HEALTH

  Drug Misuse (Liverpool)
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of drug addicts in Liverpool, Walton. [166986]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not available because there is no longer a register of heroin addicts. The Home Office register of heroin addicts ceased in 1997 as resistance to register by heroin users meant the data were so inaccurate, it was unusable.

  Agency Doctors/Nurses
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of agency(a) doctors and (b) nurses in (i) Preston and (ii) Chorley hospitals in each of the last three years. [148374]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The National Health Service does not separately record the cost of employing agency staff.

  Agriculture Council
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will represent the UK Government at the meeting of the European Agriculture Council in Luxembourg on 26 and 27 April. [167173]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  (holding answer 22 April 2004]: I refer my hon. Friend to the response given to her by my hon. Friend, the Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Bradshaw), on 27 April 2004, Official Report, column 861 W.

  Anti-depressants
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the correlation between the number of prescriptions for anti-depressant drugs and recorded suicides in each of the last 10 years. [166858]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has not analysed any relationships between the number of prescriptions for anti-depressant drugs and recorded suicides in each of the last 10 years.

  Asthma
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to commission research targeted at the needs of people whose asthma fails to respond to current treatments. [170237]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Health Service health technology assessment programme has commissioned a systematic review to examine the impact of psycho-educational interventions on health outcomes and costs in adults and children with difficult asthma. The report is expected for publication in early 2005.
  154W
  The Medical Research Council (MRC) always welcomes high quality applications from the scientific community for support for research into any aspect of human health, including severe difficult asthma, and these are judged in open competition with other demands in funding. Awards are made according to their scientific quality and importance to human health. In 2001–02, MRC expenditure on its respiratory disorders portfolio was an estimated £11.9 million, which included work on asthma.

  Bedside Televisions
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of(a) fixing so that they turn off and (b) replacing the faulty bedside televisions that have been provided. [167606]

  Mr. Hutton
  The bedside televisions provided are not faulty; no fixing or replacement is required and no additional costs are involved. Patients can turn off screens or turn them to face the wall if they prefer.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which companies have contracted with NHS trusts to provide bedside televisions. [167607]

  Mr. Hutton
  Over 59,000 patients in 126 national health service hospitals have access to bedside televisions and telephones. The companies listed have contracts with NHS trusts to provide the service.

  Patientline

  Wandsworth Electrical Ltd.

  Hospital Telephone Services

  Kerfone

  Premier Managed Payphones

  Patientpal

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of providing bedside televisions for patients. [167659]

  Mr. Hutton
  The bedside televisions are provided at no cost to the national health service.

  Private companies provide the televisions and bear the cost of installation, managing and running of them. As a result, the NHS has benefited from over £100 million of private sector investment.

  Blood Transfusion
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that those prevented from giving blood as a consequence of precautions against the transmission of variant Creutzfeld-Jakob disease are not disadvantaged in the provision of(a) insurance, (b) mortgages and (c) other relevant financial services. [164281]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.
  155W
  Individual medical information can be relevant to applications for life and health insurance in particular. We are not aware of any specific issues arising in connection with those people who have had a blood transfusion since 1 January 1980, or in connection with anyone who has been prevented from giving blood as a consequence of precautions against the transmission of variant Creutzfeld-Jakob disease.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Consultants in the six main cancer specialties

  Numbers (headcount)

  England1

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  December 2003

  All main cancer specialties

  3,362

  3,528

  3,721

  3,913

  4,169

  4,240

  of which:

  Clinical oncology

  305

  307

  333

  315

  347

  358

  Clinical radiology

  1,507

  1,585

  1,645

  1,702

  1,810

  1,822

  Haematology

  510

  527

  556

  588

  609

  632

  Histopathology

  836

  865

  915

  968

  1,021

  1,036

  Medical oncology

  110

  133

  147

  185

  202

  211

  Palliative medicine

  94

  111

  125

  155

  180

  181

  1Data as at 30 September each year, except December 2003 data, which is at 31 December.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Cancer Patients Survey
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1684W, on the Cancer Patients Survey, when he expects to publish the analysis. [167534]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The analysis of the Cancer Patients Survey was published on 22 April 2004. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library and on the Department's website.

  Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many forum members of the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health have resigned since its inception. [167994]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since their establishment on 1 December 2003, 662 members of Patients' Forums have resigned, which represents a turnover of 11 per cent.

  Consultancy Posts
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on matching the number of consultant vacancies to the number of qualified trainees. [167061]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are investing in future growth in the medical workforce by increasing both medical school places and specialist registrar training places. We have already exceeded the autumn 2005 England medical school intake target of 5,894, two years early. In autumn 2003, intake was 6,030 compared with 3,749 in autumn 1997 and as at 30 September 2003, there were 14,619 specialist registrars working in the national health service, an increase of 2,709 since September 1997.

  Cancer
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants in cancer specialities were working in the NHS in England in each year since 1999. [167700]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of consultants working in cancer specialties in England in each year since 1999 is shown in the table.

  A range of national recruitment initiatives is in place to support doctors looking for consultant vacancies most suited to them. A new website at: www.doh.gov.uk/consultantjobs hosts thousands of consultant vacancies in England for domestic specialist registrars as well as potential international consultant recruits. Similarly, the national roll-out of e-recruitment, an online recruitment service for the NHS, will allow doctors to search and apply for consultant vacancies on one website. This new service at: www.nhs.uk/jobs will streamline and modernise the process of recruitment of all NHS staff. In addition, the new consultant entry scheme facilitates the placement of specialist registrars looking for fixed term placements to known consultant vacancies.

  Consultants
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the liability in the 2003–04 accounts of NHS Trusts of the implementation of the new consultant's contract. [168906]

  Mr. Hutton
  Funding for the consultant contract, based on the methodology agreed with the British Medical Association during the negotiations, was allocated to primary care trusts in full in December 2002 as part of main allocations. For 2003–04, additional funding worth 0.3 per cent. of allocations was allocated to primary care trusts for the implementation of the new consultant contract. We have given clear guidance to the National Health Service about how to manage costs within the financial envelope and how to manage funding flows, but decisions on how to spend this funding are made locally.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) headcount and (b) whole-time equivalent consultants there were in each year between 1979 and 1997 inclusive. [168995]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  157W

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS) consultants by year—numbers and whole time equivalents (wtes)—as at 30 September each year

  Number

  Wte

  1979

  13,034

  11,578.4

  1980

  13,276

  12,045.1

  1981

  13,545

  12,300.4

  1982

  13,672

  12,438.9

  1983

  13,987

  12,723.8

  1984

  14,259

  13,016.9

  1985

  14,535

  13,257.4

  1986

  14,838

  13,505.7

  1987

  15,081

  13,681.5

  1988

  15,385

  14,052.1

  1989

  15,883

  14,517.5

  1990

  16,525

  15,011.4

  1991

  16,834

  15,332.8

  1992

  17,279

  15,695.9

  1993

  17,605

  16,044.5

  1994

  18,155

  16,537.5

  1995

  19,524

  17,899.6

  1996

  20,402

  18,602.6

  1997

  21,474

  19,661.3

  Notes:

  1. Figures before 1987 exclude staff on KE payscales (district directors of public health) as data on these are unavailable before 1987.

  2. In 1987 there were 68 such staff.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Continuing NHS Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 24 March 2004,Official Report, columns 914–15W, on continuing NHS care, what information will be available centrally when the review is completed on (a) the number of people who should have been eligible for confirming NHS care who had been excluded and (b) the cost of reimbursing those people. [167940]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In due course, the Department expects information to be available centrally on the number of people granted recompense for being wrongly denied fully funded National Health Service continuing care and the aggregate cost of that recompense.

  Correspondence
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a response will be sent to the letter from the hon. Member for West Worcestershire to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Lord Warner, on 23 March. [168952]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: A reply was sent to hon. Member on 29 April 2004.

  Drug Action Teams
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the key performance indicators are for Drug Action Teams. [171431]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection has included two performance indicators relating to drug action teams 158W
  (and drug and alcohol action teams) in their performance rating assessment of national health service primary care trusts in England in 2003–04. They are:
  drug misuse treatment—increase in drug misusers accessing treatment; and
  drug misuse shared care—percentage of general practitioner practices in a shared care scheme for problematic drug misusers.

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the public dividend capital was at 31 March of those NHS trusts becoming NHS foundation trusts on 1 April; whether in each case this is the initial public dividend capital of those foundation trusts; and what requests he has received for the issuing of additional public dividend capital to those foundation trusts under section 11 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. [165729]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: The amount of public dividend capital (PDC) outstanding on 31 March 2004 at each of the national health service trusts that became NHS foundation trusts on 1 April 2004 is shown in the table. The information is taken from the Department's records. The amount of PDC shown in the annual accounts of these trusts is subject to audit and may differ for technical accounting reasons. The initial PDC of a NHS foundation trust is the same as the closing PDC of the predecessor NHS trust.

  To date, no requests have been received from NHS foundation trusts for additional public dividend capital under section 11 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003.

  £ million

  NHS foundation trust

  Amount of PDC outstanding at 31 March 2004

  Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals

  68,379

  Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals

  50,878

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  27,810

  Homerton University Hospital

  77,160

  The Royal Marsden

  46,257

  Bradford Teaching Hospitals

  103,245

  Stockport

  65,686

  Countess Of Chester Hospital

  45,123

  Royal Devon and Exeter

  124,159

  Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals

  113,495

  Total

  722,193

  GP Surgeries
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the maintenance backlog cost of general practitioner surgeries in the NHS in(a) England, (b) each strategic health authority and (c) each primary care trust in each year since 1997. [167413]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are some 10,500 general practitioner surgeries in England, of which 85 per cent. are either owner-occupied or rented by GPs, who are responsible for maintenance of their premises. The information requested is not held centrally and cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Health Professionals (Training Costs)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of training a(a) occupational therapist, (b) physiotherapist, (c) speech and language therapist, (d) district nurse and (e) health visitor. [169708]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information for England on the cost of training pre-registration occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech and language therapists, excluding bursaries, and district nurses and health visitors are shown in the table.

  Staff group

  2003–04 cost(£)

  Occupational therapist

  20,420

  Physiotherapist

  20,980

  Speech and language therapist

  20,430

  District nurse

  23,600

  Health visitor

  23,600

  Source:

  Financial and Workforce Information Return (FWIR) November 2002.

  Health Services
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of NHS dental services in(a) the Huntingdon constituency and (b) Cambridgeshire. [170858]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information relating to the provision of national health service dental services in the Huntingdon constituency and Cambridge have been placed in the Library.

  Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) will have increased influence and control over the spread of NHS dental provision across their catchment area, and will have budgets devolved to them, so that the PCT will be able to keep the money locally for dentistry if a dentist leaves.

  Nationally we have provided new investment totalling £90 million over the last year. £59 million will support access, and strategic health authorities have been advised of their shares and are working with their

  Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Month-end/NHS trust

  Total number of patients waiting for admission

  Less than 3 months

  3–5 months

  6–8 months

  March 1997

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  8,106

  4,026

  2,092

  1,220

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  3,850

  1,836

  1,238

  568

  March 1998

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  7,936

  3,790

  1,978

  1,218

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  4,428

  1,826

  1,470

  688

  March 1999

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  6,628

  3,846

  1,666

  772

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  3,760

  1,742

  1,020

  622

  March 2000

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  7,074

  4,026

  1,632

  896

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  3,836

  1,628

  1,146

  598

  160W
  PCTs to address access issues. £30 million is to support information technology and the balance of £1 million will support organisational development locally.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of suspected cancer patients in the Huntingdon constituency saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years. [170859]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The number of patients with suspected cancer who saw consultants within two weeks are as shown in the table for the two trusts within the Huntingdon constituency.

  Number of urgent GP referrals for suspected cancer

  Percentage seen by specialist with two weeks of referral

  Hinchingbrooke Healthcare National Health Service

  March 2002

  468

  99.8

  March 2003

  415

  100.0

  June 2003

  499

  100.0

  September 2003

  576

  99.8

  December 2003

  593

  100.0

  Papworth hospital NHS Trust

  March 2002

  7

  100.0

  March 2003

  13

  100.0

  June 2003

  8

  100.0

  September 2003

  5

  100.0

  December 2003

  5

  100.0

  Source:

  Department of Health Statistics

  Mr. Djanogly
  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 the Huntingdon constituency. [170860]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the changes in national health service waiting list times over the past seven years for the residents of Huntingdon constituency.

  The total number of patients on the in-patient waiting list fell by 28,198 between the end of January 2004 and the end of February 2004 to 941,162. This is the ninth successive month the waiting list has been below a million.
  161W

  Patients waiting for elective in-patient admission

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Month-end/NHS trust

  Total number of patients waiting for admission

  Less than 3 months

  3–5 months

  6–8 months

  March 2001

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  6,948

  3,898

  1,756

  894

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  4,906

  2,342

  1,602

  736

  March 2002

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  8,192

  4,244

  2,320

  1,086

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  4,432

  2,046

  1,482

  684

  March 2003

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  3,877

  2,216

  936

  513

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  2,104

  1,323

  584

  178

  March 2004

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  3,494

  2,282

  944

  268

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  2,110

  1,630

  450

  30

  Huntingdonshire PCT

  20

  17

  3

  —

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Month-end/NHS trust

  9–11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  18 + months

  March 1997

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trutt

  758

  10

  —

  —

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  204

  4

  —

  —

  March 1998

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  728

  194

  28

  —

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  404

  34

  6

  —

  March 1999

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  290

  54

  —

  —

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  300

  76

  —

  —

  March 2000

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  468

  52

  —

  —

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  360

  104

  —

  —

  March 2001

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  326

  66

  8

  —

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  184

  38

  4

  —

  March 2002

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  526

  16

  —

  —

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  220

  —

  —

  —

  March 2003

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  212

  —

  —

  —

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  19

  —

  —

  —

  March 2004

  Hinchingbrooke Health Care NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Huntingdonshire PCT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  DH form KH07

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) overseas doctors and (b) overseas nurses there were in Liverpool in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2003. [166949]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested on overseas doctors has been placed in the Library. The equivalent information on over seas nurses is not collected centrally.
  162W
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of elective admissions to the NHS in Wirral, South in the past five years. [166618]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  163W

  Provider of treatment RBL Wirral Hospitals NHS Trust, count of finished elective (waiting list, planned and booked) admission episodes—NHS hospitals, 1998–99 to 2002–03

  Finished Admission Episodes

  1998–99

  36,667

  1999–2000

  29,759

  2000–01

  32,018

  2001–02

  33,351

  2002–03

  29,664

  Notes:

  1. A finished admission episode is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

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

  Source:

  Hospital episode statistics, Department of Health.

  Hearing Aids
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the implementation of the modernising hearing aid services programme; [171091]

  (2) what continuation funding will be available for the modernising hearing aid services programme after central funding ends in 2005; and if he will make a statement. [171092]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The modernising hearing aid services (MHAS) programme has resulted in the provision of digital hearing aids and the modernisation of services in two thirds of the audiology departments in England. By the end of March 2005, all audiology departments will have been through the programme. An extra £26.4 million capital and £12 million revenue is scheduled to be distributed to lead primary care trusts for the financial year beginning April 2005 as part of the general allocations.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS hearing aids are digital in(a) Essex and (b) England; and if he will make a statement. [171093]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in Essex on the modernising hearing aid services programme. [171094]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Four of the five acute trusts in Essex have modernised audiology departments and are fitting digital hearing aids. Epping Forest Primary Care Trust (St. Margaret's Hospital) will commence fitting digital hearing aids in 2005.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects full take-up of NHS digital hearing aids to be achieved in(a) Essex and (b) England. [171095]

  Dr. Ladyman
  All audiology departments in England will routinely be fitting digital hearing aids by March 2005, two thirds are already doing so.

  The Department is investing a further £94 million in the financial years 2003–04 and 2004–05. This is additional to a total of £30.75 million invested since the Modernising Hearing Aid Services (MHAS) project began in September 2000.
  164W
  Essex Strategic Health Authority, and primary care and other trusts within Essex continue to work towards meeting the March 2005 target.

  Hearing-impaired Patients
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to ensure that patients who are deaf or have hearing problems have full access to the NHS services by October. [170965]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department is working in partnership with the Disability Rights Commission on a range of measures to support the National Health Service in improving access to information and services, communications and levels of awareness of disability issues. These measures include, for example, developing health sector-specific practical guidance and promoting awareness of the access duties within the NHS.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the way that the NHS communicates with patients who are deaf or who have a hearing impairment. [171013]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments to the way they deliver their services so that disabled people can use them. In January 1999, the Department issued guidance to chief executives of National Health Service Trusts on providing good quality services meeting the needs of disabled people. This guidance contains a section explaining the needs of people who are deaf or who have a hearing impairment setting out a range of ways in which better communication can be supported. For example, the, guidance recommends that interpreters used for medical consultations should be appropriately qualified, that hospitals and health centres should maintain an up to date list of accredited sign language interpreters, and that letter headings, leaflets and information sheets should include text phone, fax and email numbers to facilitate responses from deaf people.

  NHS organisations are responsible for their own compliance with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. However, the Department is working in partnership with the Disability Rights Commission on a range of measures to support the NHS in improving access to information and services, communications and levels of awareness of disability issues. These measures include, for example, developing health sector-specific practical guidance and promoting awareness of the access duties within the NHS.

  Hunters Moor Hospital (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many business cases have so far been(a) submitted and (b) rejected for a replacement neuro-disability centre for Hunters Moor Hospital, Newcastle; what the date was of the first such submission; and whether a business case has now been accepted. [168699]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Three business cases have been submitted.
  165W
  The first outline business case was submitted in 1995. It was not progressed further because of changes in the time scale of implementing the Newcastle Strategic Review.

  The second outline business case was submitted in 1998 to provide interim accommodation. It was rejected by the community health council. The former Newcastle City Health Trust withdrew the proposal and agreed to explore further options.

  The third outline business case was developed following a period of public consultation. It was approved by Northumberland, Tyne and Wear Strategic Health Authority in 2003. The full business case is now being developed.

  Internet Medicine Sales
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's monitoring of the sale of(a) licensed and (b) unlicensed medicines over the internet. [167803]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) works in co-ordination with world-wide enforcement bodies to address this area of criminal activity. The MHRA is a member of the Permanent Forum on International Pharmaceutical Crime (PFIPC). This forum was set up by the United Kingdom in 1998 to promote good practice and develop intelligence links and networks. Internet crime is a frequent topic for discussion.

  An initiative to co-ordinate action within the European Community and pre accession countries was established this year to advise and assist prospective members and to raise awareness of issues relating to the internet.

  An initiative is currently in progress to identify a commercially available internet monitoring software package for use by the MHRA.

  In addition, the MHRA and the former Medicines Control Agency (MCA) has beer involved with three initiatives involving the availability of medicines on the internet sponsored by other Government agencies and local authorities, such as the Office of Fair Trading, Inland Revenue and trading standards departments. These initiatives identified websites which appeared to be in breach of medicines legislation. The MHRA/MCA investigated the services offered by those websites and took appropriate action.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on enforcing the General Medicine Council's ruling on the sale of medicines over the internet. [167804]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In November 1998 the General Medical Council (CMC) issued guidance to doctors on providing advice and medicine on line or by telephone. The GMC guidance promotes good medical practice but is not for the Government to enforce.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to seek to amend the law relating to sales of drugs over the internet; and if he will make a statement. [167805]
  166W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no plans to amend medicines legislation relating to the internet. Legal controls on the retail sale or supply of medicines are set out in the Medicines Act 1968 and associated regulations.

  These controls apply without distinction to medicines sold or supplied through internet transactions. Although there are strict legal controls in legislation on the sale, supply and advertisement of medicinal products within the European Community, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) accepts that the sale of medicines over the internet poses unique challenges to national authorities.

  Along with counterparts in other member states and other enforcement bodies world-wide (including the Food and Drugs Administration), the MHRA continues to monitor developments. However, by its very nature, the internet, with its broad reach, relative anonymity and the ease of creating new websites (plus removing old ones) means that ensuring effective compliance with legislative requirements requires a global commitment.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many investigations have been carried out into the sale of unlicensed medicines via the internet by(a) the Medicines Control Agency for each year between 1997 and 2003 and (b) the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency in the last year. [167808]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of internet investigations carried out by the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) involving unlicensed medicinal products year-on-year since 1997 is shown in the table.

  Number of cases

  1997–20011

  3

  2001–021

  1

  2002–031

  5

  2003–042

  7

  1Investigated by the MCA.

  2Investigated by the MHRA.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prosecutions against sellers of unlicensed medicines via the internet(a) have been undertaken, (b) have been successful and (c) are in preparation by (i) the Medicines Control Agency for each year between 1997 and 2003 and (ii) the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency in the last year. [167809]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To date, there has been one successful prosecution, by the then Medicines Control Agency, relating to the sale of unlicensed medicines on the internet. This took place in 1999. No other such prosecutions have been brought.

  The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency currently has two cases prepared for prosecution involving the sale of unlicensed medicines on the internet.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many employees are engaged in the Special Inquiry Unit of the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency investigating drugs sales through the internet. [167810]
  167W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The work of the special enquiry unit of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) was absorbed into the mainstream criminal investigation unit in October 2001.

  The MHRA currently employs 14 full time investigators. The investigators cover all allegations relating to breaches of medicines legislation and do not exclusively investigate sales via the internet.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training is undertaken by employees of the Special Inquiry Unit of the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency investigating drug sales through the internet. [167811]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  All investigation officers in the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) receive training in how to undertake investigations into cases involving the internet. Also, specialist administrative staff involved in internet casework have received additional training in internet search techniques.

  In addition, senior officers from the MHRA visited United States federal agencies in Washington at the end of last year as part of a familiarisation exercise on electronic investigative techniques currently in use in the United States. They received demonstrations of training and software packages on the market and in operation. Senior officers in the MHRA are in the process of evaluating which systems will be best suited to its needs.

  Learning Disabilities
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been invested in the Learning Disability Development Fund; from what sources the funding comes; and if he will make a statement. [170197]

  Dr. Ladyman
  "Valuing People—a New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21stCentury" announced the creation of the learning disability development fund (LDDF) to provide central support for key aspects of the strategy. It was introduced in 2002–03.

  The revenue allocations were £20.6 million in 2002–03, and £21.1 million in 2003–04. The capital allocations for both years were £20 million.

  The revenue element of the LDDF is formed from that element of the old long stay adjustment within general health allocations which is released as former long stay patients die.

  The LDDF capital is additional investment which resulted from the 2002 spending review.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with learning disabilities have access to a health facilitator; how many have received an health action plan, broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [170199]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The number of people with learning disabilities with access to a health facilitator and a health action plan is not available.

  Good practice guidance was issued in July 2002 on two key elements of the strategy for improving the health of people with learning disabilities: health action plans and health facilitation. This was followed up with
  168W
  a series of regional workshops. In the light of these the percentage 'Valuing People' support team has been working with local learning disability partnership boards to help them implement health action plans and health facilitation in their areas.

  "Building on the Best", our response to the consultation on choice, responsiveness and equality in the national health service, published in December 2003, said that we will bring forward proposals during 2004 to offer disabled people the option of taking up an annual health check. We are considering how to take this forward in a way that will further support the health action planning process.

  Long-term Care
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will, in the light of the recent Ombudsman's report on Mr. Curran, assess the criteria used by the Castle Point and Rochford Primary Care Trust to determine payment of the long-term health and care costs; and if he will make a statement on their consistency with the principle of free NHS care for those with serious health problems; [171717]

  (2) if he will refund to families the costs they have been charged for the long-term care of their loved ones where these charges have been found to relate primarily to clinical care necessary because of severe illness; and if he will make a statement; [171731]

  (3) if he will make it his policy to ensure that people with severe irreversible brain damage who need long-term health care ate not required to pay for that care; [171733]

  (4) if he will list the strategic health authorities under which the long-term care of people with Parkinson's disease is (a) funded under the NHS and (b) not funded under the NHS; [171734]

  (5) if he will make a statement on the consistency among strategic health authorities' policies on paying for long-term care costs for people with Parkinson's disease and other serious health needs. [171735]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Recompense payments have been made, and will continue to be made, in cases where investigations have revealed that individuals were wrongly denied full funded national health service continuing care. Eligibility for fully funded NHS continuing care is based on the individual's level of assessed health care needs, not on a condition specific basis. All strategic health authorities have recently reviewed their criteria and have provided the Department with evidence of the legal advice sought to ensure their criteria's compliance with the NHS' legal responsibilities.

  Malnutrition
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly people were diagnosed as suffering from malnutrition(a) in total and (b) broken down by health authority, in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [166009]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In the NHS Plan (2000) the Government made a commitment to reduce under nutrition by developing a hospital nutrition policy to
  169W
  improve the outcome of care of patients by 2004. A number of measures and strategies are in place to manage, monitor and screen patients for under nutrition in hospitals, residential care and the wider community. Nutritional screening is recommended for the care of specific groups, such as those outlined in the national service framework for older people (2001).

  Health authority of residence

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  QA2 Hillingdon HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  QA3 Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  3

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  QA4 Enfield and Haringey HA

  —

  1

  2

  2

  —

  —

  QA5 Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  QA6 Bedfordshire HA

  1

  —

  5

  1

  3

  1

  QA7 Berkshire HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  QA8 Buckinghamshire HA

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  QA9 Cambridge and Huntingdon HA

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  QAA Bexley and Greenwich HA

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  QAC Bromley HA

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  QAD Croydon HA

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  QAE East Kent HA

  4

  3

  3

  3

  —

  —

  QAF West Kent HA

  —

  1

  1

  3

  —

  1

  QAG Kingston and Richmond HA

  —

  1

  2

  —

  5

  —

  QAH Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  —

  1

  8

  2

  6

  1

  QAJ Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  QAK East Surrey HA

  —

  2

  1

  —

  2

  6

  QAL West Surrey HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  4

  QAM East Sussex, Brighton and Hove HA

  5

  4

  2

  —

  4

  5

  QAN West Sussex HA

  1

  1

  2

  2

  2

  QAP Barking and Havering HA

  4

  3

  —

  —

  2

  1

  QAQ Barnet HA

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  QAR Brent and Harrow HA

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  QAT Camden and Islington HA

  1

  1

  2

  2

  —

  2

  QAV Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  2

  1

  4

  2

  1

  QAW East London and The City HA

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  —

  QAX North Essex HA

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  3

  DAY South Essex HA

  2

  —

  —

  3

  1

  1

  QC1 South Lancashire HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  QC2 Liverpool HA

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  QC3 Manchester HA

  1

  —

  1

  1

  4

  1

  QC4 Morecambe Bay HA

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  1

  QC5 St. Helens and Knowsley HA

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  QC6 Salford and Trafford HA

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  QC7 Sefton HA

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  QC8 Stockport HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  QC9 West Pennine HA

  3

  —

  —

  1

  1

  QCA East Norfolk HA

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  QCC Northamptonshire HA

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  QCD North West Anglia HA

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  QCE Oxfordshire HA

  1

  1

  1

  1

  3

  4

  QCF Suffolk HA

  1

  3

  4

  3

  2

  1

  QCG Barnsley HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  QCH North Derbyshire HA

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  QCJ South Derbyshire HA

  —

  1

  2

  2

  —

  1

  QCK Doncaster HA

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  QCL Leicestershire HA

  2

  2

  2

  2

  3

  4

  QCM Lincolnshire HA

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  QCN North Nottinghamshire HA

  —

  1

  —

  1

  5

  —

  QCP Nottingham HA

  —

  2

  1

  6

  6

  2

  QCQ Rotherham HA

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  OCR Sheffield HA

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  QCT Bury and Rochdale HA

  2

  1

  —

  1

  1

  —

  QCV North Cheshire HA

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  QCW South Cheshire HA

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  QCX East Lancashire HA

  1

  1

  —

  1

  4

  1

  QCY North-West Lancashire HA

  1

  4

  2

  1

  1

  3

  QD1 North and Mid Hampshire HA

  —

  —

  1

  3

  1

  —

  QD2 Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  QD3 Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  1

  3

  2

  2

  1

  3

  QD4 Isle of Wight HA

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  QD5 Somerset HA

  1

  4

  1

  3

  —

  —

  QD6 South and West Devon HA

  1

  2

  —

  4

  3

  3

  QD7 Wiltshire HA

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  QD8 Avon HA

  2

  —

  1

  4

  1

  —

  170W
  Data from Hospital Episode Statistics showing the count of finished admission episodes to hospitals in England from 1997–98 to 2002–03 by the health authority of residence for malnutrition, where the primary diagnosis is malnutrition and the age on admission was 65 plus, are shown in the table.
  171W

  Health authority of residence

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  QD9 Birmingham HA

  2

  5

  2

  2

  1

  4

  QDA Wigan and Bolton HA

  —

  —

  1

  —

  4

  —

  QDC Wirral HA

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  ODD Bradford HA

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  QDE County Durham and Darlington HA

  4

  2

  1

  1

  —

  2

  QDF East Riding HA

  2

  —

  1

  3

  2

  1

  QDG Gateshead and South Tyneside HA

  1

  2

  1

  1

  3

  1

  QDH Leeds HA

  7

  4

  —

  —

  1

  1

  QDJ Newcastle and North Tyneside HA

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  QDK North Cumbria HA

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  QDL South Humber HA

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  QDM Northumberland HA

  2

  4

  —

  1

  —

  1

  QDN Sunderland HA

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  QDP Tees HA

  —

  3

  1

  2

  —

  —

  QDQ Wakefield HA

  2

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  QDR North Yorkshire HA

  —

  1

  1

  4

  2

  —

  QDT Calderdale and Kirklees HA

  —

  2

  2

  —

  1

  —

  QDV Cornwall and Isles of Scilly HA

  2

  2

  —

  1

  3

  —

  QDW Dorset HA

  —

  —

  2

  2

  —

  —

  QDX North and East Devon HA

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  QDY Gloucestershire HA

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  QEA Coventry HA

  —

  1

  2

  —

  2

  —

  QEC Dudley HA

  6

  1

  —

  1

  2

  2

  QEE Sandwell HA

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  QEF Shropshire HA

  —

  2

  1

  1

  —

  1

  QEG Solihull HA

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  QEH North Staffordshire HA

  3

  5

  1

  —

  3

  1

  QEJ South Staffordshire HA

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  1

  QEK Walsall HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  QEL Warwickshire HA

  2

  4

  —

  3

  1

  —

  OEM Wolverhampton HA

  4

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  QEN Worcestershire HA

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  QEQ West Hertfordshire HA

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  QER Cambridgeshire HA

  —

  —

  1

  2

  5

  3

  QET Norfolk HA

  —

  —

  4

  4

  4

  5

  QEV Isle of Wight Portsmouth and Southampton HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  QEW Barnet Enfield and Haringey HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  QEX Hertfordshire HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  QEY Bexley Bromley and Greenwich HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  W Wales

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Y Not known

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Grand total

  102

  111

  96

  105

  128

  112

  Maternity Services (Asylum Seekers)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 29 March 2004,Official Report, column 1217W, on maternity services (asylum seekers) what (a) maternity and (b) antenatal services will be available to women who have had their application for asylum refused. [171398]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Pregnant women whose application for asylum has been finally rejected will continue to be able to access National Health Service hospital antenatal and maternity services but they may be charged for any services provided, depending on how long they have been in the United Kingdom at the time their claim is turned down. In primary care settings, free treatment will be given only where, in the opinion of a health care professional, it is an emergency or is immediately necessary. In other circumstances, failed asylum seekers should be de-registered and should receive treatment (maternity medical services) only from General Practitioners practices on a private, paying basis.

  Meningitis
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the meningitis risk to young people entering universities; and if he will make a statement. [170818]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The risk of meningitis in young people entering higher education has reduced substantially since the introduction of the MenC vaccine. The number of cases of meningitis C per year in all age groups has declined by over 90 per cent., since the vaccine was introduced.

  Meningitis B still presents a risk, as there is no vaccine available to protect against this disease. In order to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of meningitis, the Department distributes the 'Look out for your mate' leaflet which is targeted specifically at the student age group.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what immunisation advice he has given to young people due to enter higher education this year in respect of meningitis. [170821]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  United Kingdom students entering higher education should have received MenC vaccine as part of the vaccination campaign. We
  173W
  recommend that every effort should be made to ensure that all individuals are immunised even if they are older than the recommended age range, and that no opportunity should be missed.

  Mental Health
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many mental health beds are occupied by people being treated for physical health conditions; [169038]

  (2) what his policy is on mental health beds in hospitals being used for treating people for physical health conditions. [169039]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not centrally available. The Department monitors the average daily number of open and staffed beds in National Health Service hospitals. Figures can be sub-divided into different ward classifications, such as `neonates and children' or into sectors such as 'mental illness'. However, it is not possible to provide the information requested using these figures.

  The Department does not have a specific policy on the use of mental health beds being used for treating people for physical health conditions. The national service framework for mental health standard five envisages each mental health service user who is assessed as requiring a period of care away from their home to have timely access to an appropriate hospital bed or alternative bed or place. Strategic health authorities have a responsibility to ensure trusts' compliance with this standard.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to publish a timetable for the pre-legislative scrutiny committee stages of the Mental Health Bill; [169021]

  (2) when the Government will publish the responses to the consultation on mental health. [169588]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A revised and completed Mental Health Bill will be brought forward for pre-legislative scrutiny in this session. The Government's response to consultation on the draft Mental Health Bill will be published prior to consideration of the revised Bill by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee.

  Mumps
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to appeal to all teenagers not vaccinated against mumps to be immunised; [167409]

  (2) what guidance has been produced by his Department on inoculation against mumps for people who did not receive the MMR vaccine as children. [167414]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  All children need two doses of measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to ensure that they are properly protected against measles, mumps and rubella.
  174W
  We advise that children who have either had no or one dose of MMR should be offered a further dose. In our information resources, we already advise young people to check that all their immunisations, including MMR, are up to date at the time they have their teenage immunisations. We also advise healthcare professionals that entry to higher educational establishments provides a further opportunity to check the immunisation history.

  Nappies
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has received a copy of the recent report from the Women's Environmental Network on the economic and environmental costs of the promotion, use and disposal as clinical waste of disposable nappies within the National Health Service. [169044]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Officials at the Department have received and responded to the recent report from the Women's Environmental Network on the use of disposable nappies within the National Health Service.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate(a) the average unit cost of disposal as clinical waste of disposable nappies within the National Health Service and (b) the total cost to the NHS of the disposal of such nappies in the last year for which figures are available. [169045]

  Dr. Ladyman
  National Health Service trusts establish their own policy on the disposal of nappies and will decide whether to treat them as domestic waste, and therefore send them to landfill sites or clinical waste and therefore incinerate them. The cost of clinical waste involving disposable nappies is not collected centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether officials of his Department have met officials of the Waste Implementation Programme of the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to discuss how best to identify and promote best practice in nappy use, promotion and disposal within the National Health Service. [169046]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Officials at the Department have not met officials of the waste implementation programme at the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs to discuss the use of nappies in the National Health Service. In July 2003 my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Public Health, met my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Environment and Agri-Environment (Elliot Morley), along with representatives from the Women's Environmental Network to discuss disposable nappy waste and the use of reusable nappies in the NHS.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet representatives of the Nappy Alliance to discuss policy and practice in the use of nappies within NHS facilities. [169047]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I will consider meeting representatives of the Nappy Alliance following a written request to the Department.

  National Service Frameworks
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the children's national service framework will make reference to the good practice in continence services guidelines. [169051]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is not intended that the children's national service framework will set standards for the treatment of specific conditions, but rather will outline what support should be available to children and their parents in managing a whole range of problems. In doing so it will emphasise the promotion of evidence-based clinical guidelines and provide examples of good practice.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish the full national service framework for children. [169020]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The national service framework for children, young people and maternity services will be published this year.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards the national service framework milestone for systems to explore user and carer experience in primary care trusts. [170618]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The responsibility for planning for and monitoring progress against this milestone of the national service framework for older people lies with strategic health authorities.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on progress towards the national service framework milestone for general practitioner practices in identifying, treating and managing patients at risk of stroke; [1706221]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress towards the national service framework milestone for general practitioner practices in identifying and treating people who have had a stroke; [170622]

  (3) if he will make a statement on progress towards the national service framework milestone for general practitioner practices to establish clinical audit systems for stroke; [170623]

  (4) if he will make a statement on progress towards the national service framework milestone for general practitioner practices to use agreed protocols for rapid referral of patients with TIAs to local specialist services; [170626]

  (5) if he will make a statement on progress towards the national service framework milestone for general hospitals caring for people with stroke to have a specialised stroke service. [170627]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The planning and priorities framework for 2003–06 contained as a key 'must do' target the provision of specialist stroke services in hospitals caring for people with stroke by April 2004. This target is being monitored as part of the quarterly monitoring process and information on progress at the end of March 2004 will be available in June. 2003–04 local delivery plans and subsequent discussions with strategic health 176W
  authorities (SHAs) suggest that the target will be fully met. At December 2003, around three-quarters of hospitals had already) met the target.

  Planning for and measuring progress on all the other milestones in Standard 5 of the national service framework for older people, relating to the development of stroke services, is the responsibility of SHAs.

  Neonatal Intensive Care
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the vacancy rate is for nurses in intensive care units for new born babies in each hospital trust in England; [169056]

  (2) how many (a) nurses and (b) whole-time equivalent nurses work in intensive care units for new born babies. [169055]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  New Variant CJD
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new cases of new variant CJD were reported in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [167073]

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

  Annual cases of variant Creutzfeld Jakob disease by notification since 1999

  Reported cases

  1999

  16

  2000

  29

  2001

  21

  2002

  15

  2003

  15

  20041

  0

  Total

  96

  1As of 5 April 2004

  NHS
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 30 March 2004,Official Report, column 83WS, on NHS charges, what the cost of providing (a) sight tests, (b) dental check-ups and (c) prescription charges free on the NHS will be following the changes. [166430]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The estimated additional annual cost to the national health service in England following the changes to the National Health Service (Travel Expenses and Remissions of Charges) Regulations from 6 April 2004 is as follows:provision of free sight tests—around £6,000;
  provision of free dental treatment—around £70,000 (the additional cost of provision of free dental check-ups has not been identified separately; and
  loss of prescription charge revenue—around £580,000.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on childcare provision for NHS staff. [162997]
  177W
  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service childcare strategy has a key role to play in the recruitment, retention and return of staff to the NHS.

  The NHS Plan introduced the idea of a childcare strategy, as part of the improving working lives standard. National targets were set for 150 new on-site nurseries providing an additional 7,500 subsidised places, and for all NHS staff to have access to a childcare co-ordinator. Over £70 million has been made available for this over the three years from April 2001.

  So far, 140 new nursery schemes, new builds or extensions to existing nurseries, have been opened or are in the pipeline, which will provide an extra 6,000 new nursery places for NHS staff. Further schemes are being considered.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children of NHS staff use NHS-provided childcare facilities. [163059]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service childcare strategy has a key role to play in the recruitment, retention and return of staff to the NHS.

  We do not keep central figures on the numbers of NHS staff using NHS provided childcare facilities.

  The NHS Plan introduced the idea of a childcare strategy, as part of the Improving Working Lives standard. National targets were set for 150 new on-site nurseries providing additional 7,500 subsidised places, and for all NHS staff to have access to a childcare co-ordinator. Over £70 million has been made available for this over the three years from April 2001.

  So far, 140 new nursery schemes— new builds or extensions to existing nurseries— have been opened or are in the pipeline. These will provide an extra 6,000 new nursery places for NHS staff. Further schemes are being considered.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of calls to NHS Direct were resolved by NHS Direct without the need for further NHS intervention in the last year for which figures are available. [162055]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Last year NHS Direct handled 6,427,321 calls and the proportion of these calls to NHS Direct that were resolved by NHS Direct without the need for further NHS intervention in the last year for which figures are available was 44.3 per cent.

  NHS hospital and community health services: qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff in the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority area as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  NHS hospital

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Total

  5,701

  5,796

  5,956

  6,248

  6,589

  7,029

  7,170

  5AA

  South Manchester PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  89

  105

  109

  5CL

  Central Manchester PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  116

  152

  152

  5CR

  North Manchester PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  71

  82

  89

  5CX

  Trafford South PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  5

  7

  6

  5F4

  Heywood and Middleton PC1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2

  I

  3

  5F5

  Salford PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  106

  137

  155

  5F6

  Trafford North PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2

  4

  178W
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what percentage of new nursing recruits into the NHS have been recruited through recruitment agencies which have not signed up to the Government's code of practice on ethical recruitment; [170315]

  (2) what percentage of all nursing recruits into the NHS have been through recruitment agencies. [170316]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: This information is not held centrally.

  National health service trusts should use only those commercial agencies which comply with the Code of Practice and which are listed on the Department's website.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the country of origin was of nurses recruited into the NHS from overseas in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [170317]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: The Department does not collect information on the country of origin of nurses recruited to the national health service.

  The Nursing and Midwifery Council holds information on the number of admissions of nurses and midwives to the register by country. This information is available on the Council's website on www.nmc-uk.org.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms are in place to ensure the Government can guarantee that no recruitment agencies are used by the NHS to recruit nurses which have not signed up to the Government's code of practice on ethical recruitment. [170318]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: National health service trusts should use only those commercial agencies which comply with the Code of Practice and which are listed on the Department's website.

  Strategic health authorities (SHAs) are working with trusts to ensure they comply with the Code of Practice and only work with agencies who are compliant.

  This is in line with the government policy as it is for primary care trusts in partnership with SHAs and other local stakeholders to determine how best to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS therapists were located in Heywood and Middleton in each of the last seven years. [168485]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  179W

  NHS hospital and community health services: qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff in the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority area as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  NHS hospital

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  5F7

  Stockport PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  112

  124

  116

  5HG

  Ashton, Leigh and Wigan PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  311

  335

  5HQ

  Bolton PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  163

  191

  5J5

  Oldham PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  122

  133

  5JX

  Bury PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  94

  91

  5JY

  Rochdale PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  137

  144

  5LH

  Tameside and Glossop PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—i

  128

  132

  QC3

  Manchester HA

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1—

  1—

  1—

  QC6

  Salford and Trafford HA

  0

  0

  0

  11

  1

  1—

  1—

  QC8

  Stockport HA

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1—

  1—

  1—

  QC9

  West Pennine HA

  1

  1

  1

  2

  4

  1—

  1—

  QCT

  Bury and Rochdale HA

  1

  1

  11

  12

  10

  1—

  1—

  QDA

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  4

  1—

  1—

  RBU

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  673

  668

  705

  730

  1—

  1—

  1—

  RBV

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  265

  268

  281

  288

  303

  320

  329

  REX

  Oldham NHS Trust

  347

  346

  360

  393

  417

  1—

  1—

  REZ

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  244

  249

  243

  259

  308

  1—

  1—

  RJY

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  488

  506

  516

  528

  1—

  1—

  1—

  RM2

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  534

  550

  561

  562

  554

  548

  549

  RM3

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  441

  460

  458

  468

  485

  513

  476

  RM4

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  281

  288

  306

  323

  337

  340

  315

  RM5

  Mancunian Community Health NHS Trust

  282

  292

  277

  304

  1—

  1—

  1—

  RMC

  Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust

  332

  350

  360

  397

  416

  421

  428

  RMH

  Mental Health Services of Salford NHS Trust

  123

  130

  139

  145

  156

  194

  1—

  RMJ

  Salford Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  109

  110

  116

  109

  1—

  1—

  1—

  RMK

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  286

  267

  272

  275

  256

  1—

  1—

  RMM

  Community Healthcare Bolton NHS Trust

  121

  131

  140

  158

  173

  1—

  1—

  RMN

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  216

  225

  230

  242

  267

  1—

  1—

  RMP

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  158

  162

  159

  168

  184

  200

  221

  RMQ

  Tameside and Glossop Community/Priority Services NHS Trust

  140

  140

  148

  160

  159

  1—

  1—

  RMS

  Stockport Acute Services NHS Trust

  292

  286

  295

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  RMT

  Stockport Healthcare NHS Trust

  180

  177

  186

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  RQ7

  Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  187

  189

  191

  211

  1—

  1—

  1—

  RRF

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  615

  276

  289

  RT2

  Pennine Care NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  146

  187

  RW3

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  923

  1,045

  1,115

  RW6

  Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  900

  853

  RWJ

  Stockport NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  499

  396

  420

  400

  RXV

  Bolton Salford And Trafford Mental Health NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  213

  TAA

  Manchester Mental Health Partnership

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  120

  1—

  1—

  TAE

  Manchester Mental Health and Social Care Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  141

  135

  1Not applicable.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in Stalybridge and Hyde in each of the last seven years. [168772]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The table shows the number of doctors and nurses within the Greater Manchester

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS) Doctors1General Medical Practitioners (excluding retainers)2Qualified Nursing, Midwifery and health visiting staff and Practice Nurses employed by Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)3for Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority and specified organisations

  Numbers (headcount)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Greater Manchester

  Doctors1

  5,322

  5,441

  5,634

  5,695

  5,834

  5,951

  5,965

  of which:

  HCHS 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

  180W
  Strategic Health Authority area, the number of general medical practitioners and practice nurses in Stalybridge and Hyde and the number of doctors and nurses in the Pennine Acute Hospitals National Health Service Trust (including its predecessor organisations) each year since 1997.
  181W

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS) Doctors1General Medical Practitioners (excluding retainers)2Qualified Nursing, Midwifery and health visiting staff and Practice Nurses employed by Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs)3for Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority and specified organizations

  Numbers (headcount)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  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

  Tameside with Glossop PCG

  Doctors1

  4—

  4—

  114

  114

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Nurses

  4—

  4—

  89

  72

  4—

  4—

  4—

  Tameside and Glossop PCT

  Doctors1

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  118

  127

  138

  Nurses

  82

  422

  425

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  Doctors1

  118

  124

  129

  146

  180

  178

  193

  Nurses

  581

  688

  698

  666

  962

  930

  908

  Pennine Care NHS Trust

  Doctors1

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  68

  81

  Nurses

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  —

  637

  797

  1Excludes Hospital Medical Hospital Practitioners and Hospital Medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are GPs working part time in hospitals.

  2All Practitioners (excluding retainers) include Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para. 52 SFA), PMS Other, Flexible Career Scheme GPs and GP Returners.

  3UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried Gps.

  4Not available.

  Notes:

  1. Headcount Practice Nurse figures are estimated for these years.

  2. Data as at 30 September every year except GP 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) therapists and (b) scientists were located in Burnley in each of the last seven years. [167952]

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Cumbria and Lancashire SHA area

  3,352

  3,486

  3,595

  3,706

  3,758

  3,893

  4,279

  of which:

  Total of specified organizations—Burnley

  624

  637

  675

  698

  733

  701

  759

  5G8 Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale PC r

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  116

  124

  REU Burnley Health Care NHS Trust

  360

  374

  374

  389

  403

  277

  —

  RMB Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust2

  264

  263

  301

  309

  330

  308

  1—

  RXR East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  635

  1Not applicable

  2Mental Health elements transferred to Lancashire Care Trust from 1 April 2002.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) therapists and (b) scientists were located in Preston in each of the last seven years. [168112]

  NHS hospital and community health services: All qualified scientific, therapeutic & technical staff in the specified organisations as at 30 September

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Cumbria and Lancashire SHA area

  3,352

  3,486

  3,595

  3,706

  3,758

  3,893

  4,279

  of which:

  Total of specified organizations—Preston

  589

  628

  651

  682

  637

  956

  1,097

  5HD Preston PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  93

  112

  RJU Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust1

  211

  218

  216

  222

  169

  n/a

  n/a

  182W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data relating to the numbers of therapists and scientists on a constituency basis is not gathered centrally. The data shown in the table relates to national health service organisations serving the Preston area.

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data relating to the numbers of therapists and scientists on a constituency basis is not gathered centrally. The data shown in the table relates to National Health Service organisations serving the Burnley area.
  183W

  NHS hospital and community health services: All qualified scientific, therapeutic & technical stuff in the specified organisations as as 30 September

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  RMF Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  378

  410

  435

  460

  468

  n/a

  n/a

  RW5 Lancashire Care NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  260

  259

  RXN Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  603

  726

  1Mental Health elements transferred to Lancashire Care Trust from 1 April 2002. n/a—not applicable

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in Preston in each of the last seven years. [168113]

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS) Doctors1and General Medical Practitioners (excluding retainers) for Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority and specified organisations serving the Preston area

  As at 30 September

  All Doctors 1

  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

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services2

  61

  62

  69

  74

  67

  n/a

  n/a

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust2

  211

  232

  238

  280

  232

  230

  n/a

  Communicare NHS Trust2

  30

  31

  31

  30

  24

  n/a

  n/a

  Guild Community Healthcare NHS Trust2

  47

  50

  49

  48

  53

  n/a

  n/a

  North Sefton and West Lancashire Community NHS Trust2.3

  n/a

  n/a

  41

  44

  16

  n/a

  n/a

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  106

  115

  123

  118

  142

  n/a

  n/a

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  312

  339

  316

  355

  348

  n/a

  n/a

  Lancashire Care NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  108

  101

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  484

  482

  Preston PCG

  n/a

  n/a

  67

  69

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Rossendale PCG

  n/a

  n/a

  33

  31

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Preston PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  73

  93

  102

  1Excludes Hospital Medical Hospital Practitioners and Hospital Medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are GPs working part-time in hospitals

  2Mental Health elements transferred to Lancashire Care Trust from 1 April 2002

  3Service for West Lancashire: includes services provided at West Lancashire until 31 March 1999 and excludes services transferred to Mersey Care 1 April 2001

  n/a—not available

  Note:

  Data as at 30 September every year except GP as at 1 October 1997–99

  Qualified Nursing, Midwifery & health visiting staff and Practice Nurses employed by Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents (UPEs) for Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority and specified organisations serving the Preston area

  As at 30 September

  numbers (headcount)

  Nurses

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Cumbria and Lancashire SHA

  13,359

  13,400

  13,859

  13,494

  13,794

  15,011

  15,049

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care2

  1,260

  1,274

  1,547

  1,189

  1,206

  1,161

  n/a

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community Health Services2

  845

  865

  871

  868

  910

  n/a

  n/a

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust2

  1,382

  1,369

  1,358

  1,364

  1,536

  1,185

  103

  Communicare NHS Trust2

  472

  483

  509

  522

  387

  n/a

  n/a

  Guild Community Healthcare NHS Trust2

  394

  436

  464

  446

  455

  n/a

  n/a

  North Sefton and West Lancashire Community NHS Trust2.3

  n/a

  n/a

  453

  475

  72

  n/a

  n/a

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  701

  746

  775

  772

  603

  :n/a

  n/a

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,272

  1,234

  1,264

  1,256

  1,410

  70

  69

  Lancashire Care NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,002

  1,021

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,915

  1,928

  Preston PCG

  n/a

  n/a

  49

  56

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Rossendale PCG

  n/a

  n/a

  22

  22

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Preston PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  193

  233

  1UPEs include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried Gps.

  2Mental Health elements transferred to Lancashire Care Trust from 1 April 2002

  3Service for West Lancashire: includes services provided at West Lancashire until 31 March

  1999 and excludes services transferred to Mersey Care 1 April 2001

  n/a—not available

  184W
  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 Preston area.
  185W
  Note:

  Data as at 30 September every year except GP 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

  NHS/Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public dividend capital has been issued by his Department to NHS trusts in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; and how much is estimated to be issued in 2004–05 to (i) NHS trusts and (ii) Foundation trusts. [168946]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: The information requested is shown in the table. The forecast split of public dividend capital (PDC) between national health service trusts and NHS foundation trusts for 2004–05 will be refined during the year as better information becomes available on NHS foundation trusts spending plans and in year starts.

  £ million

  Total PDC issued/forecast

  Financial year

  PDC to NHS trusts

  PDC to NHS foundation trusts

  Total

  2002–03

  1,434

  0

  1,434

  2003–04

  1,833

  0

  1,833

  2004–051

  2,634

  150

  2,784

  1Estimate.

  Nurses
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) headcount and (b) whole-time equivalent nurses there were in each year between 1979 and 1997 inclusive. [168994]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Between 1983, the first comparable year with current information, and 1997, the number of qualified nurses increased by 62,515. Since 1997. the number of qualified nurses employed in the National Health Service has increased by 67,503.

  NHS hospital-based and community1qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff including Practice Nurses employed by Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents5in England as at30 September each specified year9

  Whole-time equivalent

  Headcount

  1979

  1,4161,359

  1,4,8190,243

  1980

  1,3167,097

  1,3,8196,361

  1981

  1,3179,144

  1,3,8206,029

  1982

  1,2,3185,913

  1,2,3,8212,512

  1983

  224,971

  8256,341

  1984

  229,646

  8262,908

  1985

  236,340

  8271,382

  1986

  239,271

  8274,670

  1987

  241,981

  8279,552

  1988

  245,404

  8284,242

  1989

  249,240

  296,937

  1990

  250,080

  298,966

  19916

  252,010

  8293,774

  19926

  255,691

  8297,351

  19936

  251,456

  8293,379

  186W

  NHS hospital-based and community1qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff including Practice Nurses employed by Unrestricted Principals and Equivalents5in England as at30 September each specified year9

  Whole-time equivalent

  Headcount

  19946

  247,883

  305,784

  19957

  256,567

  316,893

  19967

  256,891

  316,515

  1997

  256,093

  318,856

  1Figures for 1979–1982 are hospital staff only and are therefore not directly comparable with later years

  21982 data is as at 31 December

  3Figures taken from 1985 HPSSS

  4Figures taken from 1982 HPSSS

  5UPEs includes GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs and PMS Salaried Gps

  6Figures for 1991 to 1994 may riot be fully comparable with other data due to under-reporting of fundholding practice staff by FHSAs.

  7Includes estimated data for Buckinghamshire.

  8Headcount Practice Nurse figures are estimated for these years.9

  All Practice nurse data as at 1 October

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Department of Health and Social Security Health and Personal Social Services Statistics (HPSSS) Digest of Health Statistics

  Obesity
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the NHS spent on medical research into obesity in each of the last 10 years. [169050]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Management of much of the research supported by national health service research and development funding is devolved and expenditure at project level is not held centrally by the Department. Research relating to obesity is usually carried out in the context of wider programmes.

  Paddington Health Campus
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to the Minister of State for Health's answer of 23 March 2004,Official Report, column 695, on Paddington Health Campus, when he expected to make an announcement about the future of the campus scheme before the end of March; and when he now expects to make an announcement. [166572]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 April 2004]: Discussions on the future of the Paddington Health Campus are now reaching a conclusion and it is envisaged that the North West London Strategic Health Authority will shortly be in a position to issue a statement on the investment needed to modernise the health economy in North West London.

  Paediatric Provision
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric(a) doctors and (b) nurses (i) are working in the NHS and (ii) were working in the NHS in each of the last seven years, broken down by (a) those working full-time, (b) those working part-time and (c) gender. [169019]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  NHS hospital and community health services: qualified paediatric nurses in England by nature of contract as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount and percentage headcount

  All Staff

  Full-Time

  Part-Time

  Unknown

  Percentage full-time

  Percentage full-time

  2003

  18,437

  10,011

  6,998

  1,428

  58.9

  41.1

  2002

  18,014

  9,898

  6.734

  1,382

  59.5

  40.5

  2001

  17,640

  9,423

  6,367

  1,850

  59.7

  40.3

  2000

  16,922

  9,241

  6,155

  1,526

  60.0

  40.0

  1999

  16,689

  9,185

  5,888

  1,616

  60.9

  39.1

  Hospital, public health medicine and community health services (HCHS): medical staff within the paediatric group of specialties by nature of contract and gender 1997 to 2003

  Numbers (headcount)

  1997

  1998

  1999

  All staff

  Male

  Female

  All staff

  Male

  Female

  All staff

  Male

  Female

  England as at 30 September each year

  All staff

  4,344

  2,134

  2,210

  4,542

  2,186

  2,356

  4,750

  2,196

  2,554

  of which

  Whole time

  3,600

  1,849

  1,751

  3,747

  1,901

  1,846

  3,914

  1,908

  2,006

  Maximum part-time

  64

  49

  15

  54

  42

  12

  50

  38

  12

  Part-time

  520

  115

  405

  593

  130

  463

  643

  142

  501

  Honorary

  160

  121

  39

  148

  113

  35

  143

  108

  35

  Consultant

  1,227

  789

  438

  1,299

  827

  472

  1,355

  845

  510

  of which

  Whole time

  945

  633

  312

  1,012

  674

  338

  1,059

  690

  369

  Maximum part-time

  64

  49

  15

  54

  42

  12

  48

  37

  11

  Part-time

  125

  30

  95

  153

  44

  109

  163

  46

  117

  Honorary

  93

  77

  16

  80

  67

  13

  85

  72

  13

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  All Staff

  Male

  Female

  All staff

  Male

  Female

  All staff

  Male

  Female

  All staff

  Male

  Female

  England as at 30 September each year

  All staff

  5,027

  2,281

  2,746

  5,127

  2,351

  2,776

  5,608

  2,563

  3,045

  5,960

  2,728

  3,232

  of which

  Whole time

  4,093

  1,988

  2,105

  4,101

  2,024

  2,077

  4,472

  2,225

  2,247

  4,804

  2,400

  2,404

  Maximum part-time

  52

  36

  16

  47

  33

  14

  63

  44

  19

  67

  49

  18

  Part-Time

  705

  128

  577

  807

  174

  633

  860

  153

  707

  892

  142

  750

  Honorary

  177

  129

  48

  172

  120

  52

  213

  141

  72

  197

  137

  60

  Consultant

  1,443

  891

  552

  1,507

  914

  593

  1,695

  1,031

  664

  1,807

  1,087

  720

  of which

  Whole time

  1,101

  725

  376

  1,093

  725

  368

  1,235

  818

  417

  1,294

  858

  436

  Maximum part-time

  50

  36

  14

  47

  33

  14

  59

  42

  17

  65

  49

  16

  Part-time

  190

  44

  146

  263

  71

  192

  269

  65

  204

  301

  62

  239

  Honorary

  102

  86

  16

  104

  85

  19

  132

  106

  26

  147

  118

  29

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  188W

  NHS hospital and community health services: qualified paediatric nurses in England by nature of contract as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount and percentage headcount

  All staff

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Unknown

  Percentage full-time

  Percentage part-time

  1998

  16,266

  9,093

  5,645

  1,528

  61.7

  38.3

  1997

  15,341

  8,891

  5,356

  1,094

  62.4

  37.6

  Note:

  1Percentages are based on staff whose contract is known.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  NHS hospital and community health services: qualified paediatric nurses in England by gender as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount and percentage headcount

  All staff

  Male

  Female

  Unknown1

  Percentage male

  Percentage female

  2003

  18,437

  721

  16,288

  1,428

  4.2

  95.8

  2002

  18,014

  711

  15,921

  1,382

  4.3

  95.7

  2001

  17,640

  668

  15,122

  1,850

  4.2

  95.8

  2000

  16,922

  654

  14,742

  1,526

  4.2

  95.8

  1999

  16,689

  632

  14,442

  1,615

  4.2

  95.8

  1998

  16,266

  598

  14,140

  1,528

  4.1

  95.9

  1997

  15,341

  576

  14,765

  0

  3.8

  96.2

  1Percentages are based on staff whose gender is known. The

  gender of bank staff is not collected.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  189W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatric trainees started in the NHS in each of the last five years, broken down by sex. [169018]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of paediatric trainees in each of the last five years, broken down by gender is shown in the table.

  Hospital, public health medicine and community health services (HCHS) doctors in training within the paediatric group

  Numbers (head count)

  Of which

  All staff

  Male

  Female

  England as at 30 September each year

  1999

  2,838

  1,143

  1,695

  2000

  2,936

  1,137

  1,799

  2001

  2,875

  1,135

  1,740

  2002

  3,049

  1,227

  1,822

  2003

  3,258

  1,320 I

  1,938

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Patient Records
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those NHS trusts which do not yet use electronic patient records. [167703]

  Mr. Hutton
  Most hospitals now have existing patient administration systems and limited or stand alone clinical systems. By the end of 2005, all National Health Service trusts will have some integrated functionality through electronic records to support patient care as part of the NHS care records service. This will begin to be rolled out alongside the electronic appointment booking service from summer 2004, with phased implementation to provide richer functionality over time to 2010.

  Patients Passports
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his statement of 22 March 2004,Official Report, column 594, what the basis was for the statement that a policy of patients' passports paying for operations in the private sector would divert £2 billion of taxpayers' money away from the national health service. [164648]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government calculate that the deadweight cost to the Exchequer of subsidising those who already pay for operations and other care in the private sector would be £2 billion per annum. The patient passport policy, whereby a voucher would cover 60 per cent. of the national health service cost of an operation in the private sector would cost an estimated £1 billion. This has been calculated using data on the number and distribution of private sector treatments, together with 2003 NHS reference costs to estimate the subsidy per procedure. A further £1 billion would be required to fund tax relief on national insurance contributions and income tax for company and private schemes. This is based on projections for company and private schemes from the Inland Revenue and Association of British Insurers.
  190W
  The £2 billion figure does not contain any estimate of the additional administration costs which would be required to operate such policies.

  Prescription Pre-payment Certificates
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a monthly instalment scheme for the prescription prepayment certificate. [167597]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The prescription prepayment certificate (PPC) scheme is designed to be simple so that it can be administered easily and with the minimum of cost. To introduce payment by instalments would inevitably increase the administrative costs involved. This could lead to higher PPC fees and so reduce the potential savings and make the certificates less attractive for those who continue to make use of them.

  However, we are, with the Prescription Pricing Authority, currently considering the implications of introducing such a scheme, including the practicalities of payment collection.

  Prison Health Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 961W, on the Prison Health Service, what issues had been raised by local services concerning the existing local protocols for ambulance and paramedic access. [171267]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Feedback from local services highlighted the scope to strengthen protocols for ambulance and paramedic access to prisons in three specific areas:ensuring that ambulances are called promptly to incidents within prisons when required, and that there are clear arrangements for doing so in emergencies without the need first to consult prison health care staff;
  distinguishing between access for an ambulance vehicle and access for a paramedic to attend the patient; and
  taking account of the potential impact of new European Committee for Standardisation Regulation for Ambulance Vehicles (British Standard Specification EN 1789), given the need for a suitably risk assessed Prison Service escort to attend with the vehicle.

  Scanners
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) MRI scanners and (b) PET scanners there are in England; and how many of these scanners have been bought (i) directly by the NHS and (ii) through alternative funding arrangements. [167712]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are approximately 221 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners and four positron emission tomography (PET) scanners installed in the National Health Service in England. In addition, there are approximately 75 MRI scanners and eight PET scanners installed in non-NHS institutions in England.

  Of the 221 NHS MRI scanners, it is estimated that just over 100 were purchased directly by the NHS. Approximately 60 were purchased through central capital programmes funded by the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) and the Department. Approximately 60

  191W
  were purchased through other arrangements, including lease arrangements, managed service contracts and charitable funding.

  This information is not held centrally for PET scanners.

  By the end of 2004, central cancer capital funding will mean that there will be approximately 277 MRI scanners in the NHS in England. In addition, on 8 April 2004, the Department launched a procurement from the private sector to provide an extra 80,000 mobile MRI scans per year for the NHS for five years.

  Sexual Health Services
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department is taking to ensure that sexual health services and contraception advice for young people are made more accessible; and if he will make a statement. [171170]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government are working to improve access to sexual health services and contraception advice for young people through both the "Teenage Pregnancy Strategy and the National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV."

  The first ever "National Strategy for Sexual Health and HIV" (2001) (which links closely to the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy) identifies young people as a priority group for action. The Department's 'Sex Lottery' and the teenage pregnancy (RUthinking) media campaigns are raising awareness among young people of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and how to avoid them. We are also tackling the most common STI through our national chlamydia screening programme, which already covers a quarter (84) of primary care trusts in England. Further details on the Strategy and its implementation are available from the Department's website at www.dh.gov.uk/sexualhealthandhiv/.

  The teenage pregnancy strategy aims to tackle the high levels of teenage pregnancy. Increasing and improving access to contraception and sexual health advice services is also a very important part of this work.

  Stroke Services
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the stroke milestone in the older people's National Service Framework is defined; and how many hospitals have access to(a) peripatetic specialised teams and (b) a team in place in the hospital. [171077]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Standard 5 of the national service framework (NSF) for older people sets out the requirements for a specialised stroke service.

  The Department is monitoring on a quarterly basis the number of hospitals that have stroke services and the number of these that have introduced specialised stroke services. The NSF makes it clear that all specialised stroke services should be co-ordinated through an integrated team, although the exact make up of that team will bedetermined locally. This more detailed information is not collected centrally.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review and publish further health research evidence relating to the impact of(a) mobile phone masts and (b) mobile phone use subsequent to the report of Sir William Stewart. [167845]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The health implications of mobile phones and base stations were reviewed in a report issued in January 2004 by the National Radiological Protection Board's (NRPB) advisory group on non-ionising radiation (Documents of the NRPB, Vol 14, No. 2, 2003). The report, entitled, "Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", concluded that:"The weight of evidence now available does not suggest that there are adverse health effects from exposures to RF (radiofrequency) fields below guideline levels, but the published research on RF exposures and health has limitations, and mobile phones have only been in widespread use for a relatively short time. The possibility therefore remains open that there could be health effects from exposure to RF fields below guideline levels; hence continued research is needed."
  More specifically, for base stations it concluded:
  "Exposure levels from living near to mobile phone base stations are extremely low, and the overall evidence indicates that they are unlikely to pose a risk to health."

  The report is available on the NRPB website at www.nrpb.org. The advisory group will continue to review the scientific literature both national and international that is relevant to the issue of mobile telephony and health.

  The mobile telecommunications and health research (MTHR) programme reports on progress at its open seminars. The majority of projects are due to be completed in time for the seminar expected in November 2005. A few remaining projects may take up to three years longer depending on their complexity. Descriptions of these projects can be found on the website at www.mthr.org.uk.

  In addition, the World Health Organisation (WHO) electromagnetic fields project is expected to publish a health risk assessment of radiofrequency effects in 2007, which will be available on the WHO website at www.who.int/peh-emf.

  University Medical Training
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures the Government is taking to increase the number of British university trained(a) doctors and (b) nurses in the NHS. [167730]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have invested significantly both in the national health service and higher education. The medical school intake in England has increased by more than 2,250 since 1997, an increase of over 60 per cent., and, as a result, we have exceeded the autumn 2005 intake target two years early. We have created four new
  193W
  medical schools, opened four new centres of medical education, three of which are associated with established medical schools, significantly increased the capacity of most other medical schools and introduced graduate-entry four-year courses.

  There has been an increase of almost 8,000 nurses and midwives entering pre-registration training between 1996–97 and 2002–03, a 53 per cent, increase. Latest figures suggest a further increase of around 1,800 nurses and midwives entering pre-registration training in 2003–04.

  Responsibility for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland universities and numbers of students in undergraduate medical and nursing pre-registration training is a matter for the devolved administrations.

  Waiting times for 1stconsultant outpatient appointment for suspected breast cancer following urgent GP referral

  Seen within two weeks

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  1999–2000

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  82.6

  19

  1999–2000

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  10

  2000–01

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  96.2

  50

  2000–01

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  53

  2001–02

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  100.0

  84

  2001–02

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  89

  2002–03

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  100.0

  84

  2002–03

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  114

  2003–04

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  209

  Note:

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust was formed from the merger of Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust and Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust on 1 April 2003.

  Source:

  DH Form QMCW

  Wanless Report
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds will be made available to implement the Wanless Report recommendations. [169271]

  Mr. Hutton
  In his 2002 budget, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, accepted the conclusions of the report and announced an historic five-year settlement for the national health service, which represented a real terms increase in spending of 7.3 per cent. a year from 2003–04 to 2007–08. This will take total NHS expenditure to over £90 billion by 2007–08.

  Warrington Hospital
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advances have been made in coronary care in Warrington Hospital since 1997; and what further plans are in progress. [168706]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In June 2002, 24 people were waiting over nine months for heart surgery in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority area. Today, no-one is waiting for over nine months.

  MR1 Scans
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for an MRI scan in each strategic health authority was for each year since 1997. [167710]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Data on waiting times for diagnostic tests, including Magnetic Resonance Imaging. are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of women in Burnley with suspected breast cancer saw a specialist within two weeks in each of the last five years. [167957]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected on a constituency basis. The information shown in the table relates to the National Health Service organisations serving the Burnley area.

  Warrington coronary care unit will be relocated to the accident and emergency department in June to provide an improved pathway for patients. Warrington Hospital will benefit also from a new cardiac catheterisation laboratory that is being jointly funded by the New Opportunities Fund and the Department of Health.

  Source:

  Department of Health and North Cheshire Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the NHS is able to provide mercury-free whooping cough vaccine for babies in the UK. [167768]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The United Kingdom uses a wholecell containing whooping cough vaccine (which contains thiomersal) because this vaccine offers the best protection against the disease. Whooping cough is a serious disease in young babies that can lead to death. The acellular whooping cough vaccine (which is thiomersal-free) does not provide the same high level of protection. The UK will move to thiomersal-free vaccines as soon as an equally effective alternative to the current vaccine becomes available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Race Equality Monitoring
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart)
  I have today placed in the Library copies of the 2003 annual report on the Home Secretary's race equality employment targets and the 2002–03 employment monitoring report under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Humanitarian Mine Action
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  Following an internal review by the Department for International Development, I am announcing today a revision to the Department's management of its support to Humanitarian Mine Action. The review team consulted a wide range of stakeholders including the United Nations, Civil Society, mine action organisations and other Government Departments.

  In 2000 DFID decided to channel the majority of its funds for mine action through the United Nations. The objectives of the review were to assess whether DFID's policy objectives of channelling most of its funds in this way were being met, and to consider DFID's resourcing of mine action and to look at future options.

  The review concluded that the overall policy approach should remain unchanged. The four existing main pillars of support remain valid. These are to: support humanitarian mine action focused on the poorest countries; improve the effectiveness of the international mine action system to mine pollution; develop new technologies to improve mine clearance; and promote the globalisation of the mine can convention. Additionally DFID's commitment to spend at least £10 million per annum on humanitarian mine action will continue.

  The policy in 2000 established Partnership arrangements with the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Geneva Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD). This support has contributed to improved coordination in the international system. These partnerships will continue but with revised overall funding levels. UNMAS and UNDP will continue to receive similar levels of funding to assist in strengthening their capacity but will receive
  2WS
  less towards country programme activity. Support to UNMAS will primarily be for its co-ordination role rather than its mine clearance operations, except in cases requiring short-term emergency response. In the case of UNICEF, DFID's ongoing three-year partnership for support to mine risk education will continue.

  As a result of these changes, DFID will now consider other funding options including bilateral funding via non-Government organisations (NGOs) and commercial companies. NGOs have an important role to play in advocating and implementing mine action. The revised policy reflects this by ensuring that more bilateral resources will be available to fund mine clearance by NGOs. Within DFID, the conflict and humanitarian affairs Department (CHAD) will continue to be the central point for humanitarian mine action policy. However in view of the increasing mainstreaming of mine action into development programmes, DFID regional desks/offices also have an important role where mine action features in DFID country assistance plans. This creates an additional potential source of funding from within DFID.

  DFID will continue to fund research and technology and the generation of knowledge. The Department expects to commit approximately 10 per cent. of its mine action funding in this area.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Planning Out Crime
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  This statement is to bring to the attention of the House the launch of good practice guidance on Wednesday 28 April, prepared jointly by The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office, on how the planning system may play its part in tackling crime. This guide will support the updated policy advice on planning out crime, which is set out in the draft planning policy statement 1 "General policy and principles".

  Through the sustainable communities plan the Government reaffirmed its commitment to delivering good quality villages towns and cities. Safety and security are essential to achieving his. Such places are well-designed, attractive environments where freedom from crime, and the fear of crime, improves the quality of life. Yet once a development has been completed the main opportunity to incorporate crime prevention measures will have been lost. The Government recognises that there are far too many examples of poor quality development because of insufficient attention to crime issues at the outset of the planning process.

  The Government considers that this guide will help to provide practical advice as to effective methods of implementing crime prevention measures and securing community safety through the planning system. It challenges all those who influence the design and layout of developments, to think holistically about each development. In doing so the Government recognizes

  3WS
  that there is no one solution that applies to every situation. That is why this guide stresses the importance of understanding the context and unique nature of the locality, and the importance of close co-operation between the many professional disciplines, if planning is to lay an effective role in preventing crime and the fear of crime.
  4WS
  The Government intends that those who read this guide will be inspired to use its suggestions and help to deliver the high quality and safe development that we all wish to see and from which all can benefit.

  Copies of the document will be made available in the Libraries of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

European Union Legislation
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of legislation put before Parliament in recent years has originated from the European Union.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, figures are not held centrally for all legislation. About half of all legislation with a significant impact on business, charities or the voluntary sector is introduced to implement European Union decisions with the proportion varying considerably from one policy area to another.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that reply which is slightly different from that on the Cabinet Office website which states that 50 per cent of all major legislation starts in the EU. Is it not a remarkable admission that 50 per cent of major laws—and presumably an even higher proportion of minor laws—are made in the EU? Does the Minister agree that the relevant figure might become 60 or 70 per cent in a few years' time? Given that much EU legislation cannot be amended and cannot in practice be rejected by Parliament, how can it seriously be disputed that parliamentary proceedings are increasingly becoming a charade, and that because so much legislation is coming from Europe, the EU is acquiring the characteristics of a government?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with him. As regards
2
the degree to which the legislation of individual departments comes from the European Union, the position in December of last year with respect to the Home Office, for example, was the following. During the 2002–03 Session it sponsored five Bills of approximately 868 pages. One of the Bills predominantly implemented EU requirements, another partially implemented EU requirements. The situation differs depending on the department. The 55 per cent figure related to Defra. The figures were very different for other departments. With respect to the noble Lord's point about amending or rejecting EU legislation, he will know that significant negotiation is conducted by our Ministers and others, usually in Brussels, before we reach the point where we agree anything.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, how many of the regulations to which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, referred stem from the Maastricht Treaty to which he gave such strong support? As an alternative to the suggestions that he made, has my noble friend had any serious proposals to amend the present situation other than that Britain should leave the European Union?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend is, of course, quite right in the sense that the party opposite negotiated the Maastricht Treaty. A significant proportion of regulations came out of that treaty. With respect to the current proposals for a constitutional treaty, our proposal is to negotiate because we believe that Britain's role is at the heart of Europe. So far as I understand it, the alternative being offered by the Leader of the Opposition is withdrawal from Europe.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, following the perfectly proper question of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House at least reassure us that in the current negotiations the Government really will support proper blocking powers for national Parliaments against inappropriate and excessive EU legislation; in

3
other words, that they will adopt the red card and will not let us down on this matter as well as on some of the other red lines which they claim to defend?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not know to what the noble Lord refers when he says that we have let ourselves down with respect to any red lines. The Government published a White Paper in which they made clear our red lines. My right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have made it absolutely clear that those red lines will remain. We have been absolutely clear about the areas where we see some extension of qualified majority voting and those areas which have to retain unanimity.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept the figures regarding the percentage of British legislation that is shaped by international obligations such as those under the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations or other international and UN agencies? Does she further accept that even if Britain were to leave the EU, we would still be bound in our domestic legislation by a whole series of international obligations of this kind and that the experience of the one administration that has set out to declare that it is outside and above international law—the Bush administration—has not been entirely happy in disregarding its obligations under international law?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very important point. Of course, a great deal of our legislation is shaped and influenced by international obligations that go beyond the European Union. One of the difficulties in answering this Question is that when you begin to look at the shaping and influencing of legislation, it is sometimes much more difficult to pin down than is suggested by the way in which the Question is framed. The noble Lord is right to draw our attention to the fact that even if this country were to leave the European Union, which, of course, I and my party do not want to see, we would remain bound by some of its provisions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Government now consider collecting these figures centrally? If they are not collected centrally, how are we to have an intelligent argument about what influence the European Union has on our legislation? My second question is the following. Since most of this legislation is automatically translated into British legislation, is there any longer a need for a House of Commons of 659 Members and a House of Lords of nearly 700 Members?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon is, as usual, robust. With regard to collecting that information centrally, individual departments keep the information on the proportion of legislation that is introduced to implement EU decisions. It would be helpful if I reiterate the point that it would be wrong to see the issue as an imposition of regulations from outside. We
4
take a very active part in collective decision-making in the EU and information on that is kept by individual departments. The size of the House of Commons is a matter for the other place, but it is important that we have MPs representing the constituencies that there are. The size of the House of Lords is a matter that your Lordships may wish to look at and think about in terms of the future of House of Lords reform.

Carbon Emissions: Household Sector
2.43 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why their document Energy Efficiency: The Government's Plan for Action lowers the expected savings in household carbon emissions by 2010 which were set out in the energy White Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, Energy Efficiency: The Government's Plan for Action contains an aim of securing carbon savings from household energy efficiency of 4.2 million tonnes of carbon per annum by 2010. The figure of 5 million tonnes of carbon in the energy White Paper was an initial indication of what might be delivered. But detailed analysis since the energy White Paper has led us to conclude that 4.2 million tonnes is a realistic figure to set as an aim for the household sector. Latest revisions of projected carbon savings from other sectors more than offset this recalculation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but in view of the prime importance attached by the Government to energy saving, why was the anticipated shortfall not made up in other ways? Bearing in mind that the objectives for energy saving are now somewhat reduced, that the target for renewables on present trends is unlikely to be achieved, that the target for CHP has been reduced by 20 per cent and that the latest indications for emissions show that there has actually been an increase, do the Government still expect to attain their Kyoto and EU objectives by 2010?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there has been a recent and short-term increase in coal burn, which has accounted for the very recent increases in carbon use, but the overall Kyoto objective of 12.5 per cent by 2008 to 2012 will be achieved. We are confident of that. The Government also have a 20 per cent domestic target, which is more stretching and is one that we are confident that we can achieve, but with substantial intensification of those measures. Regarding energy efficiency, my point is that although the household component has been reduced, other sectors have been increased by more than that. Therefore, that contribution is still valid and robust.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, can the Minister say how atmospheric carbon can be reduced to target in 2010

5
by killing off nuclear power generation by 2007, or by supporting the Ministry of Defence's objections to the erection of wind turbines all across the country? If the Government cannot meet the objectives published in the energy White Paper for renewable energy sources, does the Minister intend to reduce atmospheric pollution with a new carbon tax on business and power generation, or will it be, in the words of his right honourable friend, by,
"taxing the motorist out of the car and on to public transport",
or will it be a bit of both?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, every sector has to bear its responsibility, and fiscal measures are part of the way that that is achieved. We already have fairly high fuel taxation and the climate change levy has proved an extremely effective way of achieving carbon savings with energy efficiency in the business sector. The renewables target is ambitious but, we believe, is one that we can achieve. The run-down of nuclear power stations is unlikely to affect the situation for 2010, although renewables will have to begin to replace some of that, alongside other measures outlined in the White Paper, beyond 2010.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I can understand the Minister's optimism, even if I do not accept it with regard to the national situation. However, is he satisfied that we are not escaping from reality, because while we work hard in this country, we are still exporting to other parts of the world plant that generates a great deal of carbon dioxide?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, just as every sector in the United Kingdom and the EU needs to bear some responsibility for reducing carbon emissions, so does every country in the world, particularly the developed countries which have by far the largest element of carbon emissions. It is important that not only all EU countries meet their commitments—although not all are currently on track to achieve them—but that other countries such as the United States also meet those targets.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, what assumptions are the Government making about the contribution of nuclear generated power from France towards the reduction of our Kyoto targets?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the presumption on importing energy from France is that that will continue at the present rate. Therefore, it does not affect the calculations of the reduction.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, was it not clear from the interesting speech made on Thursday by the Minister's colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, that the Government are now clearly having second thoughts about embarking on a new programme of nuclear generation? Is the Minister
6
aware that many of those who took part in that brief debate detected a marked change of emphasis on the part of that Minister?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I was not present for that debate but I am aware of what my noble friend Lord Sainsbury indicated, which is what we have indicated throughout the proceedings on the Energy Bill and before; namely, that we are keeping the nuclear energy option open but that we believe and are confident that we can meet the targets outlined in the White Paper without new nuclear build—but we would always keep that technology open as an option to help to meet both our energy requirements and our carbon reduction aims.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, neither the noble Lord nor anyone else in the Government have yet said what they are doing to keep the option open. Are they investing any money, because such options do not stay open automatically, they are not fixed open doors—far from it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I disagree with the presumption there. We continue to maintain a substantial nuclear element at present, which brings us technological advance, and we are funding significant amounts of nuclear research. However, in most respects, nuclear technology is known, available and can be established. Were we to require nuclear energy to meet our objectives, it would be possible for us to do so; we have the expertise, knowledge and research and engineering base here to do it.

Criminal Records Bureau
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as an employee of Age Concern England.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to develop the work of the Criminal Records Bureau.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Criminal Records Bureau has recently published its strategic plan, which sets out its agenda for the three years 2004–05, 2005–06 and 2006–07. The plan sets out four key aims, which are to improve quality and accuracy; to reduce costs and bureaucracy, including achieving self-funding status from 2005–06; to develop capacity and to improve delivery times. Copies of the strategic plan have been placed in the Library.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. She will no doubt be aware that CRB clearance is currently taking between two and four months to process. In the light of that, does she agree

7
that the relaxation of the requirement for people carrying out domiciliary care to be cleared by the CRB so that they are required only to have applied for CRB clearance potentially leaves vulnerable adults in their homes at great risk?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly understand the noble Baroness's anxiety about that. She will know that there has been significant improvement in clearance times. I hear what she says about it taking two to three months; I cannot confirm that that is correct. She will know that the CRB's performance has been transformed since autumn 2002. Since June 2003, the CRB has, on average, been issuing 93 per cent of standard and enhanced disclosures within two and four weeks respectively, against a public service standard of 90 per cent. So I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that it is not doing well. I accept that safety is a matter of acute concern and we believe that the system that we now have in place is robust and working far better than it did before.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that, despite the great improvements in timing, it still takes too long for many people—employers, employees and would-be employees—working in the social care sector? Would it not be possible for some portable, time-limited CRB check to be initiated for people who move from job to job within the care sector? I understand if people need a long check when they start working in the sector but, after that, existing employees might need only quickly to update their check, rather than to submit a new one.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand that that anxiety has been raised. The noble Baroness will know that we have taken steps to respond to the whole issue of portability so that, if someone moves from one job to another within a short compass or, for instance, has a CRB check for being a teacher and wants to be a Scoutmaster or mistress too, he or she can use the CRB check for the one purpose. Obviously, it will then be a matter for the employer whether that is sufficient or whether a new check needs to be made. We have given that matter a lot of consideration and think that the new arrangements have responded fairly well to the concerns raised.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, has the Minister considered the impact not only of the delay but of the charges on voluntary organisations, especially charitable organisations, bearing in mind that the income—especially the core income for the appointment of staff—of many such organisations has dropped? Will she please hold a discussion to ensure concessions for voluntary organisations, which provide such valuable services in this country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will know that we have already taken steps to ensure that volunteers are processed without charge. That has been a significant benefit to voluntary organisations, which rely on the service of people who come forward with great generosity to help. That has been significant and, at present, we intend to maintain that position.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, will not the introduction of a national identity card make the whole process far faster?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it will certainly make identification far faster and more secure, but whether it will change the need to have the CRB check is by no means certain, because the whole point of the CRB check is to discover whether there are criminal or other convictions or other material that needs to be taken into account before someone is given a job of some sensitivity.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, with regard to the matter of matching information against police computers, is the Minister still concerned about the number of instances when checks have thrown up apparent convictions of which the person has not in fact been guilty?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I am concerned about that, but the noble Baroness will know that the whole purpose of the CRB is to err on the side of safety and caution. What has happened, which is a matter of regret, is that where two people have very similar names and details, on occasion, a report of a conviction has been triggered that has not been founded. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that it is better for us to be safe rather than sorry. Although we bitterly regret that that happens, we would prefer it to be that way round than for someone who is guilty of a fairly unpleasant offence to be allowed to look after vulnerable people.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the Minister will recall that in the Soham tragedy, one problem was a change of name, which prevented proper checks on one of the individuals concerned. Is she convinced that the new procedures take account of the ease with which people use different names as they move through the system?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it would be foolish ever to say that we have honed the system so keenly that no further improvements can be made. I do not suggest that. What I say is that we have taken all the steps that we can at present to ensure that it is as robust as possible. Of course, we must wait to see what the inquiry recommends. When those recommendations are to hand, we will take them very seriously indeed and consider what more, if anything, needs to be done.

Interest Rates and Consumer Debt
2.58 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their view of the effect of increases in interest rates on the level of consumer debt.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, despite last week's rise, interest rates remain low by historical standards and households remain confident in the future of their own finances, reflecting the sound fundamentals of low and stable inflation with unemployment at its lowest level since the 1970s. The Government aim to provide a framework of macroeconomic stability and awareness of financial issues within which people can make informed, responsible decisions about how much debt it is prudent to incur.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not a cause for concern that there is growing evidence that people, particularly the most disadvantaged, are resorting to debt to fund their day-to-day living expenses?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, I am not aware that there is such evidence. The Department of Trade and Industry published a White Paper on consumer credit last December, following—but not, of course, because of—debate in this House. There is concern about some aspects of consumer and household debt and there are remedies in the responses being made to the White Paper.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, for as long as I can remember, society has always encouraged home ownership. That could not be demonstrated more clearly than in the widespread sale of council houses in the 1980s. What proportion of debt results from home purchase and home improvement, and what proportion occurs as a result of buying consumer goods?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that it is possible to make that breakdown of consumer debt, although I acknowledge that it is a legitimate question. Since my noble friend draws attention to mortgage debt, he will be aware that the Financial Services Authority is taking over responsibility for regulating mortgage business from 1 October this year. It seeks to control, among other things, the loan to value ratio. It wants to see to it that mortgage providers must take into account before concluding an agreement the purchaser's ability to maintain payments on the loan.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the Minister see, as I do on the History Channel, that very attractive advertisements are being broadcast on Sky
10
Digital to encourage people to go into debt? All sorts of attractive options are offered. Are the Government thinking of doing anything about that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are a number of problems with personal debt which are identified in the consumer credit White Paper. One of them is advertisement, to which the noble Lord refers; another is the responsibility of trading standards officers in the enforcement of the law against loan sharks. Understandably, trading standards officers concentrate on issues of public safety. As a result of the White Paper, a pilot is setting up specialised teams of trading standards officers with enforcement officers, using the Proceeds of Crime Act to penalise those who are loan-sharking poorer people in particular. I hope that that, among other solutions, will make some difference to the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, rightly identifies.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, further to the Minister's Answer to the noble Earl, is he aware of the experience of citizens advice bureaux and the huge burden on it in the amount of debt counselling that it must provide? Is there any sense in government that the escalating reliance on debt is a massive turnaround from the wisdom of earlier generations? Notwithstanding the prosperity that seems to support it, does not the Minister sometimes feel that we are getting to a point of corporate and social imprudence that we shall live to regret?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as is appropriate, the right reverend Prelate takes a very long view. Of course, if we go back to a prohibition on usury, we could say that there has been a significant increase in indebtedness. In point of fact, in recent years there has not been an increase in indebtedness. Interest payments as a proportion of disposable income are now at 7.1 per cent, compared with an average in 1979 to 1997 of 9.4 per cent, with a peak of 15 per cent. In the shorter term, which I am obliged to address, it is not as bad as the right reverend Prelate thinks.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the FSA that the number of families facing financial difficulties has risen by some 15 per cent over the past 12 months to 6.9 million families, a very significant number? Many are poorer families who have found themselves the victims of aggressive marketing and then extortionate loan rates.
The Minister has mentioned the consumer credit White Paper on several occasions. Will he urge his colleagues in the DTI to speed up the review of the consumer credit system? I understand that it could be three or more years before any new measures are introduced to implement changes to deal with these unsatisfactory current practices.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are different ways of looking at the figures. The Bank of England, for example, thinks that some of the increased borrowing, particularly for mortgages, is from higher-income families rather than lower-income ones. It depends on the kind of borrowing in question.

11
As to the review started by the consumer credit White Paper, we should not assume that much of what is wrong is in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. As I mentioned when I talked about the role of trading standards officers, much of it is in the implementation. I assure the noble Lord that the Department of Trade and Industry is pressing ahead for reform without waiting for further legislation.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, there will be a Statement later this afternoon, at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. The subject is "Iraq: current security arrangements and allegations of mistreatment". The Statement will be repeated by my noble friend Lord Bach.
Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Charities
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Commons message of 4 May be now considered, and that a committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the committee appointed by the Commons to consider and report on any draft Charities Bill presented to both Houses by a Minister of the Crown;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the committee:

L. Best,

E. Caithness,

L. Campbell-Savours,

B. McIntosh of Hudnall,

L. Phillips of Sudbury,

L. Sainsbury of Preston Candover;

That the committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a chairman;
That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the quorum of the committee shall be two;
That the reports of the committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and
That the committee do report on the draft Bill by 30 September 2004.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Higher Education Bill
3.6 p.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 resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now 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 1 [Arts and Humanities Research Council]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after "instruction" insert "and post-graduate studies"
The noble Baroness said: This minor amendment relates to Clause 1, which sets out the objectives of the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Looking at the objectives, I was struck that paragraph (a), as well as requiring the council to carry out research in the arts and humanities, also requires it to facilitate, encourage and support,
"instruction in the arts and humanities".
Traditionally, research councils have not supported undergraduate teaching but are major supporters of postgraduate teaching. As is clear from the detail on the Arts and Humanities Research Board, around 50 per cent of moneys going to the board today support studentships.
The wording of the first part of the Bill has been taken substantially from the wording relating to research councils in the Science and Technology Act 1965. That legislation was enacted 39 years ago, since when practice has changed. In particular, today we see in many universities both formal teaching of postgraduate students and the incorporation of postgraduate students into research teams to a degree that was not prevalent in 1965. The formal instruction of postgraduate students is an extremely important part of the function of the research councils. I felt therefore that it would be appropriate to have a reference not only to "instruction" but to "instruction and postgraduate studies". That would reflect modern-day practice.
I felt strongly that it was all very well to borrow from the 1965 Act, but we want to bring it up to date. It is appropriate, given the importance of the role of postgraduate support and teaching on the part of the research councils that such a reference should be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Dearing: If there is any doubt about the inclusion of postgraduate studies in the clause, I would commend the inclusion of the words recommended by

13
the noble Baroness. As she says, such work accounts for getting on for half of the funding that goes through the present board.
Apart from that, I welcome the clause. It completes the Government's implementation of the recommendation made by a committee that I chaired in 1997 that there should be such a council. In welcoming that final stage of implementation, I must say, as we recognised in 1997, how important research in the arts and humanities is to the social and economic well-being of the country. We noted at that stage that the performing arts, fine arts, literature and historic buildings—even if narrowly defined—employed twice as many people as the motor industry and as many as the building societies and banks put together. I hope that, as the council moves into its new life, the Government will ensure that the importance of the arts and humanities is borne well in mind.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving the amendment and for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. It is not an ideologically driven amendment, although it is an important one. I hope that the Minister will respond constructively. Well, she always is constructive, but I hope that she will respond positively to the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Whenever someone says that something is not ideologically driven, I feel an instinct to find an argument against it. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, has put her finger on an important point.
I know that the Minister will have been told by her officials that the words suggested by the amendment are unnecessary because the meaning of the clause is apparent to all concerned. I studied the amendment, and it was not apparent to me that the meaning of the clause was obvious, so I hope that the Minister will think about the matter and table an amendment in similar terms, if this one is technically defective, which is the other piece of advice that she may be getting from her officials in the Box. It would be a very good thing to make it explicit in the Bill that there is a responsibility in respect of postgraduates as well.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, that I did not get either of those pieces of advice from officials. I recognised the words that the noble Lord used from other discussions that I have had in the House and will have in Committee.
I am pleased by the welcome that the introduction of the Arts and Humanities Research Council has had outside the House. I also feel that, although we may be debating some of the issues relating to the council today, the council has generally been welcomed. To the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, I say that I accept that practice has changed, but the basis of the legislation, albeit 38 or 39 years old, is still sound. It is important, as we will see when we discuss later amendments, that we make sure that the research councils can operate together, when that is appropriate. I also recognise that this is another example of how we are catching up at a later date with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing.
14
I appreciate the importance of the issue of adequate support for postgraduate studies. As noble Lords will know, Clause 1 defines the new research council as a body set up by Royal Charter and outlines its objectives. Postgraduate studies, although not explicitly mentioned, as noble Lords said, are implicit in paragraph (a)(ii) of Clause 1.
Noble Lords may have seen the draft Royal Charter, which we made available. It creates the Arts and Humanities Research Council and sets out its constitution in detail, along with the detailed objectives for which it is established and incorporated. I draw the Committee's attention to Article 2(1)(a) of the draft Royal Charter, which expressly states that one of the objects for which the research council is established is,
"to promote and support by any means high-quality, basic, strategic and applied research and related postgraduate training in the arts and humanities".
I hope that that will reassure the Committee that the promotion and support of postgraduate training in the arts and humanities will be at the heart of the research council's role and remit.
The Committee will be aware that the charter that creates the new research council will have the weight of law. It is the right place to spell out in detail the requirements on the council. We intend that the charter will be similar, if not identical, to the one that we have made available in draft form. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am interested in the drafting of the clause. Why does the reference in paragraph (a)(ii) to,
"instruction in the arts and humanities"
preclude undergraduate studies, which, presumably, it does? Can the council fund undergraduate studies?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As the noble Baroness will be aware, funding for undergraduate study comes from HEFCE. This is a research council, which is why the clause is set out in that way.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I recognise that, but the Bill defines the function of the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Universities UK says that it is satisfied that the position is as near as possible to the funding of the other research councils. Is the wording taken from that applying to other research councils?
The Bill says that the council will have,
"objects consisting of, or comprised in, the following—
(a) carrying out, facilitating, encouraging and supporting …
(ii) instruction in the arts and humanities".
The wording does not confine it to postgraduate work. Is the position made clear somewhere else in the Bill? It is a question of the wording of the Bill.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I refer the noble Baroness to the charter, which makes the position

15
clear. If the noble Baroness is still not satisfied that the link is clear, after looking at the charter with reference to that part of the Bill, I will write to her and make it explicit.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I apologise for coming back again on the matter. The Minister said that she had not had either of the arguments that I suggested put by officials. One of them was that the matter was already covered elsewhere in the Bill. She said that it was already covered in the charter. That is almost the same point.
Does not the charter also cover research in the arts and humanities and instruction in the arts and humanities? If we are relying on the charter, which I understand is not a legal document, to spell out the duties, why is it necessary to have sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii)? If it is all right to have those sub-paragraphs, why cannot they be amended in the way suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: When I said to the noble Lord that that was not the advice of my officials, I meant it. The particular reference that, I thought, the noble Lord was making was to advice about the specifics of the Bill. I saw the charter slightly separately. It is a nuance, but, none the less, I shall stick to it.
As I understand it, the legislation has been drafted to ensure that what is in the Bill is appropriate to the establishment of the research council, linked to the legislation of 1965, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, referred. The detail is in a Royal Charter and has the weight of law because of that. My understanding is that, if the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, examines the detail in the charter, which has the weight of law, and links it back to the relevant clauses, she will see that all is conjoined in the right way. If that is not the case, I will, as always, write to the noble Baroness, copy the letter to the noble Lord and put a copy in the Library.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I am also grateful to other noble Lords for their support on the amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, expressed precisely my feelings on the matter. The wording in the Bill is misleading. It implies that there is support for undergraduate instruction as well as graduate instruction. The emphasis on postgraduate studies on the part of research councils nowadays is significant. I accept that that is spelt out in the charter. But I come back to my point: as it appears in the Bill, the wording is slightly misleading.
However, for the moment, I shall accept the explanation—
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Perhaps I may intervene before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, as I suspect that she will. I support her view, and that of others, that the scope of the charter—Section 2(1)(a)—is
16
quite different from the scope of the Bill as it applies to these matters. The Bill is somewhat broader and the charter is narrower in its scope.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for his intervention, which probably reinforces my inclination that, in withdrawing this amendment now, we shall probably return to this issue at Report stage and have another shot at it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Expenses of Council]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, at beginning insert "The Council shall be responsible for developing a programme of activities consistent with the objective listed in section 1 and"
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, which apply to Clause 3. They are probing amendments that relate to the relationship between the new research council and the Secretary of State. As in Amendment No. 1, they question whether the current wording of the Bill reflects present-day practice in relation to research councils and the desirability of giving research councils slightly greater autonomy and freedom of action than implied by the current wording of the clause.
I confess that I have put down those amendments because it is important that the Committee should have a chance to debate the detail of the Bill in relation to the setting up of the new research council. Like others, I welcome the fact that the current Arts and Humanities Research Board will finally obtain the status of a fully-fledged council. In no sense, do I want to detract from that achievement.
From the debate at Second Reading, it is quite clear that there is support for this research council on all sides of the House. However, it became apparent in the discussion on Amendment No. 1 that the structure still reflects that created in 1965. Therefore, the Bill presents us with an opportunity to review that structure and to consider how appropriate it is almost 40 years on.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Clause 1 sets out the functions of the council. As it stands, Clause 3(1) states boldly and baldly that,
"The Secretary of State may pay the Arts and Humanities Research Council such sums as he determines in respect of the expenses",
incurred in carrying out those functions. Yet, for some time, it has been the practice of the research councils to develop programmes of activities that reflect and balance the priorities of their different functions and the expenses that derive from these activities.
I would therefore argue that it would be more accurate for the Bill to lay down that the council should develop such a programme of activities and that the Secretary of State's role is to provide the

17
funding for that programme. By changing the word "may" to "shall", I am also arguing that while it is recognised in the words,
"such sums as he determines",
that the Secretary of State has discretion to decide how much money he gives to the research council in respect of its activities, it is, nevertheless, his duty to pay something towards those expenses. The word "may" leaves to the Secretary of State's discretion not only how much shall be paid, but also whether he will pay anything at all. Implicitly, in setting up the research council, I would argue that the Secretary of State is willing that the activities described in Clause 1 should be undertaken. Therefore, he should accept an obligation to fund those activities—hence, the word "shall" should replace the word "may"—while retaining the discretion through that funding function to have some say over the scale of those activities.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 relate to subsection (3). As it stands, the wording is stark; that is,
"The Council must comply with any direction of the Secretary of State as to the use of expenditure of payments made under subsection (1)".
The amendment would make clear the relative autonomy of the research council to determine its own programme while recognising that, ultimately, "he who pays the piper calls the tune". But, on such occasions, that should be transparent. If the Secretary of State disagrees with the priorities developed by the research council and fails to persuade it of his way of thought, it is open to him to insist on his way, but only by issuing a direction to the research council that is open and transparent.
The Minister may argue that this wording is no different from that in the Bill; that the research council is obliged to comply with any direction from the Secretary of State and that the word "direction" implies an open transaction. I would argue that by breaking the sentence into two parts—making it clear the Secretary of State has to issue a clear direction and that the research council has to comply—we are subtly endorsing the relative autonomy of the research council in relation to the Secretary of State. It does not have to do everything that the Secretary of State tells it to do. Where there is disagreement, the Secretary of State must be open and transparent about why he is insisting on his way.
On reading the debate that took place in Committee in the House of Commons, the Minister may respond that the wording cannot be changed because it is taken from the Science and Technology Act 1965 and applies to all research councils. As I have said before, much has changed since 1965. The whole function and relationship between government and research councils has changed. We now have a director general of the research councils sitting within government. In 1965, the research councils were set apart from government and were relatively autonomous with a board pulling together the workings of the research councils in a very loose way.
That has now changed. There is a direct line of responsibility from the Minister to the director general of the research councils sitting in the Office of Science
18
and Technology. It is a different relationship now, which should be reflected in the Bill. I would argue strongly that it would be a good thing to incorporate within the wording of the Bill that relative autonomy and that where there is disagreement the Secretary of State must issue a directive to the research council. I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I am delighted to have an early opportunity to speak in favour of this part of the Bill. In so doing, I declare my interest as chief executive of Universities UK, which has long campaigned for the establishment of a research council for arts and humanities. We have been a partner in bringing forward these proposals.
Perhaps I may draw attention to the role of UUK's former president and the current president of London Metropolitan University, Professor Roderick Floud, who played an enormous part in pressing for the establishment of the AHRC. Together with a number of vice-chancellors, he felt passionately that research into arts and humanities should be treated in the same way as other research councils.
I know that academics in arts and humanities have sometimes felt that their work is not taken as seriously by the Government as that in other fields. I am sure that, in her reply, the Minister will want to reassure them that the Government recognise the importance of research in these fields to our national and cultural life, as well as to our international reputation.
Research in the arts and humanities underpins our understanding of science and technology and their impact on society; that is, its history and the legal, ethical and social implications.
The current world climate convincingly demonstrates the need for experts in the arts and humanities. Like their counterparts in the sciences, our academics in the arts and humanities help us to understand the world in which we live in all its religious, cultural, geographical and historical diversity. This is not about window dressing; it is essential.
I should like to make one further point. In the past I and others have had some cause to criticise Ministers, in particular following the publication of the White Paper, The Future of Higher Education, for tending to assume that all research is like big science. It is not, and I hope that the Arts and Humanities Research Council will help to work, within the Office of Science and Technology, to redress the balance in government thinking.
In my view, the legislative framework is sound. It closely resembles the framework for the other research councils contained in the Science and Technology Act 1965, and where there are differences between the structure used in that Act and what is set out in this Bill, the reasons for them are good. Therefore I do not support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, although I am grateful to her for providing the opportunity to say that Clause 3 provides the right balance between the legitimate influence of the Secretary of State in directing the way in which public money should be spent and freedom of operation for the council.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I hesitate to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, after our love affair on the last amendment. I should say that I agree with her objectives. We have now a more centralising, control freak Government than we have ever had, or at least in my lifetime. Again and again we see the Government determined to bring power and control to the centre and to Whitehall. Therefore when I first saw the amendment, I thought that it marked a step in the right direction. Moreover, when listening to the noble Baroness introduce it, it is clear that that is what she has in mind. But I do not think that it does the job.
To seek to change "may" to "shall", so that subsection (1) would read:
"The Secretary of State [shall] pay the Arts and Humanities Research Council such sums as he determines",
means that he could determine to pay the council nothing. The amendment would not meet the objective of securing for the council a degree of independence over the use of its funding. Although I have not tabled an amendment in my name, I think it would be better to be altogether more radical by proposing that the role of the Secretary of State should be to set out the broad strategic approach and objectives rather than that of issuing directions.
Amendment No. 5 seeks to delete subsection (3), which states:
"The Council must comply with any direction of the Secretary of State as to the use or expenditure of payments made under subsection (1)".
I say amen to that. Unfortunately, however, in a later amendment the noble Baroness seeks to put in something almost as bad, thereby defeating the object of the exercise. I do not know whether the noble Baroness will return to this point at a later stage in our consideration, but I think that she is on to something here, which is the need to set up a body, give it a clear set of objectives and let it get on with the job. Otherwise there will be a continual determination on the part of others to make changes—I hope that that ringing is not from my telephone. No, it is not, although the ring tone is similar to mine, which is always alarming. As I said, there will be a determination to second-guess these bodies which have been set up with clear objectives and which are staffed with able people. That is true of all governments; it may even have been true of previous governments.
I do not know what the noble Baroness intends to do, but if she returns with a slightly more robust amendment that seeks a greater degree of independence for the Arts and Humanities Research Council, then we may be in a position to give her some support.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I wish to endorse rather than repeat the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, on the importance of the research council. She made the case very well.
I plead for one principle to operate in this area, which is that of consonance and congruity in the arrangements between the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Government, and other research councils and the Government. For a long
20
time the arts and humanities community has felt itself to be two or three steps behind the other academic areas and I see this part of the Bill as a move to change that situation. Whatever further amendments or changes may be proposed in due course by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, we must look for consonance and congruity between this proposed new research council and the other research councils.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is clear that many noble Lords in the Chamber know exactly how research councils function because they have worked with them in various different contexts. However, we do not all do so and I am finding it hard to envisage exactly how this is to operate. Does Clause 3(1) mean that a research council should always hold discussions with the Secretary of State before embarking on any operation in order to ensure that funding will be provided, or is that not the case? What is the process here?
The subsection states that:
"The Secretary of State may pay … such sums as he determines in respect of the expenses that the Council has incurred, or expects to incur, in carrying out the objects listed".
How would the council ensure that the Secretary of State will provide the necessary funding?
Lord Morgan: I too strongly support the proposed Arts and Humanities Research Council and I am sorry that, due to circumstances beyond my control, I was not able to express that support at Second Reading. I should declare an interest as one who has spent the past 48 years doing research in the arts and humanities, and not much else. So I warmly endorse what was said by my noble friend Lady Warwick.
I do not think that the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, are necessary. However, she has made an extremely important point; that is, to encourage the underlying autonomy and freedom of operation for the board. I say that for one particular reason: research in the arts and humanities is commonly different in character from that undertaken in the social and natural sciences. Most of us are single scholars. Broadly speaking, my own methodology has been that of the Venerable Bede, and I do not think that things have changed very much. I hope, therefore, that the new council will be encouraged to appreciate the different character of research in this area. It has been observed that this is crucial work and we should not try to impose inappropriate models on it. Having said that, I warmly welcome the proposal in the Bill.
Lord Walton of Detchant: It has been 26 years since my membership of the Medical Research Council ended, so perhaps my experience is somewhat out of date. In those days the financial allocations made to the research councils were provided as a total sum by the government. The then advisory board for the research councils then recommended allocations to individual research councils. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, observed, at that time it was quite clear that the research councils were totally independent of government and were absolutely autonomous in their decision making.

21
However, the situation has changed. In those days we would not have accepted Clause 3(3) relating to a direction by the Secretary of State because independence was one of the principles underlying the activities of the research councils. However, today there is a Director General of the Research Councils who presumably is the agent of the Secretary of State and who may direct in this way. That, I think, was conceded many years ago.
Although I sympathise with the reasons why the noble Baroness has tabled these amendments, in retaining the principle of equity between the different research councils—and I welcome very much the establishment of this new body—it is reasonable to keep the clause as drafted.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I rise to make a tiny point and in doing so I mean no disrespect to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. She has taken great trouble with her amendments to make sure that they observe the consequential order, but I observe that were Amendment No. 2 to be carried in Committee, I would move an amendment on Report that the words "Arts and Humanities Research" should be substituted between the first two words of her amendment, and that the subsequent reference in line 7 to "Arts and Humanities Research" should be deleted.
I appreciate that the words "the council" stand by themselves towards the end of Clause 2, but that is because the Arts and Humanities Research Council has already been referred to earlier in the clause. It is a purist's point. but it is sensible to be vigilant.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Let me begin by saying that it is interesting to see how keen noble Lords are to see this research council come into being, and I am very grateful for the support for the Arts and Humanities Research Council from all sides of the House. It is an important step.
When we talk about the 1965 Act, and the underpinning that it gives this new legislation, it is important that we recognise that it is not precisely what is needed. That is why the Bill seeks to mirror that Act and to bring it up to date. It is important to recognise that that is a 39 year-old piece of legislation. When I was looking into this area of policy, I asked when we had last looked at the way the research councils were functioning, and how well they were functioning. I know that noble Lords in the Chamber will be aware of the quinquennial review in 2001, which found the system to be working well. It made a number of recommendations—about the strategic framework, about working with other stakeholders—but overall it was felt that the research councils were performing well. Adding this new research council is done on the basis that, in general, this is the right way to go. As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, indicated, it is important, in setting up a new research council, to ensure a synergy of activity and the opportunity for councils to work together in areas where there is an overlap between the arts, humanities and science.
We wanted to avoid a situation whereby, for example, the Office of Science and Technology—to which the research council will report—or even the
22
Department of Trade and Industry would need to offer different guidance to different research councils in advising them of their legal responsibilities. Nor did we want one reporting framework for some councils and another for the AHRC, which could make crosscutting programmes more difficult to achieve.
So we have sought to mirror arrangements which we believe are working well, with the necessary updating of terminology. We will be setting out the detailed requirements for strategic and annual planning in the "management statement and financial memorandum". That will be similar to that of other research councils and modelled on the guidelines applying to non-departmental public bodies.
That is the backdrop to the approach that we have taken on these amendments. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, are inter-linked. They would require the council to develop a programme of activities consistent with the objects set out in Clause 1. The Secretary of State would then be obliged to fund the carrying out of those activities. We looked very carefully at the effect of these amendments, and I can reassure the Committee that the development of a programme of activities is already implicit within the research council's fulfilment of its objects, as outlined in Clause 1. That is the advice I have received. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness.
I am mindful of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, on Amendment No. 3 about the way in which the research council will operate in terms of receiving its grants within the strategic overview that the Government will set. There are good examples of research councils receiving additional moneys for specific, additional special projects that the Government may wish them to look into. That has worked successfully in the past.
We believe that the way in which research councils function—receipt of their grant, strategic overview, reporting, because this is public money, but with autonomy over whom they choose to support—is the right balance. If the noble Baroness would like more information, I would be more than happy to write to her and set that out in greater detail.
In Amendment No. 3, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, suggests that we replace "may" with "shall". I understand the objective of ensuring that the council is properly funded, but the existing "may" ties in with the discretionary power being given to the Secretary of State to determine how much she pays in respect of the expenses of the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The word "shall" would imply that the Secretary of State was obliged to pay the money and this would sit awkwardly with her discretionary power under this clause to determine how much she pays.
I am categorical in saying that the Secretary of State has every intention of supporting the AHRC financially, and would certainly wish to pay the sums that are determined to be paid. Pending this Bill gaining Royal Assent and the secondary legislation gaining approval in the Scottish Parliament, and both in this House and the other place, we will be ensuring

23
that there is a once-and-for-all transfer of funds to the Department of Trade and Industry. This will be from the departments responsible for the funding councils in Scotland, Wales and England as well as the Department of Education and Learning in Northern Ireland. Our objective is to ensure that the proposed Arts and Humanities Research Council is able to operate from 1 April 2005.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, I want to establish a point of principle with regard to the funding. It is, as your Lordships will be aware, taxpayer's money. It will be important, as I have indicated, that there is accountability for the use of that money. The seven science research councils work in support of the Government's strategic objectives for science and research, under the auspices of the Office of Science and Technology. Taken together, Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 would replace the existing subsection (3)—as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has indicated—with similar wording which would have the same effect. We see no additional benefit gained by the proposed wording. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned amendments that might come at a later stage in this area. We shall see, and I look forward to them if that is the case. We believe that the use of the Royal Charter is a means by which we can ensure that the research councils operate in an autonomous way within the strategic objectives that have been laid down.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Perhaps I did not make myself very clear, as I was distracted by someone's telephone. Could the Minister perhaps give us an example of when and how Ministers might wish to use the power contained in Clause 3(3)? In what circumstances would Ministers use this power to give a direction? What concerns me is the possibility of having a government which did not like some research which had been commissioned. We are not talking about pure science. It could be social research which went against the flagship policy of a particular government. There is always a worry that politicians might be tempted to use their power in a way which would minimise their embarrassment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is hard to find an example of such behaviour on the part of Secretaries of State, although I am prepared to dig and find any that might be pertinent. The general way this clause would apply is if, for example because of changes in technology or because of a particular issue of great import to the nation, the Secretary of State felt it right and proper for the research council to undertake some research, then the Secretary of State would provide additional moneys and would direct the research council to undertake that research in whatever manner the research council felt was best. That is the normal usage to which this power has been put. If I am able to indicate some circumstances beyond that, I will of course write to the noble Lord, and place a copy in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am sorry to press this, but I cannot believe that any research council, offered some money by the Minister to do some research, would say "No thank you, we don't want the money to do that". That is not an example of using the power of direction. If the Minister cannot think of an example where the power would be required, would it not be better to take it out of the Bill?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is precisely the power of direction that says the Government wish to undertake a specific piece of research, have indicated which of the research councils is best placed to do that, and thereby, through additional resources, as I have indicated, directs the council so to do. My clear understanding is that that is the case. If my understanding is wrong, rather than prolong the noble Lord's concern, I will of course put that right in a letter in the Library of the House. I have before me a couple of examples that may help the noble Lord and no doubt help the Minister as well.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am not the Minister.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I meant myself, actually; though far be it from me to take it away from the noble Lord. He has been there. He knows what it is like.
The increasing stipends for PhD students are increasing the funding for some specific research priorities; post-genomic research is an example. I think that that fits within what I have indicated. As far as I am concerned, that addresses the issue. However, as I said to the noble Lord, I am very happy to return to the point if it would enable us to bring this to a suitable and satisfactory close.
Lord Walton of Detchant: One concern which may arise relating to Clause 3(3) is not so much that the direction should invite or direct the research council to carry out research in a particular field—there have been many examples of that in the Medical Research Council, and in the other research councils, over the years; I could cite the example of HIV/AIDS and very many more—but that the Secretary of State may direct that certain research given priority by the research council should not be carried out. I think that that is the concern we would like to have allayed.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As I understand it, there is no indication that that has happened. However, noble Lords have pressed the point and I shall take it away and look at it further. It is very clear to me that there are no indications from the work of the research councils or from the quinquennial review that the issue is of concern in the actuality of the circumstances, if I may put it like that. However, I undertake to look at it again on the understanding that the Government are clear about our intentions. However, I have heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
Amendment No. 7 would specify that the research council should have to provide details of its programmes and estimates of its expenses to the Secretary of State. We

25
believe that this amendment could make the situation less clear. There is a risk, albeit a small one, that the addition of "details" could be interpreted as narrowing the scope of' information provided within "programmes and estimates".
With those provisos, and on the understanding that I shall write to noble Lords on any points not covered—and I pick up the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Walton, about ensuring that the wording entirely reflects our desires—I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for her response and other noble Lords for their contributions—although they have not wholly supported my amendments.
I turn to the issue of examples and where it might be appropriate to give an explicit directive. The example that I had in mind, although it relates not to the research councils but to one of the funding councils, occurred about a year ago when the Minister put pressure on the Higher Education Funding Council to withdraw funding from those rated "poor" in the research assessment exercise. There was a dispute, as I understand it, and it became explicit in hearings before the House of Commons Select Committee on Education and Skills that the funding council leadership was not too happy at that time to comply. I believe that an explicit letter was exchanged.
The point I was trying to make is that on these occasions it is better that the situation comes out into the open and there is an explicit letter of direction, as distinct from the Minister simply putting pressure on the research council chief executive and compliance behind the scenes. In the interest of public accountability we want to know about these matters. Implicitly, what I was trying to get at is that where such a direction is issued it should be an explicit direction in the form of a letter that goes to the research council and to which the research council has to respond. I think that most noble Lords understand that my wish in these amendments is to try to reinforce a degree of relative autonomy. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, thought that I had done completely the opposite. Perhaps we can get together and think about how to come up with something better.
I was not clear about one aspect of the Minister's reply. I had understood that the wording in Clause 3 was precisely that used in the Science and Technology Act 1965 and that one reason it could not be changed is that this wording applies to all other research councils. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said, we do not wish to have separate rules relating to separate research councils. I would argue that this is an opportunity to update the rules of the research councils to bring them partly up-to-date with current practice. That was another reason why I tabled the amendments. Perhaps the noble Baroness can write to me on whether it is the 1965 Act. She implied that it had already been updated, but I did not think that that was so.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We took the 1965 Act and updated the legal terminology, for example. As noble Lords have indicated, that legislation was passed 38 years ago. However, the thrust of what we were trying to do was to put the research councils on an equal par. Based especially on the quinquennial review, we were content that the research councils were functioning very satisfactorily. That was the underlying principle. Off the top of my head I cannot remember whether the words exactly mirror the earlier ones, but I am happy to write to the noble Baroness. However, I think that the principle to which she alluded is right. We want these research councils to be the same. They work well. We believe it would be wrong for the Bill to change in any way the underlying way in which they work.
Baroness Blackstone: I support the Minister's comments, and I speak now not as a former Minister but as a former deputy chairman of one of the main committees of the social science research council. The issue must surely be whether the arrangements that are in place are working well. I have not heard any serious criticism from the existing research councils that the relationship with the Government, in terms of the kind of powers of direction that exist, is in any sense a problem. Were it one, then I think that we should be pressing the Minister to make changes. However, I honestly do not believe that there is an issue.
My only question is on the drafting of the last provision of Clause 3. I think that it is improved by including "details of". The Bill reads very oddly by dealing only with "programmes and estimates". I ask the Minister to think again about that. I was not totally satisfied with her reply to that minor detail.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am very happy to look at that. Noble Lords have made very good points. As I said, the underlying principle—that we wish to have parity—is clear. I am grateful for my noble friend's comment that issues or complaints have not arisen in this regard. Of course we will look at the wording. The value of Committee stage is to enable us to do precisely that. I am very happy to do that.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her suggestion. It reminds me that Amendment No. 7 was a purely drafting amendment. I am glad to have some support for it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 not moved.]
clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Pensions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Skelmersdale: One is always told when one starts public speaking never to begin with an apology. But I am afraid that, today, I must begin with an apology to Members of the Committee. There are a couple of points on Clause 5, which is to do with the existing and future employees of the council and their

27
pensions. I must admit that these points occurred to me rather late in the day; hence my not giving warning, publicly anyway, in accordance with the Companion. But the Companion is mercifully rather vague on this, so I am not conducting what my children were brought up to call a no-no.
The beginning of Clause 5 states,
"section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1972 … can"—
I stress the word "can"—"apply", or, I suppose one could say, "from now on be applied" to anyone employed by the Arts and Humanities Research Council. The first question is why "can"? Surely to goodness that has always been the intention. Any member of any research council has always come under the Superannuation Act 1972 and no one has the slightest intention of changing that. Surely, "will" or "must" would be much more appropriate, especially as the word "must" has come into the modern vocabulary to replace "may" or "shall" in some pieces of legislation. We may come to that matter a little later in the Bill.
The Minister's right honourable colleague, Mr Johnson, said in Committee in another place:
"all we are doing in clause 5 is ensuring that employment by the arts and humanities research council is included among the kinds of employment covered by the Superannuation Act 1972",
as I have just said and as Clause 1 more or less states. But he went on to say something rather mysterious:
"The employees of the AHRB are already covered by the Superannuation Act 1972 … This is a belt-and-braces job—my understanding is that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 would cover them anyway".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee H, 10/2/04; col. 51.]
What on earth is the Superannuation Act doing in this part of the Bill?
4 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord could never commit a no-no on something as important as this. I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating to me outside the Committee that he would raise this matter. My understanding is that the word "can" is used because one could look to another kind of superannuation programme if one wished. That is why the wording is as it is. If that is incorrect I shall be corrected, but that is my understanding.
The noble Lord is absolutely right that employees are already covered under the Superannuation Act 1972. My understanding of the purpose of the clause is that it ensures that once people transfer into the research council their pensions will transfer across and be unaffected. The clause enables us to be certain that that is the case.
The noble Lord may feel that it is unnecessary. However, with an area as important as this we wanted to make it absolutely certain that that will happen. If I can supply further information to the noble Lord I shall be happy to do so.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—

ACADEMIC SALARIES REVIEW BOARD
(1) The Arts and Humanities Research Council shall set up an Academic Salaries Review Board ("the Board") whose purpose is to report to the Council and through the Council to the Secretary of State on the level of salaries of teachers and research staff in higher and further education institutions in the United Kingdom and to advise on issues of parity—

(a) by comparing the level of salaries of teachers and research staff in the arts and humanities with those in other disciplines, including the biological, economic, engineering, environmental, medical, physical and social sciences, and

(b) by comparing academic salaries with those of other professions and fields of employment as they were in 1945 and in successive decades up to the present.

(2) The members of the Board shall include one nominee appointed by each of the following—

(a) The Secretary of State;

(b) The Arts and Humanities Research Council;

(c) The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council;

(d) The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council;

(e) The Economic and Social Research Council;

(f) The Medical Research Council;

(g) The National Environment Research Council;

(h) The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council;

(i) The Royal Society;

(j) The British Academy;

(k) Universities UK;

(l) The Association of University Teachers.

(3) Members of the Board shall serve for a period of up to five years, and the chair of the Board shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.
(4) The annual report of the Board shall be included as an appendix to the report which the Arts and Humanities Research Council gives the Secretary of State on the performance of its functions after the end of each financial year.
(5) When the Secretary of State lays the annual report of the Council before each House of Parliament, as provided under section 4(3), he must accompany it with a statement indicating the measures which he may undertake in response to the advice of the Board."
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 8 we move away from the detail of the working of the Arts and Humanities Research Council, to which we shall no doubt return in Amendment No. 9. Like all noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the upgrading of the status of the Arts and Humanities Research Board to that of a research council.
I have wondered how to address a matter which is not explicitly referred to in the Bill, but which is one of deep concern to all who have an interest in higher education. At this point I declare an interest of a different kind; namely, that I am remunerated as a professor, but that is not the point I seek to make. My point is one to which many noble Lords addressed themselves in their Second Reading speeches which is the issue of academic salaries. I ask myself, first, why there is no explicit mention of the issue in the Bill. As the matter is not addressed substantially in the Bill, it is very difficult to address in an amendment. The amendment could find a place, with a modification in

29
the wording, elsewhere in the Bill. I would be happy to consider that if the Minister felt that that were more appropriate.
Many noble Lords feel that one of the great problems, which is not directly addressed in the Bill and scarcely addressed even indirectly, is that of academic salaries. That means that there is nothing that an amendment to the Bill can do to rectify the situation on academic salaries, but it is one of the most substantial problems in our universities today. An important component of the decline of our universities, which I and other noble Lords believe is taking place, is the decline in the level of academic salaries in comparison with other professions. I believe that the matter should be highlighted and kept constantly under review.
That is why I believe that it is appropriate to propose that there should be an academic salaries review board which should report annually to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State should be obliged to bring those comments before both Houses of Parliament annually, together with his observations on how he would seek to do something about the situation. I do not see how, by amendment, one can do more than that with the Bill, but I believe that that would be a useful step.
The amendment needs little explanation. I remind the Minister that it was her noble friend Lord Eatwell who drew comparison between the level of academic salaries and the level of ministerial salaries, including her own—very much to the detriment of academic salaries. The duty of setting up an academic salaries review board is here assigned to the Arts and Humanities Research Council simply for convenience. It could equally be set up as an independent entity and perhaps it should be. The main point is that it brings in a range of expertise and experience concerned with academic salaries and that it will report, as proposed, through the AHRC to the Secretary of State, who is obliged to lay it before Parliament, along with his comments.
My intention is not to argue for parity of salaries among and between academic institutions; I want to bring into scrutiny the way in which, over the years, professional—or non-manual salaries in general—have risen much more than academic ones. The National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education referred in their written evidence to the House of Commons Education and Skills Select Committee, as published in The Future of Higher Education to,
"the 45% relative decline in [academic] earnings compared to non-manual income over the last 20 years".
I am reasonably confident that if one made the comparison over the past 30 years the decline would be more than 45 per cent. That is the problem to which the amendment seeks to draw attention in a systematic and, I hope, constructive way. I beg to move.
Lord Dearing: I am glad that the noble Lord has recognised in his address that if there is to be such a mechanism this is not the appropriate place. I suggest that a body concerned with research in the arts and
30
humanities is not constituted to assess, nor would it be entirely disinterested in assessing, the levels of salaries in those areas. In fact, we had a review of the whole situation through the Betts Committee after my report several years ago. There is absolutely no doubt at all that academic salaries have fallen well behind comparators. I endorse the kind of figure that the noble Lord indicated, but if that is so well known I am unsure that there is a need to set up a committee to declare again that academic salaries are far lower than comparators. We need the funding to do something about it. I believe that through this Bill we can explore new sources of funding so that the employers, with whom this responsibility resides, can do something about it.
Lord Morgan: I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, has said. However, the noble Lord is to be congratulated on raising the matter of academic salaries, which have been a scandal in public life for many decades. We have rehearsed the points in previous debates. The starting salaries are very low; the basic spine is very long; it takes a long time to receive a decent stipend; the people who enter academic life are commonly older, having done degrees; and women are likely to be in their late 20s, rather than mid-20s, and they have not been able to exert the kind of industrial muscle that others have.
So there is a real point, which is deeply worrying, that the extra funding that universities will have is liable rightly to go into academic directions to provide for bursaries, access and so on, and that university teachers therefore will not benefit. However, I absolutely agree that attaching it to a body for funding research in humanities does not seem to be appropriate. The determination of stipends and the fostering of research are quite different entities. In determining academic stipends, a whole range of considerations applies—the abilities of teachers and colleagues and the ability to innovate, other than, of course, the primacy given to research. I therefore hope that this issue can be dealt with in another place.
Lord Winston: Although I completely understand and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, on his sentiments, I cannot but agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, in this respect. This does not seem to be the right place for the amendment, nor do I believe that it would provide the clout to change matters at all within the universities. Moreover, the composition of this board would not seem to be adequate for its purposes. While that may seem to be special pleading—and I raised the issue at Second Reading—at present there is a major problem within the medical schools whereby there is no parity and an increasing gap between National Health Service salaries and academic salaries.
If one is to have representation, one would need to include representation from the Academy of Medical Sciences. I would argue that, as an important fancier of research in Britain, the Wellcome Trust should also be involved, as well as representation from the nursing and other caring professions, which should have a

31
major influence on the salary structure related to the academic aspects of caring in universities. Sadly, therefore, I do not believe that this is the place for this amendment, though I understand the reason for its introduction at this stage.
Baroness Lockwood: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, on his ingenuity in tabling this amendment. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister does not need any arguments from the Back Benches as to why she will not be able to accept the amendment. It is unfortunate that we have a Higher Education Bill that deals with the funding of higher education but does not contain any provisions for improving academic and related salaries. It has been said today, and was said at Second Reading, that it is a disgrace. It is only because of the dedication of the staff in the universities that they continue to produce the excellent, first class work that they do.
When the Minister responds to the amendment, will she indicate whether there are any plans in her department to deal with this particular problem? The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, referred to his report. At that time we had a comprehensive review of university salaries, but very little has happened since. It is time that some real action was taken to bring universities into line with other professions.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I, too, appreciate the intention behind this amendment. I declare a former interest as someone who used to teach philosophy and discovered that philosophy was not very well rated in the marketplace but tended to be at the very lowest end of the salary scale in the university system. Nevertheless, I believe that this amendment is misplaced, for two reasons. First, we have here not even a baby Arts and Humanities Research Council, but an embryonic one. The prospect of it being redirected from its main objectives and effectively becoming the salaries review body, with a subcommittee that is the Arts and Humanities Research Council, is considerable, because that is what would get all the attention and publicity, and that distraction would annul the main point of this part of the Bill.
Nevertheless, will the Minister reassure us that if such a research council took the view, I believe quite properly, that the salary levels in this area of the academic world were so low that they imperilled the contribution made in Britain to this kind of research, it would be perfectly proper for such a research council to constitute a panel to review them and to make a public report, and that there would be no risk of it being told that it was ultra vires or that the Minister did not like it? Such an indication would reassure me immensely that the intention here, which is perfectly proper, can perhaps be realised within the existing proposals.
Lord Tugendhat: I support my noble friend Lord Renfrew in respect of both the spirit in which he has tabled his amendment and the flexibility that he
32
has shown in raising the issue. Unlike the noble Lord, who has had a distinguished career as an academic over many decades, I am very new to the world of academe. As a chancellor of a university rather than someone who works in one, I am in some respects perhaps somewhat semi-detached. I am proud to be the chancellor of the University of Bath.
For anyone who has earned his or her living in other fields of endeavour, the level of salaries in the universities is perfectly shocking: there is no other word for it. When I consider the quality of people whom I meet at the University of Bath or at Cambridge, to which I am also attached as chairman of the development committee of my old college, Caius, and compare it with the quality of people whom I meet in the financial sector or in other areas in which I have earned a living, it seems to me that the discrepancy between the quality of such people on the one hand and their remuneration on the other is blatant to a degree that one would not have believed possible.
As some Members of the Committee have said, it may be that this is not the ideal place in which to deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renfrew, as he himself recognised. However, it seems to me to be symptomatic of the problem with which we are confronted that we can have a Higher Education Bill of this importance, including, in my view, a number of desirable and quite radical propositions, which makes no reference whatever to the question of remuneration. If in any other walk of life one tried to undertake serious and far-reaching reforms designed to improve the performance of the operation, the issue of remuneration would invariably be considered. That one can have a Bill of this kind, which makes no reference to academic salaries, seems to me to indicate the way in which they have fallen not only so far below the level at which they should be fixed but also so far outwith serious consideration.
I hope, therefore, that the amendment tabled by my noble friend will lever out of the Government a counter proposition. I hope that the Minister will feel able to express a view about where academic salaries will fit into the Government's overall approach to improving the status and performance of the universities. In response to what my noble friend has said about the amendment and what other Members of the Committee have said in opposition to it, perhaps the Minister will also indicate how she will confront the issues about which concern has been expressed. In that spirit, I very much hope that the Government will give serious consideration to my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: Noble Lords may know that as a former General Secretary of the Association of University Teachers as well as the chief executive of Universities UK, I feel passionately about academic salaries. Indeed, I feel passionately about salaries for academic-related and support staff as well.
There is no doubt that as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, along with just about every other noble Lord who has spoken, salaries for academic and support staff have fallen woefully behind those for

33
their comparators elsewhere. A university's key resource is its staff. Staff pay accounts for 58 per cent of universities' expenditure, and if they cannot pay their staff adequately, all our universities will struggle to recruit and retain the best and the brightest.
Universities have worked hard to make the initial academic careers of newly qualified researchers more secure. Noble Lords will know that the Universities and Colleges Employers' Association—the employers' association for the higher education sector—has just agreed a new pay framework for higher education with the seven trade unions, which will result in pay increases totalling at least 7.7 per cent by August 2004. However, calculations show that a total of £602 million of additional investment will be needed over the next spending review for human resources in England and Northern Ireland.
That said, the amendment, as others have said, is not really the answer to the problem. The Bill is an important step in the right direction, addressing the overall funding needs of universities. If there is also adequate public investment so that the fee income which the Bill will guarantee is indeed additional, as we have been assured is the case by the Secretary of State, then universities will be in a position to begin to reverse the relative decline of university salaries. I hope that the Minister might take the opportunity to confirm this in her reply.
Research staff in humanities departments will continue to be supported by funds other than those applied by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, which will fund research on a project basis. Researchers will be financed through the university's general resources from the Further Education Funding Council's funds and fees, not from research council grants. UCEA already provides a single employers' association for the higher education sector and a framework mechanism through which universities can negotiate pay for all their academic and support staff, taking account of the overall resources that can be made available for salaries.
Since, as other noble Lords have said, the amendment would radically extend the functions of the AHRC, giving it a role far greater than its funding responsibilities, I do not believe that it would be helpful to the research council's functioning, and consequently I cannot support it. However, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for providing the opportunity to debate this issue.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I, too, congratulate my noble friend on his ingenuity in raising this matter. I do not think that the amendment is in the wrong place; I think it is perfectly legitimate for us to discuss the issue in this context. However, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, hit upon the kind of example which might tempt a Secretary of State to use his or her powers, which we discussed earlier, under Clause 3(3). If the research council were to set up the equivalent of a pay review body, I think that those in the Treasury would have a heart attack, and a direction would come from the Secretary of State. That is one of the reasons I still worry about the clause as it stands.
34
My noble friend is right to draw attention to the problem of academic salaries. There is no one in this House who does not feel strongly, indeed passionately, about it. However, the fact is that nothing will be done about it until the universities have the resources with which to pay people. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, talked passionately about her concerns, but she has supported a government who have seen the unit of resource fall in real terms. So all this talk about how we need to do more on academic pay is just hot air unless there is a way of increasing resources. Tearing up the Bill would save the taxpayer £200 million—it will cost £200 million more than it will raise in revenues from fees—which would be well spent, I suggest, on academic pay.
I do not think that the solution lies in having a salaries review board. All kinds of pay review bodies have come and gone with their recommendations and, ultimately, it is a political decision about the priorities of government. The reason that academic pay is so scandalously low is that the continual decline in the unit of resource for universities, coupled with expansion plans, which have seen lecturers have to teach smaller and smaller classes, has not been funded. It was not funded properly by the government of whom I was a member—I freely acknowledge that—and it is funded considerably less well by the present Government. That is why this continues to be an issue and the Bill does not in any way address it.
I congratulate my noble friend on raising this matter and drawing to our attention the fact that the Bill makes no progress in this direction. If he did not make this point, then I certainly shall: the Bill actually makes the problem worse by spending scarce resources on paying for the financing of a fees regime, which we will no doubt discuss when we come to Part 3 of the Bill.
I believe that pay among academics has actually fallen by about 40 per cent since 1980. In his speech on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, drew attention to something extraordinary—if you visit institutions overseas, again and again you see some of our brightest academics. Why are they there? Because they are able to pursue their research and teaching interests with a degree of freedom and because their salaries are considerably higher. What is needed is a much broader view about how to restore excellence and standards in our universities and find the very considerable resources that will be needed to achieve that.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to declare an interest at this point, as I am both a visiting professor at the London School of Economics—unpaid—and the Vice-Chancellor designate of the University of Greenwich, where I will be paid.
I am a little worried about the tenor of this debate. Like others, I share the view that academic salaries have fallen far too much relative to many other similar professions. I admired what my noble friend Lord Eatwell said on Second Reading; it was a very interesting rhetorical gesture to suggest that the Minister was overpaid compared with academics. I want to cone in on the side of the Minister, since she is, in my view, not

35
terribly well paid, and not terribly well paid compared with a lot of senior people in management in universities. However, that is an aside.
My real concern is that although it is ingenious to introduce an amendment relating to the Arts and Humanities Research Council about academic pay, this really is not the right place to introduce an amendment for an academic review salary board, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, admitted. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who I think has just admitted this, that it has been the view of not only this Government but previous governments that it is not really appropriate to set up a review body of this sort. I was, incidentally, extremely surprised to hear my noble friend Lord Sutherland—my old sparring partner in the University of London—suggest that the AHRC should be allowed to set up a committee to look at academic salaries among people who work in the arts and humanities. I think that that would be an inappropriate use of the time of members of that research board. They should be focused on the real issue of funding excellent scholarship and research in the fields for which they are responsible.
My main reason for being concerned about this debate is that a number of noble Lords have forgotten that this Bill will bring about a substantial amount of additional funding through fee income which will allow universities to pay higher salaries if they so choose. I make that point to my noble friend Lord Morgan.
In the spending review that followed the Betts Committee's report, some additional public money was ring fenced for academic salaries. I make that point to my noble friend Lady Lockwood. However, governments should not do that too often because it jeopardises the autonomy of universities.
It is up to universities—and to people like me in my next job—to ensure that at least some of any additional funding that comes through either as fee income or as proper public support for universities should be shared with academics who work so hard across our university system. They deserve to be paid better. I remind your Lordships that this House is normally very concerned about preserving the autonomy of universities, and, in the last resort, it is for them to decide what they pay their staff.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My noble friend makes some very fair points but does she not agree that the problem is immense? We are dealing with not a temporary irregularity in pay comparability but a backlog of 20 or 25 years. That is the problem of the new funding arrangements.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I would like the Minister to respond to the point that I made, rather than the version of it given to her by my noble friend Lady Blackstone.
My point is that an arts and humanities research council may well properly say that the quality of research—and the quality of people whom we recruit
36
to research in these areas in the UK—is declining very sharply. One of the reasons may well be that the salaries in this area of the academic world are very bad. If that is so, I would have thought that it is a perfectly proper interest for a research council to have.
There is a precedent in this context. I was chairman of the postgraduate studentships committee in the arts and humanities, which was an earlier predecessor of what it is now hoped to bring to birth. At that stage we looked at postgraduate scholarships. They were evidently very low—lower than in some of the other areas—and we hitched ourselves up, firstly on the back of the Science Research Council, and above them, the Medical Research Council, and above them, the Wellcome Trust. It was a proper issue for us to discuss at that stage, and I hope that, in extreme situations, an analogy with that would be possible for such a research council.
Baroness Blackstone: There is absolutely no problem with the suggestion of noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that the Arts and Humanities Research Council should comment on the position of researchers or more senior academics in teaching posts. This includes the numbers of good people coming forward and the possibility that this may be related to pay. When he spoke for the first time, I think he suggested that it would be reasonable—and that the Government should accept—that the AHRC should set up a special committee to look at salaries. That would not be a sensible use of its time, nor would it be appropriate for one research council alone to start doing this. The other research councils would then feel they had to follow, and that would be a distraction from their main task.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: In my notes against this amendment I have written, "Support in spirit, but it's the wrong place". I therefore fall with the majority of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate: we are all very well aware of the erosion of academic salaries in real terms, and would like to see a solution to that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, spoke about those coming from other walks of life. This morning I had a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge who, as many noble Lords know, has just come back from America. She said that she had not realised how drastically academic salaries had fallen in real terms in this country, and how difficult it was to recruit people—young people, in particular—to academic jobs these days. As we know, they have to face substantial house prices. If they wish to move to somewhere in the south-east of England it is very difficult for them.
We should be aware of this, and of the degree to which this erosion took place over a long period of years. Some Noble Lords may know that I was an active member of an organisation called Save British Science in the 1980s and early 1990s. When we talked about the problems that the erosion of academic salaries would create in the recruitment of new postgraduate students, we were called "moaning Minnies". If only something had been done then.

37
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, was the general secretary of the AUT at that time, and it fought for improvements in salaries. But on the other side of the table, the CVCP did not fight for real improvements in salaries as hard as it might have. That has continued over the years. As somebody who was at the coal face, I have seen vice-chancellors' salaries do very well thank you very much, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said. It is a real problem.
If the Bill goes through I hope that it will create the funds, and that those will be directed towards increasing salaries. I share some of the doubts that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has put forward on whether it is going to generate the funds. In net terms, the Exchequer is going to have to fork out a lot in order to generate these funds. In spirit we are very much with this amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I will be brief. If your Lordships will forgive the medical analogy, it is true that the state of academic salaries has been a running sore which has continued to fester for decades. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for raising this issue, but I agree with other Members of the Committee who have said that the function of a research council is not to be a salary negotiating body.
As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, the establishment of a salaries review body might well give the Secretary of State a heart attack. Part 4 of the Bill deals with student support. Is there not a case for having a new part 5 for staff support, in which the issue of a salaries review body to look at the state of academic salaries could be considered? I raise that in a purely speculative sense.
Lord Eatwell: Since my noble friend Baroness Blackstone referred to my contribution at Second Reading, I should clarify what I said. I did not say that the Minister was overpaid. I said that the salary of her post in 1980 corresponded to a middle-ranking to senior university lecturer at that time. Her salary now is £30,000 per year more than that person.
In summing up, the Minister said, "I think I earn my salary". I think that university lecturers earn her level of salary too. What has happened over this period is that for a variety of reasons university salaries have fallen dramatically behind.
However, I did not rise simply to clarify that point. We must be very careful about spending the money that we generate by this Bill over and over again on different things. That is what I have heard today.
I hope that the Minister will not claim that the fee income which will be generated from the fee proposals in the Bill will solve the problem of salaries, because it is not. I hope that the fee income generated in this Bill will be invested in excellence—excellence in teaching and excellence in research—and providing equipment for researchers in universities. The salaries problem is so serious that it requires an entirely separate endeavour. It requires to be considered in and of itself and not to be rolled up for us to be provided with the
38
excuse that somehow this money, which is being spent several times over, will help to solve the salary problem as well.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I hesitate to rise again, but perhaps the Minister could deal with that point when she replies to what has turned out to be a wide-ranging debate. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was attempting to spend the money on pay. She said that the additional funding of £900 million would help with pay, and that we had forgotten it. However, north of the Border there will be no increase in tuition fees, which means that if any of the money were to be spent on salaries it could not be spent in that way north of the Border.
Certainly, north of the Border, there is widespread concern among academic staff that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is predicting, some of the money will be used on pay and that there will be a salary gradient between Scotland and England. In that case, some of the most talented brains in the country— being Scottish—would move south towards the lure of extra cash, which would be extremely damaging to the universities.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, made the point that there was a separate issue here—the problem of university salaries. The Bill will make that problem urgent. Will the Minister say, in responding to this cleverly worded amendment, whether the Government might commit themselves to addressing the problem? The integrity of the institutions north of the Border could well be damaged by being kept in the same position as those south of the Border, which have been damaged already by having insufficient funds to meet their salary needs.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I hesitate to interrupt the mutual and reactive cut and thrust of interventions between those who are taking part in this debate. I was in Ireland on parliamentary business at the time of Second Reading and therefore did not have the chance to visit the subject raised by my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, who has proposed his new clause as a probing amendment.
My noble friend's new clause is worded in such a way as to provide it with a locus in the Bill. The arrangement for settling these matters was different in the early 1980s, when I was parliamentary secretary to the late great Sir Keith Joseph and had to deal with the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, when she represented the AUT. However, I had to respond, not statutorily but spontaneously, to a revisit by the Brookings Institute to its very comprehensive UK report of 1968. In it, the institute criticised engineering and scientific salaries in the UK, which it said were so distorted as to cause jobs of one discipline to be done by the other and vice versa, to the detriment of the national interest. In the early 1980s, it reported that no serious or significant change had occurred in the intervening 15 years since the first report.
My noble friend Lord Renfrew made it clear in his speech that there was an element of force feeding in his new clause. He should not be disturbed by the

39
comments made by other Members of the Committee. I wholly support the curiosity of the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, which my noble friend's new clause has provoked, about what the Government's general intentions are in these matters. It seems to me that the subject cannot be raised too often, so no harm whatever has been done by having this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, expressed anxiety about philosophy salaries, but I can give him one word of comfort. My late noble kinsman read philosophy at Balliol and was interested when his philosophy tutor, at the beginning of World War II, was made metals controller for the United Kingdom. He asked him what his qualifications were—to which his former tutor replied that his qualifications were unique and incidentally invaluable. First, as a philosopher, he was trained to ask questions, and the metal industry was one with a great many questions to be asked about it. Secondly, everybody else in the industry besides himself had an emotional involvement in one metal or another—whether wolfram or tungsten. His unique contribution was that he had no emotional involvement in any of them.
That anecdote seems neatly to underline the vicarious logic of my noble friend's new clause. I hope that his probe receives an encouraging reply.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Desai: I am no longer actively employed. I am retired but, after 38 years of low pay, I have deep feelings about the matter. I joined the London School of Economics at £1,400 per annum plus a £60 London allowance. I dare say that someone who starts today is paid less in real terms than I was then. That is how tragic the situation is.
I want to say one thing about the noble Lord's proposal. The problem is the rigidity of the grid and the inflexibility of the way in which salaries are defined. If we have to keep the present regime, the least that he could do is to have on his board nobody except the Secretary of State and one American academic, who will tell the Secretary of State what pay is really like. Perhaps there could be a couple of people from the real world, as the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said. We should not have chairmen of research bodies on the board—they do not know anything because they are equally low paid. There should be some outside people—not academics. Then they will find out how bad things are.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My noble friend Lord Renfrew has received several oblique compliments, in that everyone in the House feels that he has done the right thing, but not at the right moment. He has done the right thing by bringing to the attention of the House the agreement of the whole House that academic salaries have fallen dramatically over the past 30 years, under both Conservative and Labour governments.
Anyone who is involved in the academic world knows that there is a constant brain drain going on of those in British academia to America. Two of our
40
leading historians now work in American universities and there has been a drain of Oxford philosophers over the past three or four years. One could give many examples of the brain drain at all levels, from postgraduates onwards.
Having had responsibility in this area, it is my experience that no government of any complexion will give the universities the money that they need or deserve. Indeed, I see that on the list of priorities of the Conservative spokesman, Mr Letwin, universities do not feature. I do not believe that the money is going to come from any government. That is why I find the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, rather strange. He said that the free income, which is an essential part of the Bill, will be used on many things rather than salaries. Judging by the institutions with which I have talked, I believe that the first claim probably will be salaries. In that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—the money will be used to stop the brain drain.
The noble Lord believes that the problem with salaries is so great that it requires a great deal of attention, but I do not know who is going to give it that attention. No government will come forward and give enormous sums of money to the universities to catch up for the past 30 or 40 years. It is unrealistic to believe that that would happen.
The fundamental part of this Bill will give universities an alternative source of income, in fees which over the years will build up and will give them an opportunity. Ultimately, one wants not a salary review body but freedom for the universities. That is the golden vision on the hill—that universities should be free to teach what they want, recruit whom they want and charge what they want for the services that they provide. This Bill is a hesitant step along that road. Until we get to that point—and it will take some years and perhaps a decade or two to overcome that deficiency—we have to start out along that road.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The issue of academic pay has quite rightly caused great debate in the Chamber. I am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who participated in it, and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for tabling the amendment.
I can assure my noble friend Lord Eatwell that when I said in my closing remarks that I thought I earned my money, I did not wish to suggest for one moment that academics or many other people involved in working life do not earn theirs. My privilege and pleasure is to stand before this Chamber, and I am overpaid for the privilege of so doing. I would not wish to suggest anything about anyone else in what was meant to be a moment of levity. That will teach me!
As Members of the Committee have said, academic salaries have increased by an average of only 20 per cent since 1980, while average earnings have increased by about 60 per cent and graduate earnings by even more. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in seeking to put the amendment within the remit of the Arts and Humanities Research Council, has done

41
so primarily to ensure that it falls within the scope of the Bill. I shall seek to address the issues of generality in the noble Lord's remarks, rather than the specifics relating to the Arts and Humanities Research Council. I believe that is what the noble Lord intended.
I can tell my noble friends Lord Sutherland and Lady Blackstone that, if the research council wished to consider this issue, it would not be ultra vires to do so. It could commission such a report. It would fit within its responsibilities to provide advice but it would have to relate specifically to the research council's responsibilities, that is the arts and humanities. But I agree with my noble friend that this is not the best focus for a research council, especially in the early stages. As noble Lords have indicated, salaries are the responsibility of individual institutions as employers. However, if the research council felt that it was an appropriate report to commission, because it was relevant to work that it was undertaking, it could do so. It is important that I say that immediately.
We recognise that there is much to be done to improve academic salaries but it is not for the Government to regulate them or to dictate what they should be. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone has indicated, we believe very strongly that educational institutions are independent, autonomous bodies that must have the power to manage their resources as they see fit As employers, they are responsible for determining the level of pay for their staff through negotiation with the staff and the relevant unions. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that, in principle, institutions are the best judges of how to deploy the resources made available to them.
However, as noble Lords have said, public funding levels indicate what institutions can pay their staff. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, that the fact that this is not specifically within the Bill does not mean that its importance is not recognised, nor that we do not wish to see this debate take place in your Lordships' House on this and other occasions. It is an important issue, but it is not one for legislation. Inevitably, in looking at issues around the White Paper on higher education, the Bill focuses only on issues where legislation is required.
Noble Lords will be aware that overall funding for higher education will reach £10 billion a year by 2006. We have provided a total of £330 million to improve institutions' human resource capabilities between 2001–02 and 2003–04. A further £167 million will be provided between 2004–05 and 2005–06 through the Rewarding and Developing Staff in Higher Education initiative. The intention of this funding is to help institutions recruit and retain staff by improving their human resource capabilities. As noble Lords will be aware from their involvement in universities, recruiting and keeping staff is an issue that often does not come down to pay alone. It is important that we support universities in all the ways in which they try to ensure that they have the right staff at the right level. However, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, with his knowledge and deep experience, is right about the issue of academic pay. We hope that, with the additional resources available to institutions, there will be opportunities to consider the
42
issue of academic pay because it is such an important factor in the quality of universities. The Office of Science and Technology and the research councils take this issue very seriously and they have mechanisms in place to respond to the requirements of their respective research communities.
As a direct response to the Roberts review of the supply of people with science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills,SET for Success, which has been discussed in your Lordships' House, action has been taken to encourage the best scientists at undergraduate level to continue their studies and to pursue careers in research and development in the UK. As noble Lords are aware, this has included increasing the PhD minimum stipend from £8,000 in 2002–03 to £12,000 by 2005–06 and creating 1,000 new academic fellowships to provide attractive routes into academia.
Noble Lords will also know that in further education we are planning an additional investment of £1.2 billion in 2005–06, a real terms increase of 19 per cent compared to 2002–03. In 2002–03 the total planned FE expenditure allocated to the Learning and Skills Council was £4.4 billion. This will rise to £5.6 billion in 2005–06.
I share the concerns of noble Lords about academic salaries. I have listened very carefully to all the comments that have been made by noble Lords today, but I do not believe that it is the Government's job to dictate the level at which they are set. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear me say that monitoring academic salaries is not an appropriate role for the research council. Our proposals for higher education are intended to empower institutions to use their freedom to ensure that they flourish, doing what they do best. We do not wish to micromanage universities, rather we want to give them the support that they need.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, spoke about a matter that has been raised on many occasions by noble Lords: the issue of the brain drain of UK academic staff to overseas institutions offering higher pay. Noble Lords have often indicated individual cases, which I am certain are correct, where individuals have been attracted to posts elsewhere. However, we have no evidence to suggest that this is a trend. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the UK is a net beneficiary of the increasing migration of science and engineering talent, which is the area about which we have information. However, as this is important, I can assure your Lordships that the Office of Science and Technology is looking at what further work can be done to obtain better evidence on this subject, not least in view of the comments that have been made by noble Lords about their experiences.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, specifically spoke on the situation north of the Border in Scotland. The noble Lord has already indicated to me that this is an issue that is of particular importance to him. He will not be surprised to hear me say that it is the job of the Scottish Executive to determine fees in Scotland. Under the Barnett formula, they will have resources equivalent to those available in England to address the needs of higher education. The Scottish Executive have choices to make about what to do with that

43
resource and are in the middle of looking at a report. I gather that we will have some conclusions on it in June, no doubt in time to discuss it in your Lordships' House during the passage of this Bill.
It is the responsibility of the sector to monitor its own salary arrangements. Noble Lords referred to the Bett report, conducted by Sir Michael Bett. It has just finished its first full year and we look with interest to see where it will develop in future. My noble friend Lady Warwick of Undercliffe described in some detail how the 10 negotiating arrangements have been replaced by a national council and the importance of that change, so I shall not repeat it. We believe that we will be able to obtain better data on staffing in higher education through the Higher Education Statistics Agency. As noble Lords will know, it currently covers only academic staff working 25 per cent or more of a full-time equivalent. From 2003–04, this will be extended to all academic staff and will include non-academic staff for the first time so that the basis upon which information is available will improve. Sir Michael Bett's work is under way and should be given an opportunity to develop. The negotiating councils have come together into the national council and I believe that these are opportunities to address some of the concerns that have been raised. I argue that it is a better way of addressing the issues that have been raised than that suggested by the noble Lord's amendment.
It is absolutely true that the unit of resource in higher education is lower than it once was. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will not be surprised to hear me say that between 1989 and 1997 it was cut by 36 per cent in real terms. But we are raising funding by 7 per cent in real terms between 2002–03 and 2005–06. I know that we will have the opportunity to debate all of these issues in more detail later, but I want to state categorically that we are committed to the funding of higher education. I say to my noble friend that, in terms of this being additional money, she need look no further than to the Chancellor's comments in his Budget Statement, which I shall be happy to supply to noble Lords to make that point absolutely clear. I look forward to any proposals that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may wish to put forward in the course of our discussions about higher education funding to see what he might wish to offer to noble Lords and to the institutions represented here. I await his proposals with great interest.
All in all, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, for a very important debate. I understand and agree completely with the sentiments that have been expressed. It is right that academic salaries have slipped badly behind. It is the purpose of the Bill to try to gain additional resources for the sector. We recognise the importance of autonomy within institutions. Although I support the sentiments behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I do not support it and on that basis I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
5 p.m.
Lord Winston: Before my noble friend sits down, she made the assertion that we may be a net beneficiary of the brain drain. I wonder whether that is true of the sciences. Will she undertake to publish metrics to demonstrate whether or not that is the case and where the evidence for that lies because it is a very important issue for British universities? Perhaps we could look at those figures in the full light of day.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The Roberts review concluded that while there is anecdotal evidence of top scientists being tempted to work abroad by better pay and conditions, there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the UK is suffering from a serious brain drain. Indeed, the report's conclusions were that we appeared to be a net beneficiary. However, as I indicated, not least because of the experience of many noble Lords, including my noble friend, work is under way at OST to consider what further work needs to be carried out to gather more substantial evidence to address the concerns that the noble Lord has indicated. If figures are available to be put in the public domain, I shall with pleasure ensure that that is done.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am very grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am also grateful to the Minister for her sympathetic response. I meant to say earlier that I was grateful for her letter after my speech at Second Reading in which she made one or two relevant points.
If there is one point on which there is general agreement, it is that my amendment is in the wrong place. I see the truth of that point. Since tabling it, I have been advised by people competent to advise that I may have been over modest in seeking an umbrella, as it were; that is, in seeking to establish the Arts and Humanities Research Council as an umbrella body. I am advised that it may well be possible for me to set down such a proposal as a freestanding item rather in the manner which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, suggested.
I shall not try to respond to every point that has been made. However, given that the amendment probably is in the wrong place, two general sentiments have been expressed. The first is that there is a serious problem which is not being adequately addressed. I felt that the second sentiment was present, for example, in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. I thought that it contained an element of complacency, if I may be so bold as to say so, in the sense of saying, "We know this already. Do we need to say it again?" I am not at all happy with that position. Likewise, I am not happy with the position that I felt was expressed on behalf of Universities UK by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who suggested that the matter is being addressed by the present Bill. I hate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Baker, but there was an element of that in his speech.

45
I do not believe that the position is being effectively addressed by the present Bill. As I understand it, in reality the money raised in top-up fees and so forth—some of it, of course, will be paid in other ways, for example, in bursaries to reduce the net income to universities—will cover about half of the recurrent deficit of many university budgets. That means that universities will probably be worse off in the near future than they are now. It is clear from what is happening at my university, Cambridge—I believe that this applies to many others—which is looking seriously at current deficits that a number of posts will be blocked when they become vacant. I do not know whether there will be obligatory redundancies. I hope that that will be avoided. I do not see any prospect in the present climate of academic salaries being significantly enhanced. I should be interested if anyone connected with the finances of the university world could speak to the contrary.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Tugendhat for speaking as one who comes to the university world from outside, although he has a distinguished role in it as Chancellor of the University of Bath, and is astonished at the disparity between academic and other salaries. I very much take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that if there is to be such a board as I propose, it would do well to have some outside opinions on it. That point was very well made.
I do not consider that the problem is going away. I am not optimistic that an academic research board, even if properly set up and set up in the right place, would do very much about it, but if the Secretary of State were obliged to comment annually on the matter to both Houses of Parliament, it would at least give the matter some of the attention which it deserves. I shall read speeches with care and take further advice. I may seek the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, not only in the spirit but also in the letter on Report. In the mean while, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dearing: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I dispel my complacency? I totally agreed about the facts; I said that what we wanted was action.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I accept that. I withdraw the word "complacency". I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, for his intervention. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 10 minutes to six.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Iraq: Security Situation and Allegations of Mistreatment
5.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence earlier this afternoon in another place on Iraq, the current security situation and allegations of mistreatment. The Statement is as follows:
"First of all I would like to bring the House up to date in relation to the current security situation in Iraq.
"Recent weeks have seen British forces, our coalition allies and the Iraqi police facing violent attacks in southern Iraq. This weekend saw the most violence so far, with more than 100 engagements between violent insurgents and coalition forces. Eleven British soldiers and one Dane were injured in these clashes. Our forces have captured a very large quantity of arms and ammunition from the Muqtada militia. The insurgents are armed with mortars, rocket propelled grenades and a wealth of automatic weapons. We have captured 10 multi-launch rocket tubes, 300 mortar rounds and three wire-guided missiles over this weekend.
"This upsurge in violence appears to have followed calls at some Friday prayers for attacks against the coalition. Many of those who responded have a violent and criminal background that predates the arrival of the coalition in Iraq last year. They are thugs, not freedom fighters. They do not enjoy the support of the majority of people in Iraq who welcome the strong security action we are taking. These attacks against Iraqis and Iraqi institutions are a challenge to the rule of law, an attempt to disrupt reconstruction efforts and an attempt to deliberately damage the transition to a democratic Iraq. No sensible person can condone these attacks—everyone should support our efforts to deal with them in the interests of the Iraqi people.
"The situation in both Basra and Al Amarah remains tense, but Iraqi police are patrolling and are engaged in other security tasks. Further violence is likely in the coming days. British and Iraqi forces will continue to confront such challenges. As ever, they will do so with the minimum necessary use of force and with great care to avoid an unnecessary impact on the wider population.
"Last week my right honourable friend the Minister for Armed Forces made a Statement about allegations of abuse by UK forces in Iraq. I would like to deal with developments since that Statement.
"There have been further details and images of abuse by US forces, and further claims against British soldiers published mainly in the Daily Mirror. Last week my right honourable friend made clear that if allegations are found to be true, then those responsible for damaging the otherwise excellent reputation of our Armed Forces will be rooted out and dealt with.

47
"The unauthorised actions of a very few must not be allowed to undermine the outstanding work of tens of thousands of British soldiers and civilians who have served with distinction, compassion and sensitivity in Iraq now for over a year. We regret the shadow that has been cast across the excellent work being undertaken, under very difficult circumstances, to establish security and to rebuild Iraq.
"The UK requires its forces to act at all times within the UK law, which means that they must comply with the Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law. Allegations of improper behaviour will be thoroughly investigated. We are not in any way complacent about such allegations.
"The 33 cases of Iraqi civilian deaths, injuries and ill-treatment, which my right honourable friend mentioned last week, that have been or are under investigation, testify to our determination. These investigations were not begun in response to the ICRC, to Amnesty or as the result of media pressure. We investigate ourselves through the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch immediately evidence is to hand.
"In these investigations it is essential that the integrity of the criminal justice process is maintained. This can involve detailed and lengthy processes, but these are crucial to allow the necessary impartial evaluation of the evidence. I can confirm today that two cases have reached an advanced stage with decisions on prosecution pending.
"Obviously, it is important that the legal processes should be completed independently, but I want to say on behalf of the British Government that we unreservedly apologise to any Iraqis, where the evidence shows they have been mistreated—whether, as Amnesty has set out in recent correspondence, in the general interactions between British troops on the ground in Iraq, or in the more specific issues raised by the ICRC about Iraqis detained in British controlled facilities.
"The confidential report from the ICRC to Ambassador Bremer in February dealt with detention issues. We have always maintained a close and constructive relationship with the ICRC in Iraq. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces had a meeting with Dr Jacob Kellenburger, ICRC President, in May last year, and officials in the Ministry of Defence met the ICRC in April 2004.
"It has been the practice of the ICRC to keep these reports confidential—not simply to maintain a positive working relationship between governments and the ICRC, but also to protect those mentioned in the reports. It is important that this confidentiality is respected. Roland Huguenin-Benjamin of the ICRC said at the weekend:
"We usually do this in direct confidential contact with the detaining power. We do not believe very much that there is a lot of interest for the prisoners themselves of having those kind of issues exposed in the public domain".
48
"The interim report in February dealt with ICRC visits to coalition facilities between March and November last year. It raised three specific concerns in respect of British forces treatment of prisoners and internees. Since these issues are already in the public domain it is appropriate for me to comment further.
"The first is in respect of the death in custody of Baha Mousa, also known as Baha Maliki, in September last year. A Royal Military Police investigation was launched at that time. The case has featured frequently in the media since then and was raised by the honourable Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr during an adjournment debate in January this year. It was also the subject of an Amnesty International letter writing campaign. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces wrote to Amnesty about the case on 11 November and again on 27 January. It follows that, by the time the ICRC referred to the case in its February report, a thorough investigation was well under way and the Government had made frequent public comment about it.
"The second concern raised by the ICRC related to the United Kingdom was in respect of the routine hooding of prisoners. This practice had already ceased in UK facilities from September last year, and this change has also been confirmed publicly.
"In the third case a detainee had claimed that his car was confiscated. We were not able to shed light on the case. The individual was briefed on our claims procedure and provided with a claim form, but nothing more has been heard from him.
"The interim ICRC report was not seen by Ministers until very recently. This was because it was an interim report to Ambassador Bremer, passed to the UK in strict confidence. A follow-on UK-specific report was, in any event, anticipated; and, in these cases relevant to UK forces, the action necessary to address the ICRC's concerns had been taken some five months before the report was issued. In February, therefore, officials at permanent joint headquarters judged that there was no action that Ministers needed to take, at least until any further reports were received.
"Since the programme of ICRC visits last year, we have opened a new divisional temporary detention facility in southern Iraq. The ICRC visited the site before it opened, has visited twice since—in February and April—and is due to visit again next week. We remain committed to consultation with the ICRC and comply fully with its requests for access. The ICRC has yet to submit a formal report to the Government in respect of the two visits it has carried out, but has provided working reports to our forces in theatre. It is fair to say that the ICRC is generally satisfied with our approach and that it described conditions of internment as, 'fairly good'. We will continue to work closely with it to ensure prisoners' concerns are addressed.
"There have, in addition, been representations made by a number of other groups, including Amnesty International, making allegations about incidents, of some of which the Ministry of Defence

49
was not previously aware. These incidents do not involve allegations about detainees. We will always take any such credible allegations seriously. Consequently, at the beginning of March, we began the process of a thorough trawl of the records of units produced in Iraq since the commencement of operations last year. This is a considerable task which we expect to last a few more weeks yet. But I can assure the House that if it reveals further examples of incidents that merit formal investigation, then those investigations will follow. And in turn, if British forces are found to have acted unlawfully, then the appropriate action will be taken. That has happened in every single case so far.
"Those thorough and detailed investigations have also been necessary in relation to the photographs published by the Daily Mirror some days ago. These photographs are central to accusations concerning the behaviour of British troops, in particular, the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.
"I can tell the House that as a result of those further investigations the Special Investigations Branch has informed me that there are strong indications that the vehicle in which the photographs were taken was not in Iraq during the relevant period. Additional lines of inquiry are being pursued to corroborate this fact.
"The SIB have interviewed at length the soldier described by the Daily Mirror as "Soldier C". We are grateful to "Soldier C" for coming forward. However, I can assure the House that the allegation at the centre of his evidence, which is once again the case of Baha Mousa, has already been investigated and the case is currently with the Army Legal Services for consideration. When interviewed by the Royal Military Police, "Soldier C" did not have any new evidence to add to what was already known as a result of our own investigations. Indeed, as I have already mentioned, these allegations were widely covered in other newspapers many months ago. I leave it to the House to judge why they have been recycled in this particular way.
"In conclusion, we are determined to see through the task in Iraq according to the normal behaviour set out in the Geneva Convention and international humanitarian law. We will not hesitate to act where these high standards are not followed and we will investigate when allegations are brought to our attention. But we should not lose sight of the fact that thousands of our service personnel continue to serve their country with great distinction in Iraq and around the world. We are appalled at the allegations made against an unrepresentative small number, but that will not diminish our admiration for, or our respect and our pride in, those who continue to serve their country with such distinction".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for bringing the House up to date on the current security situation and allegations of mistreatment. Given the current atmosphere of public
50
disquiet over the continuing and apparently deepening involvement of British troops in Iraq, the Government had little alternative but to make a Statement to both Houses.
The Statement is right to say that the possible unauthorised actions of a very few must not be allowed to undermine the outstanding work of tens of thousands of British soldiers and civilians who have served with distinction, compassion and sensitivity in Iraq.
There are no circumstances under which the brutal humiliation of disarmed and helpless prisoners can be excused. The replaying of these images day after day has the potential to undermine the significant gains that have been made towards the goals of peace, stability and freedom in Iraq. But it is very important to separate fact from opinion and rumour. We are bound by the Geneva Convention and the protocols. Our interrogators are scrupulously trained in tactical questioning and interrogation. They do an excellent job, often under the most trying circumstances, of producing relevant and timely human intelligence. That "HumInt", which must by its very nature remain secret, contributes significantly to the operational effectiveness of our forces in Iraq.
The House will be aware that Britain ratified the additional 1977 protocols to the 1949 Geneva Convention six years ago, and that Article 75 of the first protocol significantly prohibits,
"outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment … and any form of indecent assault".
I understand that Amnesty International reported to the MoD on several occasions since May last year alleging that abuses by British soldiers were taking place in Iraq.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. When did Her Majesty's Government first see those reports? What steps did the Government then take, and what actions were taken by the chain of command to deal with them? Since the document has been published today in the Wall Street Journal, will the Government now officially publish the ICRC report in full on this side of the Atlantic? Can the Minister confirm that the ICRC brought its concerns to the attention of the coalition forces on several occasions, orally and in writing, throughout 2003? When were British commanders in MND South East first made aware of the alleged abuse of prisoners by British forces? Finally, given the seriousness of the cuts in the military training programme, is the Minister entirely satisfied that British troops deployed to Iraq, including members of the TA, were given a full and detailed training package in handling prisoners and in the obligations of the Geneva Conventions'?
5.24 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. In reference to the 33 cases of civilian deaths, injuries or ill treatment, the Statement says:
"These investigations were not begun in response to the ICRC, to Amnesty or as the result of media pressure".

51
That may be the case, and we support the ongoing processes of the Royal Military Police and its investigations in Iraq. However, why did the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross not cause alarm bells in government? Although the report was an interim one, and it was some months before the final report was to be viewed, its allegations are so serious that I find it difficult to believe that Ministers did not read it. Like many others, I downloaded it from the web today.
Although the word "confidentiality" is used far too often to describe information coming from Iraq, that confidentiality obviously could not include Ministers. It is therefore worrying that no Minister, as we are to believe, read the report or even had it brought to their attention until a few days ago. As I understand it, the report gives the impression that, although some of the abuses highlighted were stamped down in Iraq, it appears that the Red Cross believed that they were going on in a routine manner between May and September last year. That would cause considerable concern.
The British Army has an enviable reputation for its training and discipline. However, it is unfortunate that, although the Army is there to bring stability and peace to Iraq—it is not an army of occupation—the Government have not accepted that the European Convention on Human Rights should be applicable in Iraq. I find it strange that, when I raised that question last week, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said:
"It is our belief that, strictly speaking in law, it does not apply in Iraq. Whether it does or not may one day be tested".—[Official Report, 4/5/04; col. 1030.]
That is a rather unfortunate attitude to take as regards the convention and whether it applies to British soldiers.
I had planned to ask many of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, has already put; I shall not repeat them. Has there been a review of British methods of intelligence gathering and interviewing prisoners? It has been quoted in the press—I do not know whether it is true—that techniques have been shared between US forces and British forces. Considering the fundamental abuses that have taken place under US soldiers' administration of prisoners, have joint operations procedures been reviewed? Have the Government requested urgent talks with the Americans about the abuses carried out and about remedial or any other training to be given to American forces in the future?
5.28 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their remarks and questions, which I shall do my best to answer. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that there cannot be any circumstances in which the behaviour alleged, if proved, is acceptable—no circumstances at all. I think that that is very much the view of all Members of this House, which is why the allegations are so serious and need to be sorted out.
52
I also agree with the noble Lord, if I may, that we must separate fact and rumour in such cases. We must understand that not every allegation is necessarily true. That does not mean to say that we do not have a duty to investigate each and every allegation, but as anyone who knows the criminal law in this country will be aware, not every allegation turns out to be true. It is a matter of common sense. I do not deny for a moment the seriousness of the Statement that I have made and the questions that have been asked about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked questions about Amnesty International. We have received from Amnesty, not so much reports, but a number of letters, starting in May 2003. As the Statement said, there was a letter-writing campaign about the death of Mr Mousa, which my right honourable friend the Minister for the Armed Forces replied to and made public. We have looked into and are investigating every inquiry that Amnesty has made.
As concerns the ICRC report, we are not hiding behind confidentiality as Ministers. We are asked to publish it because it has appeared on a website on the other side of the Atlantic, but I must remind the House, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that the report belongs to the ICRC. It is the committee's report, and, unless it wants to publish it, we cannot do so. Those are the conditions of the good relationship between the ICRC and us. If the committee is prepared to give its permission to publish, we would be minded to do so. It is known that the report is now on a website, and noble Lords have quite properly taken advantage of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked—more rhetorically than in fact, I think—whether Ministers had seen the ICRC report, when they say that they had not. I assure him that Ministers did not see the ICRC report; that is, the interim report that was sent to us in February. The reason, as was set out in the Statement that I read out a few minutes ago, is that the three matters relating to alleged British wrongdoing had all been looked into—off our own bat and at our own instigation—five months before the latest matters. The three matters raised in that report had all been looked into and investigated. That is why the decision was taken at PJHQ not to send the report to Ministers. That is why Ministers did not see the report until very recently.
There was a query about whether we were satisfied that there was sufficient training. I shall make the position clear: the Armed Forces are aware of their obligations under international law. I repeat to the House what I said last Tuesday: they are given thorough, mandatory training that includes specific guidance on handling prisoners of war. All personnel must attend refresher training every year. Before going to Iraq, all personnel are briefed on the rules of engagement and procedures for dealing with prisoners of war or other detainees. Each combat unit is required to have eight senior non-commissioned officers trained in handling prisoners of war. All units responsible for the routine handling of detainees

53
conduct further specialist training. So, I am satisfied that we train our Armed Forces sufficiently in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about intelligence gathering. The training in methods of questioning is of a high standard and is well within the terms of the Geneva Convention. The joint services intelligence organisation's training documentation states that the following techniques are expressly and explicitly forbidden: physical punishment of any sort; the use of stress privation; intentional sleep deprivation; withdrawal of food, water or medical help; degrading treatment, including sexual embarrassment or religious taunting; the use of what is called "white noise"—I understand that to be very loud noise—and torture methods such as thumbscrews. I repeat: all those are expressly and explicitly forbidden.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, my concern is the breakdown of the reasonable relationships that were building up between British service personnel and the Iraqi people. In view of the damage done by the horrendous photographs and videos that have been displayed continuously throughout the Muslim world, what steps are the British authorities taking to make it clear to the Iraqi people that no effort is being spared in investigating the allegations and that, if the allegations are well founded, those concerned will be dealt with through the rule of law?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right: one of the effects of the allegations, whether or not they are true in every case—something that newspapers might want to consider—is that the relationship that has been established over the previous months between British troops and Iraqis, particularly those in the south of the country, is put in danger. Even more obviously put in danger, perhaps, are the lives of British troops.
We are making every effort to get across to the Iraqi people our disgust at any case of this kind that is proved and our view that such behaviour is completely unacceptable. The Prime Minister has spoken on the matter twice, I think, in the past two or three days. The very reason that we went into Iraq was to stop not this sort of treatment but any treatment of this kind taking place. We wanted to stop it for good. In answer to the noble Baroness's question, I say that those who are found to be responsible will be punished. We are using all the methods that we can to get that across to the Iraqi people, but the noble Baroness and the House will know that there are people in Iraq who will do their best to pervert the message that we are sending.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we are not dealing with a nicety? We are dealing with the criminal law, which is on trial. Does not the burden of proof in all cases fall on the prosecuting authorities, however grave the allegations? Will my noble friend also underline the fact that the proposed defendants are entitled by our law to be treated as innocent, until the jury finds them guilty? Is it not right
54
that, as is customary, the burden of proof should fall on the prosecution? All I ask is that there should be a fair trial. Does my noble friend agree?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my noble friend speaks with huge experience of such issues. He knows that I agree with him. It is essential that the interests of all parties in criminal matters are considered fairly and evenly. That includes the interests of potential defendants, which is why the system that we adopt in the Armed Forces is designed to make sure that independent bodies—the Army Legal Services and the Army Prosecution Authority, which are not part of the chain of command in the normal way—are obliged to examine the result of investigations to see whether it is appropriate for a charge to be made. If a charge is made, it is essential that a fair trial should follow.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I refer the Minister to the earlier part of his Statement, which dealt with the security situation. Understandably, he dealt only with the part of Iraq that is under the direct control of British troops, but does he not agree that experience tells us that the security of that part of Iraq—Basra and the surrounding towns—depends crucially on decisions taken and words spoken elsewhere? I refer, for example, to Imam al-Sadr's remarks on Friday, which the Minister mentioned, but also to American decisions made in Baghdad. They affect our troops crucially. Is the Minister satisfied that we have sufficient influence, day by day, on those decisions?
It is now 10 May. On 30 June, there will be a transfer of power to a sovereign Iraqi government. In the Minister's particular sphere, is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that if the powers to be transferred are to be at all credible to other Iraqis and the region, they need to include Iraqi command of Iraqi security forces and some at least effective Iraqi day-by-day say in the major military decisions of the coalition?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I disagree with nothing that the noble Lord has said. Of course, what happens in the south is affected to an extent by what happens elsewhere in Iraq. In discussions with our coalition partners—in particular, the Americans—we are satisfied that they are doing their jobs elsewhere in Iraq, which, it must be remembered, is sometimes extremely difficult in certain parts of the remainder of Iraq.
Of course, 30 June is now less than two months away. From a recent, if very short, visit that I made to Iraq about two weeks ago, I know that our minds are set very much indeed on what will happen on 30 June and on the days afterwards. Of course, it is intended that security should be handed over to the Iraqis on that day. But the vast majority of them would say that they want and need a coalition presence in the following weeks and months to ensure that security is satisfactory.
There is a huge amount of effort being made by the Americans, who can speak for themselves, and us in order to ensure that the various parts of the Iraqi

55
security forces are being trained and made up as best we can. It is a hard job, but we are very conscious that if 30 June is to mean anything it must involve some transfer of security influence to the Iraqis.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Red Cross report was potentially extremely embarrassing for this country? Who took the decision that the report should not be disclosed to Ministers? Who took the decision that it should not be disclosed to the Prime Minister? Potentially, the report was a time bomb. It is not a question of a prosecution being brought or anything like that. It is exactly the same as a newspaper potentially reporting a possible crime, but not the prosecution of the crime. Therefore, there was a time bomb under the Government. Yet, there was a procedure whereby this report and its implications do not seem to have been disclosed to the Cabinet.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I have no idea whose decision it was not to let Ministers know.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not have any idea. I shall repeat myself. The three issues to which that interim report referred in relation to British troops had all been investigated—not because we were asked to investigate them but because we chose to do so many months before the interim report arrived—and were being investigated at the time the report reached the Government. So all three issues have been dealt with, each of which was set out clearly in the Statement that I have just read.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware that no one in this House or in the country would expect the Government to do other than they are doing in taking these allegations extremely seriously. We would expect no less. There is a high level of trust that the Government are doing no less than they should. That support will come from people irrespective of what they thought about the original decision to engage in the coalition's campaign.
However, those who opposed the campaign are bound to feel that allegations and divisions of this kind in our country and the evidence—if such there be—of particular, however small, numbers of soldiers crossing the boundaries of acceptable behaviour are a consequence that too often follows from contentious and divisive decisions. Were the Government aware that that might happen and that this type of military activity had a particular propensity to cause that kind of thing to occur? If the Government were aware, do they understand that there are many people in the country who will feel that what so far as we can tell currently has happened—I absolutely agree with the need for a fair trial in individual cases—is some indication of the fragile support that there was for this event?
Lord Bach: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, I cannot agree with him on this occasion. Of course, there were
56
divisions in this country about whether we should have gone to war with Iraq, which were expressed as legitimately as they can be in a democracy. But I do not think that that has any connection with the allegations that are currently circling around and, if those allegations are true, any of the acts that took place.
We must be realistic about this. I doubt that there has been a war, a conflict or a post-conflict situation in history, whether it involved disagreement or agreement about whether it was sensible to enter into, in which there has not been some examples of bad behaviour by armed forces. There always has been. As I think that I have made absolutely clear to the House today, none of it is acceptable. But I really do not see that that is in any way connected to the fact that this particular conflict divided the British people.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, my noble friend referred to "working reports" by the ICRC being provided to forces in theatre. I presume that those working reports cover actions by all coalition forces. The in-theatre reports are the ones that are of interest to me. Do or have Ministers or civil servants in the MoD or the Foreign Office have access to those working reports that were provided to forces in theatre?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question, but I suspect that it is, "yes". I shall find out the answer, let the noble Lord know and, of course, put the answer in the Library of the House.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, many of us are very concerned that the spirit of Guantanamo Bay should not descend on operations in Iraq. As the noble Lord will understand, I am referring to the wilful disregard of the Geneva conventions that are said not to apply there. Of course, they apply in Iraq, but I should like to ask the Minister three questions.
First, I should like to have the Minister's assurance that, in future, reports from the Red Cross—the ICRC—or Amnesty International will reach the tables of Ministers at once.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord does not know who made the decision that they should not. At a later stage, will the Minister inform the House at what level that decision was made?
Secondly, with reference to the Geneva conventions, can the noble Lord confirm reports that, initially, prisoners and detainees in UK care were being interrogated hooded and whether that is in line with the Geneva convention? I believe that practice has now ceased.
Thirdly, in the very good report by the American general on the situation in Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, a note was made of very curious incidents of so-called "ghost detainees". Detainees were being brought into Iraq for interrogation, perhaps from Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan, in circumstances the

57
general himself viewed as counter to the Geneva Convention. Does the noble Lord know anything about that matter? Can he give a categorical assurance about "ghost detainees"—people detained outside Iraq and brought into the country for interrogation—that this has not happened under British supervision and jurisdiction?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his questions and I shall do my best to answer them. The answer to his first question is that I do not think that this situation will arise again. I suspect that, in the future, any report will be put in front of Ministers pretty quickly. That is my guess.
Secondly, the noble Lord should not be surprised that I am not prepared to name the person who decided that Ministers should not see the report. In this House we are not in the habit of talking about individuals in that sense. His question about the level of the decision is a much better inquiry and I shall do my best, if I am able, to find out and inform the House.
I turn to the matter of hooded detainees. That practice ended in the autumn of last year. I have read the same stories in the newspapers about "ghost detainees" as has the noble Lord. So far as I am aware, there is no question of that happening under British supervision at all.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, all Members of your Lordships' House will be extremely disturbed by the allegations and rumours that have been spreading about British troops in Iraq. Will he take it from me that among those most devastated by this are those who at some stage have themselves had military training, who have served in Her Majesty's Armed Forces, or whose fathers, sons or other close relatives have done so? Indeed, that would include many in your Lordships' House. They will be aware of the traditional saw within the British armed services that the fish rots from the head.
If there is any truth in these allegations, then sooner or later we shall have to get to grips with the old standards which now seemed to have slipped. A famous commander once observed that there is no such thing as the British Army, rather it is a collection of regimental families. In the regiment in which both I and my son served, it would be unthinkable that such things could take place. If soldiers have been responsible for this kind of behaviour, then their officers are ultimately to blame. We have heard no mention of officers in any of our exchanges in this House. We have heard only generalities about a drop in standards overall, including among the Americans. I do not care what the Americans do—or at least I do care about it, but we have no influence over that.
If these allegations are true, can the Minister say whether Members of this House will have a chance to discuss what has happened to that great family, the British regiment, and the ways in which the honour of the regiment is maintained?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I very much take the point made by the noble Viscount about the upset that this will cause to those with a background in the Armed
58
Forces. I also believe that it will cause huge upset to those many thousands in the Armed Forces who fought in the war in Iraq and are now helping to make that country once again a decent place. They will be as upset as anyone at the suggestion that there has been mistreatment of the kind described.
I am sure that this House will have an opportunity to discuss the matters raised by the noble Viscount. Let us see first what is brought out by these investigations. If at that point we want to discuss the matter, noble Lords are quite clever enough to ensure that it is put on the Order Paper.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord Marlesford: My Lords—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Conservative Opposition have had their ration and therefore it is the turn of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sorry, I have done my best to be fair. The 20 minutes for questions are up.

Higher Education Bill
5.55 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 8 [Activities outside United Kingdom]:
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 29, at end insert "nor prevents the Council from making grants in response to applications from properly accredited and publicly supported British research institutions operating overseas, including those institutes and research schools, which are funded principally by the British Academy"
The noble Lord said: Unlike Amendment No. 8, this amendment is tightly focused and does not address the generality of an issue. It seeks to rectify a serious anomaly which falls squarely within the scope of research councils, in particular the Arts and Humanities Research Council. It would put right an anomaly in the funding for research carried out by British research institutions overseas, and specifically by those overseas institutes and societies which are represented on the British Academy's Board for Academy-Sponsored Institutes and Societies, generally abbreviated to BASIS. These include the research schools in Ankara, Athens and Rome, as well as the Egypt Exploration Society, the British Institute in Eastern Africa, the British School of Archaeology in Iraq—currently in eclipse—the British Institute of Persian Studies and other such bodies. At this point I declare an interest as chairman-elect of the British School at Athens.
First, perhaps I may remind noble Lords of the splendid gaffe committed by my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke when he had recently become Secretary of State for Education and Science and about which, with refreshing candour, he told me himself only a couple of days later. Noble Lords will be aware that these research institutions are active in the fields of archaeology, anthropology, and study of the history and geography of the lands where they are situated, and so forth. The British School at Rome also has an excellent and well respected scholarship programme for visiting artists. In general they are used by British research scholars.
When the secretary of the British Academy raised with my right honourable friend the matter of the parlous financial position of the British schools overseas at the time—he had not been terribly well briefed by his officials—his bluff and well meaning reply was, "Well, can't they put up the fees?". Noble Lords will realise that these institutions do not charge fees. Their work is based on research; they do not run courses such as those organised by the British Council in various countries.
The institutions are used in the main by research workers from British universities, including doctoral students and academic staff, but they do have some highly qualified personnel of their own. The director of such an institute has roughly the status of a university professor. It is thus highly anomalous that the current regulations of the research councils apparently prevent those councils receiving grant applications from such staff or then awarding research grants to them in the same manner as they are able to do for the staff of all British universities. I am told that they follow this negative practice on the grounds that these institutes are based overseas, even though they are funded principally by the British Academy in London and so, ultimately, by the Office of Science and Technology. This is a serious matter, for research is the lifeblood of such institutions. Most postgraduate research in Britain is funded through the research councils.
I should stress that this is not a matter just for the Arts and Humanities Research Council. It would apply with equal force to the Economic and Social Research Council or to the National Environmental Research Council. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the Committee that if the amendment were carried, so that it applied to the Arts and Humanities Research Council, its effect in eliminating the present restriction could apply with equal force to the other research councils.
Indeed, perhaps the Minister could inform the House—I hope she received my fax saying I would ask her this question—precisely where the objection lies to the British institutes overseas, and personnel such as their directors, receiving such funding from the research councils. Is there really some obscure law preventing research councils dispersing grants to suitable applicants with alpha-grade projects in the same manner as they would to applicants from UK
60
universities? That is the message the British Academy gets from the research councils when they raise the matter on behalf of BASIS.
This may therefore be regarded as a probing amendment. If the Minister would inform me that the amendment is entirely unnecessary, and that a simple instruction from herself or the Office of Science and Technology would set the matter right—and if she will give an assurance that such an instruction will be rapidly forthcoming—I shall happily withdraw the amendment.
Perhaps I might ask the Minister in passing whether there is the possibility of some additional funding, once the situation is calmer and safer, to set the British School of Archaeology in Iraq on its feet again. These institutions can create a great deal of good will in the countries in which they operate, and do so in a way which is entirely non-political and which respects and often enhances the cultural heritage of the countries concerned. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I offer this amendment my support. As this is the first time I have spoken in Part 1, I would like to add my welcome to that of many other noble Lords to the establishment of the AHRC. My own experience was as a member of the Economic and Social Research Council, which has many areas of overlap with the humanities, particularly in areas such as geography and economic history. It was often very difficult to have them operating under two different kinds of legislation.
I would like to support what my noble friend Lord Renfrew has said, because this was drawn to my attention some time ago. There is a real problem in research councils being able to fund applications for grants from very distinguished people, working in institutions of very high international repute. I hope that, as we put our probing amendment to the Minister, she will be able to tell us that what is already on the face of the Bill will be sufficient to cover the points we make.
Lord Morgan: I would hope that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, is, as he says, superfluous. It is an enormously worthy cause. I am a fellow of the British Academy, so—if I have to—I declare a kind of interest.
First, the value of these British schools abroad goes far beyond the purely academic. They have been an enormous factor in establishing a British cultural presence, particularly in the Middle East, in a way that has been wholly beneficial for this country. Secondly, if we do not support these areas of research—which are very often very meagrely financed as the noble Lord explained—many areas of study, such as Egyptology and papyrology, might actually disappear. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister does not wish these important subjects to disappear, and I am sure she will be supportive.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I too declare an interest as a fellow of the British Academy. I believe that these are astonishingly economical programmes,

61
which have a very high cultural impact and a high impact on cultural diplomacy. When I was on the council of the British Academy, it was breathtaking to see how little money was available to run these programmes. One of the important things about them is that they are very long term, ensuring that we have experts and scholars in this country who have spent long periods of time in the relevant places, and who understand not merely their own subject, but the cultural politics of those societies. They understand the ways in which research can be most usefully conducted and how it can be focused, as well as the delicacies of conducting certain kinds of research. It is not only the scholars in the various schools, but also those who visit them occasionally who benefit from that expertise and sensitivity. I hope that the Government may be disposed to support this amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: Is the Minister aware that the Medical Research Council has funded research overseas for many years? There have been a number of units funded by the MRC, and there is currently a very active one in the Gambia. Is giving grants different from actually funding established units? Surely the principle is the same?
Lord Stewartby: I would also like to add a word in support of my noble friend Lord Renfrew. I share the privilege with him of being a member of the archaeology section of the British Academy. As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill of Bengarve, has just said, there are many people, including myself, who have been able to take advantage of the facilities provided by the British schools abroad during their student days. I do not think there is any doubt about their value—there is a doubt about their price. We need to ensure that they can get this sort of support.
I suppose it is not outside the realms of possibility that the Minister will be so sympathetic to this amendment that she will accept it on the spot. But, just in case that is not the situation, I hope she will be swayed by the power of the argument which has been put forward by many distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. We shall see that the purpose of my noble friend's amendment is achieved, even if not by this precise route.
Baroness Blackstone: The Arts and Humanities Research Board, which is being replaced by the AHRC which is still being set up, and indeed the British Academy before that, funded these institutions abroad. I cannot understand quite what the need for this amendment is, since Clause 8 allows the AHRC to do just the same.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: Perhaps I might respond to that point. It is the case that BASIS, which is the group of these research institutes operating with the British Academy, has on many occasions sought to persuade the research councils, and the Arts and Humanities Research Board, to take applications for research projects in just the same way that they take
62
applications for research projects by scholars in universities. Again and again, the British Academy has been advised that the research councils cannot take such applications because the British institutes overseas are not UK universities, and they receive the response that they are prevented by regulation or by law—and I am looking forward to clarification from the Minister as to just where the impediment lies.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, I am bewildered by the situation, but I can assure her that it is the case. I believe I am right in saying that no member of staff based at one of the British schools or institutes overseas under the umbrella of the BASIS board at the British Academy has ever had an application for a research grant accepted for consideration.
Lord Winston: Will the Minister not agree that this amendment is useful in that it allows a certain amount of reciprocity? A number of us in this country have been in receipt of grants from the American Government to pursue research under the National Institutes of Health, for example. The other advantage of this approach is that it allows a degree of mutual interaction and collaboration between academic units which may not be primarily based in Britain. That must be, in the long term, an advantage to our academic system.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: I rise to support this amendment, if it is needed. Having read the clause, nothing in this part restricts such activities, and I would hope it is not needed. There is a sense in which, although I am happy with the amendment up to a point, the amendment itself could be a hit restrictive. Therefore, I hope the Minister can tell us it is not needed and that these opportunities exist.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for that. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, that my intention in responding is to make him a happy Peer. I am grateful to him for writing to me. I know he is a keen advocate for British research institutions overseas; that is obvious from his contribution. I pay tribute to his distinguished record in supporting and championing those bodies. I understand that he is due to take on the chairmanship of the British School at Athens later this year. I wish him all the best in that role.
I understand the noble Lord's concern about the position of these institutions as regards access to UK public funds for arts and humanities research. At present, because of restrictions on the use of funding from the UK funding councils, the AHRB is unable to fund the British overseas research institutions. However, I can reassure the noble Lord that his amendment is entirely unnecessary. Indeed, while trying to clarify the scope of the AHRC, it is possible— as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, indicated—that the amendment might inadvertently restrict its activities outside the UK.
As the AHRC will no longer be funded by the UK funding councils, but—as we discussed in earlier amendments—by the Office of Science and Technology,

63
it will no longer be subject to the same restrictions. As noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Blackstone, have pointed out, Clause 8 already makes it quite clear that nothing in the Bill restricts the AHRC's activities to the UK or to any part of it.
It is our intention, as I have indicated, to establish the Arts and Humanities Research Council on an operational basis and underpinning framework that are broadly similar to those of the science research councils. That will extend the range of organisations and institutions eligible to apply for support. The noble Lord will not be surprised that it will be for the AHRC to determine the eligibility criteria for institutions applying for funding, consistent with enabling it to deliver its strategic objectives and research priorities. This funding will be allocated, I am sure, on the basis of merit and excellence, irrespective of the institution that applies.
Once in operation, the AHRC will establish a transparent process for determining, on a case by case basis, whether organisations such as the British institutes referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, should become eligible to apply for AHRC funding. I understand that the British Academy has not yet approached the Office of Science and Technology or Research Councils UK. However, the British Academy has indicated to the Office of Science and Technology that it is considering raising this issue when it is appropriate to do so.
As I have already emphasised, nothing in the clause as it stands will prevent the AHRC from determining where in the UK or overseas it is most appropriate to fund research activities in fulfilment of its objectives and priorities. I hope that that offers the reassurance that the noble Lord is seeking and that he is able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I find myself in the unusual position of being a happy Peer, and being made a happy Peer by the noble Baroness opposite. At first perception I find her remarks very helpful and very constructive. I am very grateful to all of the very distinguished noble Lords who spoke in the debate and gave such warm support for the British schools and research institutes overseas. As I understand the noble Baroness's comments, she has given a response which seems entirely satisfactory and will be entirely satisfactory to the British Academy. I shall check that with the British Academy. On the basis of that, unusually, for me, happy experience, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Research in arts and humanities]:
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 3, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 10 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. This group of amendments removes the ability of the Secretary of State, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Department to set up,
"advisory bodies for the purpose of assisting the department in matters connected with research in the arts and humanities".
appointing the members, and organising the technical details that that would require.
These subsections within Clause 10, along with the aspects of the White Paper and the Bill's regulatory impact assessment, make it obvious that the Government are intending to, or "may", create more bodies and organisations that are designed to play a role in the higher education arena. In the case of Clause 10, those would be within the area of arts and humanities. The AHRC is a welcome and overdue body that has cross-party support and its creation addresses all the necessary needs. Its remit is to advise on the support of research and to identify academic excellence. However, can the Minister please explain to the Committee why we need yet more bodies?
6.15 p.m.
This issue raises a whole range of concerns. Not only does every new organisation that is set up require a building, a secretariat, IT equipment and accounting support, it has to produce publicity material and an annual report. In short, it results in a proliferation of administration, and the costs of that administration, even for bodies that have the relatively informal status, would be substantial. Where does the financing for these extra costs come from?
The Bill as it stands enables advisory bodies to be set up in a blanket way, with no restrictions and no financial limitations placed upon them by the Secretary of State and the three devolved institutions. I recognise that these are but enabling powers, and no doubt it can be argued that they may not be taken; but to that I respond simply that there is nothing to stop them being taken. I am particularly concerned as we are dealing with a Government who, we can safely argue, have a track record for pushing up spending on central units, task forces, teams and advisory bodies.
No doubt the Minister will, in her reply, give such deserving examples of advisory bodies as the Scottish Science Advisory Committee or the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission. I am the first to admit that an increasing number of ethical issues have arisen in the past 10 years on which the Government and indeed the public have sought detailed guidance. However, does the setting up of such bodies simply delegate responsibility to the research councils under which these bodies will fall? They add another layer in the decision-making process. It can be all too easy to set up organisations of experts to think about questions and so delay the answers.
It has been argued in another place that such work could just as easily be achieved by a simplified streamlined system without a proliferation of organisations. Issues

65
such as changes of technology, knowledge or ethics within the different councils could and should be addressed by them. That way the additional layers of cost imposed by the creation of a multiplicity of organisations are not incurred and the costs are kept to a minimum. I beg to move.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13, I should like also to refer to Clause 10 itself. This is the clause that also says that the Secretary of State may carry out and support research, disseminate and so forth. It is worth putting that in the context of the clauses to which my noble friend Lady Sharp referred in speaking to Amendment No. 2 onwards. She was rightly trying to achieve an arm's length council that is not pushed around. This provision, however, almost ought to say that, regardless of setting up that body, the Secretary of State can still do something that is not appropriate for that council or tell it to do something that he wants it to do although it does not particularly want to do it.
We do not oppose the fact that the Secretary of State, a Scottish Minister or Northern Ireland Minister or one of the devolved institutions may decide to do a certain piece of work. However, I should hope that that would be a largely one-off objective. If advisers are needed to do that work, it might help some of those with depleted salaries to serve on those bodies—but perhaps not. It seems right that if it is appropriate for there to be advisory bodies—in some circumstances it will be and in others not—it may be appropriate for them to be paid. We do not believe that there is any harm in leaving this matter there. It is worth stating that this would be direct work carried out by the Secretary of State alongside the arm's length work carried out by the council.
Lord Morgan: These amendments are unnecessary. I hope that the Government will not accept them. It seems to me that they are not in place of the Arts and Humanities Research Council, but a supplement to it. I can think of all kinds of matters in the humanities—for example, the history of architecture—where research has been fostered directly by departments. I also hope that advisory bodies will be allowed to remain. They will almost certainly consist of academics and from what we have heard they will, therefore, come cheap. They will not be paid; they will give their expertise in the way that I did for many years in Wales on the Board of Celtic Studies. I do not recall becoming rich out of that kind activity, of which there are many. I hope that the Government will simply adhere to the terms of the clause as it stands.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I understand the argument against setting up another scattering of quangos, but on the other hand, when one establishes a new research council., it will not have many friends at court. I remember my days in the department. Of course there were civil servants who had studied humanities and the arts, but they were overwhelmed by those in the department who had responsibility for science, engineering and medicine because there were huge
66
research councils with huge amounts of money—hundreds of millions of pounds a year was spent. Therefore, there was a solid flank of support for or criticism of or doubts about the proposals that came from the various bodies. In the case of the humanities and the arts, the voices were not raised because the sums involved were exceedingly modest.
I would not want the disposition of research funds to be entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State. One thing that we know about the present incumbent of the office of Secretary of State is that he is against medieval history. I studied medieval history and found it a fascinating and immensely worthwhile subject. I recommend to anyone who wants to embark upon a political life that a close study of the Wars of the Roses is invaluable. I do not want the Secretary of State to be able to strike out something and say, "I don't support that", or the Welsh Assembly to be able to say, "We don't actually approve of that in Wales", or "we have no research on castle building", or something of that kind. While the councils get going, they will need a body of support to guide them in the right way and to marshal the various lobbying groups in the various humanities and arts and so on. I think that would be quite a useful body.
I do not know whether such bodies will be paid. Nobody knows yet. Perhaps some research can be done on that. The noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches said that this may be one of the few ways in which academics can receive a little more in the coming years, which will please the noble Lord. Lord Renfrew. On the whole, I think it will be helpful.
Lord Walton of Detchant: They are paid an attendance allowance and expenses. I believe that that is the policy that should be pursued throughout the research council structure.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Bill applies only here and there to Scotland. Curiously the part of the Bill that affects Scotland most—we shall come to it later—is Part 3 Universities are devolved under the Scotland Act and so the legislation in Part 3 of this Bill relating to fees does not apply to Scotland. Yet it will have an absolutely devastating effect on Scotland. Scottish students who want to study in England will find it extremely difficult to do so because they will not be supported in the way that English students will be. English students who want to study in Scotland will find universities will be greatly depleted of funds compared with the universities that they have left at home. Every university in Scotland will suffer. That is a point to which we shall turn later and it is a very big matter. At an earlier stage, the Minister said that her Secretary of State was at that moment discussing the matter in Scotland. It is pretty strange that it had not been discussed before that. That is very worrying indeed.
The clause applies to Scotland, as it does to Wales and Northern Ireland. Research councils under the Scotland Act were left to Westminster. I was one of those who fought for that before the Scotland Act came into being and my late noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

67
laid great stress, from the Opposition Front Bench, on the fact that research was a UK matter, a UK market and an international market and that it should not be devolved.
I do not understand why it is necessary to have this clause. Is there anything to stop a Scots university, if it wants, conducting some research on a matter that is in the hands of the research council? The noble Lord on the Front Bench, who understands this matter very well, is shaking his head. There is no reason why they should not. Why is this clause in the Bill? I do not understand.
The idea that someone could prevent there being a committee of academics in Scotland to advise the Scots Parliament on research is very strange. The research councils are reserved—not research itself. No one knows where research begins and ends anyway. Surveys are often claimed to be research when they are simply surveys carried out by the Scots Parliament to find out something. I do not understand why the clause is in the Bill. If it has to be in the Bill, and if the Scots Parliament can set up only a committee of the kind described in the Bill, I would have thought that that was rather strange too.
As my noble friend on the Front Bench said, this is a very expensive way to do things. It should be for the Scots Parliament to deal with such matters without necessarily setting up a committee. I hope that the need for the clause will be explained by the Minister. If it is necessary, then I certainly support my noble friend.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Will the Minister take this opportunity to explain the possible relationship between the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council and the areas of devolved government—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? It is somewhat strange to see that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are to have the same duties of carrying out research in the arts and humanities, but they are optional as far as the devolved assemblies are concerned. Surely, there must be a connection that has not been defined at all between the UK council, with its entire UK remit, and the regional governments with similar duties.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: By the time we conclude this Committee stage we will all know each other extremely well. That is based on a number of exchanges which have already occurred. I have realised that this is the third speech I have made in Committee and I have not yet declared my interest as pro-Chancellor of the University of London. I do not propose to make that declaration again, but I should have done so earlier.
My noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking asked the Minister whether such people would be paid. I suspect that the Minister may have identified my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking as being a potential ally on this Bill and, therefore, in her reply she may not draw his attention to the fact that subsections (1)(e), (2)(e), (3)(e), and (4)(e) of Clause 10 indicate that they will be paid and therefore we shall carry on in exactly the same way as the
68
noble Lord, Lord Walton, indicated. As my noble friend asked the question without indicating whether or not he approved of it, but simply commented that no one seemed to know, I hesitate, in view of his relationship with our noble friends on the Front Bench, to indicate that they are against subsections 1(e), 2(e), 3(e) and 4(e). However, I do not know whether or not that will irritate my noble friend.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Perhaps I should seek to clarify for the benefit of all noble Lords that, even at this late stage in my career in the Chamber, I find it very difficult to know how I am supposed to answer a question when I am not actually replying. Therefore, trying to reply silently, I gave the noble Lord, Lord Baker, the wrong impression, for which I apologise.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, quite rightly said, under the provisions of subsections (1)(e), (2)(e), (3)(e) and (4)(e), the appointed members of such bodies "may" be paid, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, clarified for us, and as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has just reminded me. Thank you so much for that intervention in my ear. The option for payment is therefore available, though many noble Lords will know that they have served on such bodies and have not received payment. However, the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is right that, in the nature of such bodies, payments are made in the form of attendance allowances and so on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, set out the purpose behind the amendment, which is to limit the power of the Secretary of State and the devolved administrations to establish and fund any advisory body that is needed on issues associated with the Arts and Humanities Research Council. Noble Lords have queried from the beginning the way in which the amendment is tabled in the Bill. I should point out—I hope that it will help the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy—that these measures were based on legislation passed in 1965. Of course, there was no devolution in 1965. Under the 1998 devolution legislation, the other seven boards were covered. The amendment is therefore tabled in that way to mirror what has already occurred with the other seven boards.
To link to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, the research councils are UK-wide and have been put together, as the noble Lord knows, with the support of the Welsh Assembly, Scotland and Northern Ireland. They will operate in that way. We need to enable those bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to carry out additional, complementary research of the kind that I shall describe. That is why the amendment is tabled in this way, which I hope will clarify the matter for the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I hope to clarify more points as I continue.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Will the Minister confirm, first, whether or not there will be a positive connection between such bodies that are set up in the regions and

69
the UK council? Secondly, will the devolved administrations be expected in any circumstances to contribute financially to the UK body?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It depends on what the devolved administrations think. It will become clear as I explain what kind of bodies I am talking about. For example, if the Welsh Assembly wanted to undertake sonic research, I am sure that it would consult with the UK-wide Arts and Humanities Research Council in order to establish whether it was necessary and appropriate. I hope that the noble Lord will be assisted when I come to explain the kind of body that we are describing, and I am sure that he will come back to me if I fail to do so. We have established, I hope, the purpose behind the clauses, why they are there and the fact that they mirror what we have done within the devolution legislation.
It will come as no surprise to any noble Lord that the Government and the devolved administrations receive scientific advice from a variety of sources. Their powers have already been put to good use so far as science and technology is concerned. For example, the premier scientific advisory body for the Government is the Council for Science and Technology, originally established in 1993 to provide independent, high level advice on science and technology policy. It was re-launched in March of this year after review, with new terms of reference and a new membership, to include, according to my brief, "more softer sciences". I shall have to seek an indication of what a softer science is. I would interpret it to mean social sciences. Even in a previous incarnation, of course, the body took an interest in arts and humanities research, considering in its report in 2001, which I found very interesting, the question of the division between the arts and the sciences and how it could be reduced, which, of course, included the recommendation for the Arts and Humanities Research Council.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, indicated, there are a number of highly valuable, strategic scientific bodies. The Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission were specifically mentioned by the noble Baroness. The membership of those bodies, which is also important and partly addresses the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, concerning the differences and synergies between those bodies, consists of consumer, green and other interest groups, media experts, social scientists, lawyers, philosophers and scientists. They consider the bigger picture issues of ethical and social questions as well as the sciences. I believe that they are very important. In another place, Mr Thomas drew attention to the specific role that the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission has played in advising the Government on GM crops, which I know is a matter of great significance in your Lordships' House, in another place and elsewhere. Those are some examples of very important bodies that have played strategic roles in offering advice on some very big questions that face both the Government and the scientists.
70
Neither the Government nor the devolved administrations have any intention of creating bodies for the sake of it. As my right honourable friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education indicated, we would not have thought a decade ago that genetically modified crops, cloning, ethical issues and post-mapping of the genome would have become such important issues in our economy. I believe that it is appropriate for those powers to exist in order to have the kind of strategic advice that I have indicated.
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, is anxious that we should not create unnecessary bodies with additional resources. However, I think that there would be some undesirable consequences of the amendment. It would remove the opportunity from the Secretary of State and the devolved administrations to secure the kind of strategic advice that I have indicated is very important. I also believe that it would undermine further our intention to set the Arts and Humanities Research Council on the same footing as research in science and technology and to create the best possible framework for it.
It is probably also worth saying that the Office of Science and Technology has just published guidelines that address the role of government departments in the process of obtaining and using scientific advice. Those draw on key principles enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, in his BSE Inquiry report and are consistent with those underlying the Government's drive for evidence-based policy. Though primarily aimed at individual departments, those principles have applications in wider fields and to issues beyond science.
To reassure further the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, among the key messages is that the department should actively seek a wide range of advice from the best sources to support policy making and development; namely, that reliance should not be placed on a single source. It would be too easy simply to go to the research councils, important, valuable and critical institutions though they will be. I believe that it is important to have an ability to look beyond them and to involve the kind of groups that I have indicated have been used previously.
I have attempted to explain, first, why the clauses are expressed in the Bill in the way that they are; secondly, the critical role that some of the advisory groups have played in the past; thirdly, the principles that resulted from the findings of the BSE inquiry under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips; and, fourthly, the critical relevance of having flexibility within the devolved administrations, who are very supportive of this part of the Bill, and within the Secretary of State's cross-government to be able to achieve the kind of strategic advice and support that is needed. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I hope I shall be forgiven for intervening further. I again apologise for using a medical analogy, but the Medical Research Council is a UK-wide body that gives programme, policy and project grants to anyone from the United Kingdom. In addition, the Department of Health in England, the Scottish Home and Health Department and the relevant departments in Wales and Northern Ireland

71
each have research programmes to which individuals can apply for research grants of particular relevance to those countries. Similarly, the new research council will have a UK-wide role and each of the devolved administrations may, if they wish, promote research in the field of humanities and so on, which may, for instance, be relevant to the culture and history of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Surely, that is a comparable situation to that which exists in the other research councils and is framed in exactly the same way.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord, Lord Walton, is absolutely right, and I endorse his example. This is about setting up this research council on exactly the same basis, and that flexibility is very important.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I do not remember ever before being told that the Government were putting something into a Bill which did not have to be there in order to make it match another piece of legislation. Subsection (3) simply repeats what the situation is under the Scotland Act 1998. The noble Baroness has said that; when the universities became a devolved matter, Scotland could do all these things. The research council was not devolved but all these things became possible for Scottish Ministers, and I expect they are doing them.
I am not saying that the provision should not be in the Bill. However, it seems rather strange to repeat a part of the Bill simply to remind people that under the Scotland Act, the Scots Parliament can make these provisions. That is how I see the matter. In fact, if paragraphs (d) and (e), the subject of a further amendment, were removed, it would make not the smallest difference because the Scots Parliament can do this anyway.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall clarify my understanding of this and am happy to write further and clarify it again if it is not right. In 1965, when the research councils were established, there was no devolution. In 1998, the research councils already in existence were covered in the Scotland Act to make sure that this would apply. Because we are creating a new research council, it is not covered by the 1998 Act. Therefore, this provision is to give it parity with the other research councils. It is not an unnecessary provision; it is necessary to ensure that we make this clear. The noble Baroness is right that this provision exists for all the other research councils. However, it does not exist for this one, and it would not if we removed this part of the Bill.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does that mean that the research councils are all listed in the Scotland Act?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Baroness defeats me regarding exactly how this was done. I know that it was done in the legislation but I do not have it to hand and I will write to her on that point.
Baroness Seccombe: The proliferation of quangos is one of my concerns. Does this mean that four advisory
72
bodies will be set up countrywide, one in each of the devolved administrations and one in this country? It seems to me duplication gone mad to have four bodies, perhaps discussing the same thing. I should have thought that one body, the research council itself, could have done it all.
How many advisory bodies are working within the DfES at present? What is the total cost of running these quangos, and where does the money come from?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I think the noble Baroness is asking a slightly wider question about advisory bodies and whether they are quangos. As always, I am happy to write to her with the details. However, the point about the Bill is not that each devolved administration has to set up anything; it is for them to choose. If the devolved administrations feel it is necessary, they should have the right and the power to do so, as they have with the other research councils. I am quite sure that on a number of these issues, as the noble Baroness has indicated, the work will go through the Arts and Humanities Research Council, which will be a key player in determining what happens.
As I have indicated, there are very good examples where people beyond the research community—consumers, for example—could be involved in bodies that help to determine the future of policy and some of the big questions to which I have already referred. That is the flexibility we are seeking in the Bill.
Baroness Seccombe: It seems to me that setting up ad hoc advisory committees does not mean that one has to set up another quango. I shall read with great interest all the contributions on this, and I am grateful to those who have contributed. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 10, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: The amendment would appear to be comparatively minor, making it obligatory upon rather than optional for the National Assembly for Wales to support research in the arts and humanities. But a considerable number of similar amendments could be put down throughout the Bill, not only in relation to Wales but to Scotland and Northern Ireland as well. At this point, I think I had better declare my interest as president of the University of Wales College of Medicine.
There are some 14 clauses and three schedules in the Bill which relate to Wales. In effect, they set up separate systems and separate bodies from those proposed for the UK, or England, to achieve exactly the same ends. As we noted in the previous debate, Clause 10(2) relating to Wales replicates Clause 10(1) relating to England, and so on.
Similarly, later the Bill provides that there "may" be a Welsh corporate body to deal with students' complaints and there "may" be a separate system of approved plans on which student support will be

73
based. I stress "may" because the Bill is largely permissive rather than prescriptive as far as the National Assembly is concerned, and I believe that that is generally true of Scotland and Northern Ireland as well.
My noble friend Lady Seccombe is absolutely right that multiple duplication of this kind always comes at a cost. So let us be clear that the Government's justification for that extra cost is devolution rather than education or any of the real subjects of the Bill. I am bound to say that much of the unity of the higher education system in the UK will go out of the window in the process of implementing the Bill.
Some of the clauses relating to Wales are straight copies of English clauses. For example, Welsh Clause 26 is almost a straight copy of English Clause 23, except that the power to impose conditions for student fees is derived in Wales from the National Assembly and in England from the Secretary of State. At the end of the day, I suppose, it all comes from the same Treasury pocket.
Because the funding of higher education in Wales comes from the National Assembly it is, I suppose, understandable that the Government should seek to implement their principles in the dualistic fashion proposed in the Bill. However, there is a complication, as I have implied. Under the Bill, the National Assembly is not bound to implement its provisions and there is evident reluctance in the Assembly government to do so. The Assembly has decided that it will have its own independent review of higher education funding under Professor Teresa Rees, and her report is not due until April of next year. An interim report is due in February. Let us assume that they will eventually toe the central government line. The consequences will be that differences will inevitably emerge in the support given to students depending on where in the UK they come from.
The Explanatory Notes tell us on page 11 in paragraph 61:
"The Assembly intends in practice to make regulations affecting students who have a prescribed connection with Wales when they start their course, regardless of the location of the institution at which they are studying and of their place of residence after graduation".
In short, there are to be special measures to support students who have the good fortune to have the prescribed connection with Wales, however that connection is finally defined. That will not be an easy task.
There is nothing new in such geographical differences in student support. Some of your Lordships, like myself, will remember the old county scholarships, whose plenitude and value depended on the wealth and generosity of the county where people received their secondary education. Although the National Assembly's intentions may be to favour Welsh students, the extent to which it will be able to do so will depend on the resources available, which may not always be as copious as they appear to be today.
The underlying question is whether this geographical consideration is appropriately placed in the UK scheme of things in relation to educational
74
merit and the ability to benefit from higher education. The same applies to access, which appears to have supreme pre-eminence in the Government's thinking.
A substantial proportion of higher education students in Welsh institutions—over 40 per cent—are from outside Wales. How will the Bill affect them? My noble friends on the Front Bench have put down a new clause to prevent discrimination against them in the charging of fees. Whether the Government will accept the new clause remains to be seen.
There are to be no variable fees in Wales until 2007—a year later than England—and an undertaking to that effect has been given by the Welsh Assembly government. Will there be a sudden influx of students to Wales from the rest of the United Kingdom for that reason? One of the reasons why Professor Rees is not to report until next April is to enable her to take account of the effect of variable fees in England. That was said by the Minister for Lifelong Learning in Wales.
If variable fees are not introduced in Wales and an alternative stream of alternative funding is not provided, Welsh higher education institutions will be financially disadvantaged compared with their counterparts in England. The Ministers on the Front Bench opposite look a little mystified, but I can tell them that that fear was expressed in a report by the Council and Academic Board of the University of Wales to a meeting of the University Court on 16 April.
Will there be an exodus of the best academics to better-paid posts in top-up institutions in England as is feared in Scotland, as we have already heard?
The blatant fact is that there will be differences in the extent and method of support for students and institutions, and where there are differences, discrimination will creep in.
We are assured on page 17 of the Explanatory Notes that, "There is no discrimination", at least within the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights. But I suspect that that will not be the end of it.
I am bound to tell the noble Baroness that there is a great deal of confusion, not only within the terms of this Bill, but in attitudes towards it, particularly in the devolved administrations. Its practical implications and consequences have not been thought through, and this is as apparent in Wales as elsewhere. Great uncertainty prevails. If I may mix my metaphors, this Bill has all the hallmarks of a dog's breakfast.
I have given a foretaste of debates to come, and your Lordships have been very tolerant. With regard to this specific amendment, can it be right that arts and humanities research has the imprimatur of statute and Royal Charter in the UK, but appears to be optional—it is a "may" situation—in parts of the UK?
We have not had a clear answer to the question of what the relationship is going to be between the regional bodies established for arts and humanities research and the UK body. It seems odd that all the Minister can say is that she would expect the regional bodies to consult the UK council. I would have thought that there would have been a closer connection than that, and that that connection would have been defined in the Bill.
Once again I ask her whether she can amplify on what she said about the proposed interconnecting arrangements between the regional arts and research bodies—which may, or may not, be established depending on the institution concerned—and the UK council with its UK remit. I beg to move.
Lord Morgan: The amendment—
Lord Baker of Dorking: The amendment—
Lord Skelmersdale: I think it would be appropriate to let the Lord Chairman put the question first, before my noble friend gets questioned.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Carter): Amendment proposed, page 4 line 10. Leave out "may" and insert "shall".
Lord Baker of Dorking: My noble friend ranged rather widely, but could he give us the benefit of his views in one matter? He pointed out the disadvantages that Welsh universities have in the new regime. In view of his presidency of the University of Wales College of Medicine, does he favour the introduction of variable fees in Wales?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I certainly do. But at the moment we are prohibited from having variable fees, and therefore we are going to be at a considerable disadvantage to England. That situation is inevitable, because there is a pledge given by the Assembly government that variable fees will not be introduced before 2007.
Lord Morgan: I would like to confine myself rather narrowly to Amendment No. 11. This may seem parochial and pedestrian, but my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, built up a mighty edifice of Welsh eloquence about this and ranged over practically the whole of the Bill. He succeeded in eliciting my disagreement the more he went on.
The point he makes concerns something that is constitutionally improper. It is a devolved matter. It is a remit of the National Assembly to handle all aspects of education, and that applies to research in the humanities as it does to everything else. Therefore to propose it is constitutionally improper, if not illegal.
The noble Lord raises the important point of the essential need to have research in the arts and humanities fostered in Wales, and on that basis there is no reason for concern. There is every sign in every organisation that I know that the National Assembly takes its duties—in history, in archaeology, in the social sciences—extremely seriously. One reason for that is the Welsh language. It is a prime consideration of the Welsh Assembly to foster study of the culture and language and literature of Wales, and, necessarily, research in those areas follows.
The noble Lord raises the question of the interconnection of research in Wales with other parts of the United Kingdom. Of course they will interlock
76
and collaborate, because—and I speak for myself—Welsh historians do not only work on Wales; they work on collaborative matters. History and other subjects know no boundaries, so necessarily there is a community of operation within Wales and the other parts of the United Kingdom.
Broadly speaking, we should not discuss Amendment No. 11 at all.
7 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: It appears to me that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is trying to introduce compulsion. "Thou shalt carry out research in Wales". That is what the amendment is about, regardless of the speech that he made. Whichever way one looks at it, the proposal is either a backstop or an opportunity. If a Member of the National Assembly for Wales was contemplating research in this area, the research council may well undertake that research—or it may not. It may be that the Secretary of State in this Parliament decides to undertake some research. The backstop is that if there is a burning desire for that research to take place in Wales, the proposal would permit it to take place. We have been told that, although we have devolution, this little bit has not been devolved yet. That means that it can be done in that way. I should have thought that the National Assembly for Wales would be more appreciative of legislation that says that it "may" do things rather than legislation compelling it to do something.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I was rather against devolution, and I must say that the impact of devolution has exceeded all my expectations. Listening to my noble friend move his amendment, I was struck that he ranged a little beyond the focus of Part 1.
Incidentally, I may have misheard the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, but, given that he suggested that we were discussing devolved matters, he may want to take a look at the Explanatory Notes. In the summary of Part 1, they say:
"As with the existing research councils, the new council will operate throughout the UK and will be a reserved matter for the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998".
One difficulty is that we have different degrees of devolved power throughout the United Kingdom, with Wales probably having the least. When I was in the Scottish Office as Secretary of State, I operated very closely with the Secretary of State for Education. That was essential, because we recognised that it was important to have a common policy on research and students throughout the United Kingdom. I do not want to follow my noble friend into subjects that are matters for later debates in the Bill, but that does not seem to be happening. Even at this late stage with the Bill, we do not know what the arrangements will be for Scottish students. The Minister answered some of my questions about what will happen to Scottish students who go to English universities with the statement that that is a matter for the Scottish Executive.
I have sympathy with my noble friend's amendment, because he is trying to tease out what is happening. We are going to have a whole set of new bodies. In my

77
experience, if one tells a bureaucracy that it may set up a new bureaucracy, it tends to do so. If a whole new range of bodies is competing with a body that has United Kingdom responsibilities under charter, a whole load of people will argue for their research to separate bodies, playing one off against the other. In the end, the authority of the United Kingdom body will be damaged.
My noble friend is wise to put the proposal down as a probing amendment. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, although the response to the probing question from my noble friend Lord Baker did rather give the game away. The situation is an odd one. We have one party in power in Wales and England, using the votes of people throughout the United Kingdom but apparently pursuing different policies and justifying them out of conviction.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: Half my blood is Welsh, and my grandfather played scrum half for the principality, so I am delighted to speak in support of the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Roberts. He seems to me to be a harbinger crying in the wilderness. He has given us a clear indication of where his logic will take him at a later stage, and has achieved the remarkable accomplishment of tabling a probing and a paving amendment simultaneously. It will be very interesting to hear what the Minister has to say—and I am quite certain that my noble friend will take it down to use in evidence against her.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: The debate has brought out an infelicity in the wording of the Bill, and asked whether it should say "may" or "shall". I should perhaps share with Members of the Committee the amendment that I had thought of tabling. Transferring the logic of this amendment to subsection (3) and the Scottish Ministers, it might read:
"The Scottish Ministers shall … carry out … research in the arts and humanities".
With all due respect to the Scottish Ministers, some of whom I know very well, I cannot really conceive that they should be required to carry out research, other than in their spare time, on Sunday mornings or after retirement. Even suggesting that they "may", other than on Sunday mornings or after retirement, that seems to be going a bit far. I presume that there is some dreadful legal reason that I do not understand for the clause being worded in such a way.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am sure that there is some dreadful legal reason, but I fear that it escapes me at this precise moment. Clearly there are Ministers and representatives in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and indeed, there is the noble Lord, Lord Baker—who would be perfectly capable of carrying out research on that basis, and I would not wish to suggest otherwise. However, I believe that the noble Lord is right in saying that legally that is the way the legislation must be written. I shall confirm that in writing if I feel the need to.
78
I am very mindful of the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, which ranged widely across the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, expressed his concerns, too. I do not propose to broaden my response very far this evening, mainly because I want to read with great care what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said and ensure that when we get to the areas of the Bill when there is a need to discuss those issues in detail, we are able to do so. However, I do not want to underestimate the strength of feeling within the Chamber about addressing these issues. I am very keen that we should have a full and wide-ranging debate on them as the opportunity arises. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has indicated through his amendment the aspects that he wishes us to consider. I will ensure that I am able, when we get to later parts of the Bill, to respond to the points that he has made.
The noble Lord was very keen that we should talk about interconnectivity. I clearly have not put my remarks on the matter very well, so I shall endeavour to do so again, always with the proviso that if I fail I shall put them in print. That works sometimes when I fail to get things over in my speaking.
Lord Skelmersdale: Only sometimes.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I think that is a hit off. Sometimes I am very capable of putting things well in my eloquent prose.
There are no Welsh equivalents to the Arts and Humanities Research Council. There are advisory bodies to the Secretaries of State for the devolved administrations. The administrations may choose, or not, to set up bodies that they feel are appropriate. It is not as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, described it—that if one tells a bureaucracy that it can set something up, it automatically does so. There are good examples over the years of research councils, when those bodies have been set up. I have not heard anyone involved in those research councils say, nor have I seen anything to suggest, that the process has been in any way contradictory or inappropriate. The focus of the bodies is on different issues, working closely on specific and wide-ranging points of interest, not only to the Government but to society at large. An acknowledgement should be given that the Welsh Assembly should be able to do that, if that were what it wished to do.
It is appropriate for the Arts and Humanities Research Council to ensure that there is interconnectivity in the United Kingdom, with the Welsh Assembly in discussion with the UK body. The matter is now reserved, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, indicated. The process should take place with the support of the devolved administrations to ensure that research is carried out in the right way and that the advisory bodies work appropriately in advising the Welsh Assembly. There would be no need for interconnectivity between a body considering a specific issue of concern to the Welsh Assembly and a body considering a specific issue that concerned the Scottish Parliament. The interconnectivity would not exist in that way, but would exist in the role of the strategic Arts and Humanities Research Council.
The purpose behind the provisions is to enable each of the devolved administrations to fund the work that they consider important in promoting research into

79
cultural aspects of their parts of the UK. As I have indicated, that will be different in each devolved administration. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is aware that his amendment makes that mandatory rather than discretionary. We believe that that cuts across the discretionary powers of the National Assembly to determine priorities and activities. If this were on the face of the Bill, it would be obliged to put activities in place, regardless of the need for such activities and in the face of changing strategic requirements. I appreciate the intention, but it is important that the Assembly should be able to prioritise resources as it sees fit.
For example, the Arts Council of Wales is responsible for funding and developing the arts in Wales and advises the Welsh Assembly on issues associated with the arts. Through the council, the Welsh Assembly has demonstrated its commitment to the furtherance of the arts and, of course, it is very committed to maintaining a strong cultural identify for Wales and has a strong commitment to the Welsh language, as my noble friend Lord Morgan indicated. This is an area in which it might be very appropriate for the Welsh Assembly to wish to do further research or work.
So, on that basis, we can recognise the importance for the individual administrations of being able to set up appropriate advisory bodies. As I have indicated, this works extremely well with the other research councils and I see no reason to suggest that it would work any differently. On that basis, and with the proviso that, as I have indicated, we will be looking at the broader issues raised by the noble Lord as we proceed with the Bill, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am very grateful to the Minister, not least for appreciating the point I was making: that my simple amendment, which substitutes shall" for "may", could be inserted into the Bill at any number of points, converting a permissive attitude, as far as the regional assemblies are concerned, into an obligation. I am very grateful to her for appreciating that point. I am sure that she also appreciates the point that if we do not impose an obligation upon the regional bodies to act in accordance with the Bill we shall have a very variegated pattern of higher education in the United Kingdom. That has all kinds of implications.
The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, is well aware of the point that is often made in devolution circles: that it is all very well now when we have the same party in government in Cardiff as in London. In fact, even when the same party is in government in both places, differences of view can occur—I see the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, smiling. That is the case as far as higher education is concerned. As far as I can judge, the whole system suggested by the Bill is being set aside for the time being by the Assembly, pending further researches by itself. It may be that the Government in Whitehall are happy with that situation but I dread to think what the consequences may be.
80
With regard to this specific area of the arts and humanities, I also appreciate what the noble Baroness said about the anxiety in Wales to conduct research on their own on specific Welsh matters that have caused concern, such as BSE and the Welsh language. I am sure that this is right, but I am also sure that such advisory bodies as are established in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland would be very well advised to develop a formal connection with the Arts and Humanities Research Council of the UK. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Clause 11 [Qualifying institutions]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 10, at end insert—
"() any institution offering further post-16 education"
The noble Baroness said: With Amendment No. 15, we move on to Part 2 of the Bill and the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. The purpose of Amendment No. 15 is to extend the powers of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator to cover further education as well as higher education. I am tabling this amendment as a probing amendment because, although it was discussed in Committee in the other place by my honourable friend the Member of Parliament for Harrogate and Knaresborough, the discussion was cut short and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was able only to provide a very limited answer to the question raised. There is a real issue that merits debate.
Within the further education sector student complaints are handled in the first instance by internal college procedures, just as in the higher education sector. If the complaint is not satisfied the appeal may go first to the local learning and skills council, which is the financing organisation for the college, and then, if still unsatisfied, to the national Learning and Skills Council. If still not resolved, the student may finally raise the complaint with his Member of Parliament and the Member of Parliament may, on behalf of the student, take it to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
The second two stages—to the local learning and skills council and then to the national Learning and Skills Council—are not, strictly speaking, independent because the Learning and Skills Council is the funder of the college sector. But resort to the Parliamentary Ombudsman does satisfy the requirement of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that there should ultimately be an independent arbiter of disputes. In raising this issue, I am in no way impugning these procedures. The Association of Colleges rightly points out a very high degree of satisfaction with the current position among its students. When questioned, 95 per cent of its students said that they were satisfied with the complaints procedures as they exist at the moment.
But there are ambiguities about the position of students who undertake higher education courses within the further education sector. Given the

81
Government's plans, the scope of these ambiguities is likely to increase. The present position is that 11 per cent of those who are studying for degrees are already in the further education sector, not the higher education sector. As we know, the Government are planning a very substantial expansion in these numbers. An extra quarter of a million students are likely to be taken on between now and 2010 and, if the Government's plans are fulfilled, quite a number of these will not be studying for a three-year degree at a university but for a two-year foundation degree, many of which will be taken within the further education sector and many on a part-time basis. So we are likely to see a considerable increase in the number of students who are studying for a higher education qualification within the further education sector.
The present position is that any further education institution that has more than 55 per cent of students in the higher education sector comes under HEFC and would therefore be covered by the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. Clause 11(d) says:
"A designated institution, as defined by section 72(3) of the 1992 Act",
applies to these institutions. In discussion in the other place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State revealed that there were already some 23 such institutions covered by Clause 11(d). Clearly, given government plans for expansion, there may be an increase in the number of these organisations. Otherwise, as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said,
"If someone is studying an HE course in a further education college, and the complaint has to do with the actions of the further education institution, it would not be a matter for this"—
in other words, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator—
"complaints procedure, but if the complaint referred directly to the course of study which is the responsibility of the higher education institution, it would be covered by this complaints procedure".— [Official Report, Commons Standing Committee H, 10/2/03; col 77.]
The problem arises if there is a dispute or, indeed, uncertainty about whether the issue is about the quality of teaching within the further education institution, or whether it derives from the content of the course set by the higher education institution. There is, indeed, much room for dispute on such issues.
In addition, it seems to me that there is a wider issue here. What I have been saying illustrates the increasing blurring of boundaries between higher and further education, but it also highlights the degree to which tertiary education, comprising both higher education and further education, is expanding, and is likely to go on expanding fast. Indeed, it is big business. It is one of the most profitable export businesses that we are running in this country. With the increasing "marketisation" of the sector, we can expect consumers to be more demanding and complaints to increase. We must have a robust complaints procedure and that is one of the reasons we are seeing the setting up of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator instead of relying on the archaic visitor system within the university sector.
But given the expected size of this sector, the increasing blurring of boundaries between divisions in the tertiary sector, the fact that we now have a separate ombudsman for health, local government, financial services, and we are looking at one, indeed, for children in the context of the Children's Commissioner, is there not something to be said for having an ombudsman for this whole sector? I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I must confess that I am slightly confused by this amendment, but before I explain why I should say that I had a vocational education. All afternoon I have been surrounded by noble Lords who are either currently connected with universities, or have had a university education. I am not one of them. The further education system, as opposed to the higher education system, indeed conducts research. I remember at college years ago conducting research into naturally occurring root-producing hormones in willows and poplars. Therefore, the moment that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raises the question of further post-16 education, I immediately take notice.
This amendment opens the possibility of appeal by further education students to an independent adjudicator. That is fine. The White Paper states at paragraph 4.11:
"Reforms to give students a greater voice must include providing them with a fair, open, and transparent means of redress when things go wrong".
That clearly is an unexceptionable statement with which we all agree. Paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of Clause 11 cover universities and constituent colleges, schools or halls in universities and,
"an institution conducted by a higher education corporation".
We must be clear about our use of terms. The second page of the White Paper states that,
"the word 'university' is frequently used, for reading ease as a substitute for 'higher education institution'".
It is important that students are clear about whether they are to have access to this new complaints procedure or not.
My confusion with the noble Baroness's amendment concerns the Association of Colleges which made a clear statement that further education colleges have established effective complaints procedures and that the scheme, as the noble Baroness said, is approved by the Learning and Skills Council. It also says that,
"it would be extremely unsatisfactory for FE colleges offering HE to be subject simultaneously to two different complaint regimes".
It argues basically that if it is not broken, why fix it? As I understand it, that is what the noble Baroness's amendment proposes, unless, of course, she is proposing the removal of the system currently in place in further education colleges. I am sure that the noble Baroness will tell me that in a moment.
However, the amendment allows me to ask the Minister various questions; namely, whether the Government wish the provision in the Bill to relate to higher education and all higher education students, including those who are pursuing higher education courses in further education colleges. What we need to know, and, indeed, what I believe is important, is that

83
whatever the new system is, it should be well publicised. The whole of the further and higher education sector—students, staff and everyone else—should know all about it at the soonest possible moment. Will the noble Baroness explain what steps will be taken to publicise the new complaints arrangements once, as I assume will happen, they are given Royal Assent? Will she also assure us that clarification will be provided to students and practitioners about who is and is not to be covered by the new arrangements because clearly neither the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, nor I is clear on this matter as we stand, or, indeed, sit, at the moment?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: It might help the noble Lord if I were to clarify my position. Under the Human Rights Act an independent appeals procedure is required. Within the Association of Colleges within the FE sector at the moment that independence is given by appeal to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. What this suggestion would amount to is that rather than the ultimate appeal to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, through the college sector students should apply to what in effect would become a tertiary education ombudsman.
Lord Dearing: I seek clarification. I was not clear whether in all further education institutions a student pursuing a course of higher education would have access to some independent person. I have the impression that in the great majority of cases someone pursuing an FE course would have that access. In certain FE institutions where there is a high proportion of higher education, that would apply. However, the noble Baroness left me unclear whether a small minority of HE students in FE institutions would have access to an independent person. If they do, I should be content with matters as they are. If that is not the case, it is essential under the human rights provisions that they have such access. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can clarify the position.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I shall see whether I can help the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, on this issue. Two slightly separate issues are raised here. Later, in the group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 19, I shall talk about the possibility of an ombudsman for the sector as a whole.
As I understand it, where more than 55 per cent of the students in a college are studying for FE courses, that is covered by paragraph (d) of Clause 11. Therefore, it would be covered by the office of the independent adjudicator. However, there are potential problems. If the student is pursuing a higher education course in an FE college, it depends whether the complaint is about the quality of the teaching—which is the responsibility of the FE college—or about the quality of the curriculum—which is usually the responsibility of a higher education institution because it is usually subcontracted from a higher education institution. If the complaint is about the quality of the teaching, it goes through the college procedures. If it is
84
about the way in which the subcontracted university has set the thing up, it would go through the office of the independent adjudicator.
I was making the point that there is already room for ambiguity here. Given the expected expansion of foundation degrees and the role that further education colleges are likely to play with regard to foundation degrees, there is likely to be much more room for ambiguity. Perhaps the simplest solution would be to have just further education covered by the same procedures.
Lord Dearing: The noble Baroness undermines her case by explaining the matter with absolute clarity. I thank her.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Triesman: I should start by following the convention of the House in declaring past and present interests. I shall do that only once for the duration of the Bill and that should save time in the long run. I worked as an academic for many years at universities in the United Kingdom, where I was poorly paid, in the United States where I was rather well paid and, briefly, in India where I was hardly paid at all, but it was a wonderful experience. Like my noble friend Lady Warwick, I have also served as General Secretary of the Association of University Teachers, from 1993 to 2001, and I currently hold unpaid posts as Visiting Fellow in Economics and Fellow of Wolfson College at Cambridge University. I am also Senior Associate Fellow in the School of Engineering at the University of Warwick.
This amendment would extend the scope of the reviewer, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has said, to consider complaints from students at further education colleges. It is common ground that the noble Baroness and, mostly, everyone else, agree that the present position on student complaints in higher education is thoroughly unsatisfactory. That is why we are seeking to give legislative underpinning to a scheme that has already been established in the higher education sector for the review of student complaints. It is not as though the sector has been inactive on this question.
We have made clear that we intend to designate the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education—the OIA—which has the support, not just of the sector but the National Union of Students, as the approved operator. I pay tribute to the NUS, because its support and assistance has meant that this has been launched in probably as effective a way as possible. Our aim is to give a better right of redress to current and former students of higher education institutions.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, proposes that students in further education should also have access to the same independent reviewer. There was, as noble Lords have already mentioned, an interesting discussion in the other place on the complaints procedures for further education students and whether the independent

85
reviewer's remit should be extended to cover such students. One of the key arguments that was made by Mr Phil Willis in the other place was that it would be helpful if there was some connection between the two. He described the connection as "a scaffold", but which was an unfortunate term. None the less, he argued for a link.
Noble Lords will be aware that students at further education institutions have an established means of redress when things go wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, mentioned that a few moments ago and he is right. Local learning and skills councils are the appropriate route. They have procedures in place to deal with and resolve issues that are brought to their attention about the learning providers that they fund. Of course, the Learning and Skills Council is not an independent body. It falls under the Parliamentary Ombudsman's jurisdiction and that is why there is a further recourse beyond its own machinery, where a student can take a complaint to the ombudsman.
Both the NUS and the Association of Colleges support the view—strongly, I understand—that it is inappropriate for the arrangements that are being underpinned in this Bill to be extended to cover further education students. There are fundamental differences between the further education and higher education sectors. For example, unlike most higher education institutions, further education institutions are learning providers and are not awarding bodies for qualifications. It is also true that where students at FE colleges have a complaint about the franchising or validation arrangements of a qualifying institution, say a university awarding their degrees, then they will have access to the reviewer.
I shall briefly dwell on that point, because it is about the point of redress and the distinctions, which have been mentioned by a number of noble Lords. I do not think that Ivan Lewis, in another place, could have made the point more clearly. The scheme that is envisaged will straightforwardly ensure that where a complaint relates to a university's degree, which is being taken in a further education college, the student will have recourse to this complaints system. I can understand that it might be argued that there could be ambiguities around some marginal issues—and they would be relatively marginal—but the LSC and the OIA would be able to advise students on the most appropriate route and they are fully prepared to do so.
That brings us back to the important point about publicity, made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. Of course, none of this would be of any use at all if people did not know about the scheme and did not know how best to use it. The scheme will require higher education institutions to inform students about their right of access to the OIA when they have exhausted the internal procedures. There will also be publicity through the NUS, which is developing a sophisticated scheme to ensure that everyone is in a position to act appropriately.
86
If we added the further education system into that system, there would be a sea change. There are currently about 1.8 million students in higher education. There about 3.9 million more students—on a head count—in further education. There are 109 relevant institutions in higher education and 347 relevant institutions in further education. If we were invited to extend the system to ensure that it was as seamless as possible, I suppose that we would look, as we have been invited to, at tertiary education and begin to look at sixth form colleges—and the relations that sixth form colleges often have with sixth forms in mainstream schools. I do not know where that boundary would ever then be drawn. I do know that the system would be inoperable. It could not cope with that. In the other place the Official Opposition pointed out that it would be likely to break the system before it ever had the chance to establish itself.
I can see that there may well be further work required on how to reach a consensus about the handling of complaints from students in further education colleges and that is a matter which I am sure needs to be addressed—and will be; but not in this context and not without doing insurmountable damage to the complaints procedure that is envisaged. In that, I hope, sympathetic light, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his sympathetic response. There is a problem of ambiguity in this matter. He said that what the Minister said in the other place could not be clearer: if' it was a higher education course it would be dealt with by the OIA and if it is further education it would go through their own procedures. However, as I pointed out, he also said that if someone is studying a higher education course in a further education college and the complaint related to the actions of the further education institution, it would not be a matter for the OIA. But if the complaint referred directly to the course of study, which is the responsibility of the higher education institution, it would be covered by the OIA. So there is room for ambiguity because of the problem of whether it relates to the quality of the teaching or the curriculum set by the higher education institution—which is the point that I raised.
On the wider issue, the Minister said that we could not possibly cope with 3.5 million people. But we have a health ombudsman who copes with at least that number of people. We have a Financial Services Ombudsman who deals with that number of people. This matter relates to a subsequent group of amendments that I will speak to later. As we shall be returning to this issue, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House do now resume and that we do not resume consideration in Committee for one hour and 30 minutes.
Noble Lords: One hour.
Lord Triesman: I beg the House's pardon: in one hour. I was hoping to escape for longer.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Business
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, was inadvertently omitted from the speakers' list. The length of each speech should be kept under 10 minutes in order to finish in the allocated hour, as the time is not as long as I suggested. I understand that the speakers' list has been re-issued and that all the speakers, except the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, have been contacted and know about the new time limit.

United Nations
7.41 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support strengthening of the United Nations.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government and all your Lordships for taking part in this important debate. The United Nations remains the only global institution, with a membership of 191 member states, which has truly universal principles. The main objectives of the United Nations charter, being drawn up and coming into existence in 1945, were conflict prevention; to promote human rights, justice and respect for international obligations; and to promote social progress and better standards of life. The UN has evolved to deal with the challenges of peacekeeping roles as well as humanitarian work in times of conflict and during natural disasters.
The task for the United Nations is enormous, but the resources somewhat limited. Since 1945, its membership has increased from 51 to 191 and the world population has increased from 2.5 billion to more than 7 billion. The challenges of dealing with poverty, hunger and disease, such as HIV/AIDS, have also increased. Along with those problems, there have been many conflicts that have cost millions of lives in Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, Kashmir, Chechnya and the Far East.
In my view, the United Nations Security Council is now facing the biggest challenge, which is its perceived lack of legitimacy since its birth. At least during the Cold War, debates took place within the Security Council, although with many vetoes been used by both superpowers. However, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, slowly, the role of the United Nations has been diminishing and recent events in the Middle East have
88
proved that the sole superpower can and does ignore the United Nations—or at least, that is how it is perceived.
Much of the United Nations' work gets little publicity in relation to social development, gender equality, environmental protection, human rights, economic development and co-operation, international organised crime and other bodies such as UNHCR, UNICEF, UNESCO, the IMF, the WHO—the list goes on of the successful work carried on by those UN bodies. The recent successful work of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Iran has been important and deserves to be commended.
The United Nations' credibility in preventing wars and genocides is also seriously damaged since the massacres of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica in 1995 and the genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. We have witnessed massacres of near-genocidal proportions in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia, where the United Nations' response has been hesitant and slow. Much of the reason for that could be said to be due to the fact that the UN does not have available a rapid reaction force for peacekeeping and preventing wars and genocides.
The UN's ability to implement many outstanding resolutions is also seen as selective. Resolutions on the right of self-determination in Kashmir, for example, are outstanding from 1948 and 1949. The suffering of the Kashmiri people is continuing, with more than 80,000 deaths while both India and Pakistan continue to waste money on nuclear weapons rather than using their valuable resources for the eradication of poverty, which is desperately needed in both countries. India has more than 300 million people living below poverty, with half of Pakistan's population also living on less than two dollars a day.
The United Nations' biggest failure has been in relation to the Middle East, where the United States has vetoed resolutions in the Security Council in its support of Israel; and actions in Iraq have further undermined the authority of the Security Council.
There is a danger of the UN becoming ever more irrelevant in matters of world security, as did its predecessor, the League of Nations. If so, the job of stopping wars and genocides and of constraining tyrants would become even closer to impossible. For all those reasons, we must support the strengthening of the United Nations and help to regain its legitimacy. Otherwise, many countries will increasingly feel free to take unilateral action against perceived threats, further undermining world security.
I wholeheartedly support the Government's commitment and support for the reform of the UN in their Command Paper. I welcome the latest round of the Secretary-General's programme of reforms, launched in September 2002, entitled, Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change. I also welcome the Secretary-General's appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to a high-level panel examining the ways in which the UN handles threats to international peace and security. I am delighted to see the noble Lord's name on the speakers' list and look forward to hearing his contribution.
Reform of the UN is inevitable and necessary. It must be democratic, less bureaucratic and more modern in all its services. The non-aligned movement must feel equal to the developed world; as the OIC and the Arab League must also feel as important as the European Union.
The question now being asked is how we can strengthen the United Nations. That is a vital and significant topic of debate which needs strategies and answers to avoid future problems. The UN must not lose its integral authority, importance and respect as an international forum. People's confidence in the council is weakening, and we must focus on the meaning and significance of what it is to be a part of the United Nations. As British citizens as well as international neighbours, we must be proud and confident that we are helping those in need.
Thousands and thousands of individuals and organisations around the world are working hard to control and manage issues of international peace and security. Many organisations have been extremely effective in protecting human rights and exposing gross violations wherever they have occurred, even in the past few days. Reforms need to be instigated to ensure that UN resolutions are strictly followed through and that international peace and security is looked at thoroughly and dealt with in the best way.
It is important that the United Nations states clearly the difference between Chapters 6 and 7 resolutions—although, in my opinion, all United Nations resolutions, from whichever chapter, are important and should be implemented. We must also ensure that countries such as Israel cannot defy and ignore UN authority time after time. If it is good enough for Mohamed El Baradei of the IAEA to go into Iran and Libya, it must be right for him to go into Israel to investigate its nuclear capabilities and weapons of mass destruction.
I support the Government's proposal for the expansion of the Security Council membership from 15 to 24, including some additional permanent members. It makes sense to include Germany and Japan as well as countries from Africa, Latin America and Asia. However, we must not support membership of any countries that have outstanding UN resolutions with which they have not complied.
We must also consider making the Security Council more inclusive and relevant to modern challenges. Seventy per cent of the wars and disputes are related to the Muslim world, whether in Nagorno-Karabakh, Sudan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq or the Balkans. Therefore, it makes sense to include at least one permanent member from the OIC or the Arab League to ensure that there is representation from this section of the world community.
Another major challenge to us all has been international terrorism. We must fight it together whenever it threatens our national security and interests. We must be prepared to condemn state terrorism also. Many countries now abuse UN Security Council Resolution 1373 of 2001, which is binding on all member states to combat terrorism by all means—that is, threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts. Resolutions 1377 and 1373 of 2001 have a
90
far-reaching impact on international human rights and humanitarian law, particularly in cases where the pursuit of human rights may be confused with the animation of terrorism. I quote the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights:
"An effective international strategy to counter terrorism should use human rights as its unifying framework. The suggestion that human rights violations are permissible in certain circumstances is wrong. The essence of human rights is that human life and dignity must not be compromised and that certain acts, whether carried out by the state or non-state actors, are never justified no matter what the ends. International human rights and humanitarian law define the boundaries of permissible political and military conduct. A reckless approach towards human life and liberty undermines counter terrorism".
We must ensure that a war on terrorism is not perceived as a war on Islam or Muslims. We must give special attention to people's rights of liberty and security, the right to be free from arbitrary arrest, the presumption of innocence, the right to a free trial, freedom of opinion, expression and assembly, and the right of self-determination.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, this brief debate is extremely timely. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for raising the need to strengthen the UN.
In my experience, support for the UN in this country is broad but also tends to be rather shallow. There is a tendency to expect too much of the UN and then, when it fails to deliver, to assume that it is a hopeless case, a noble aspiration but not one that will play an effective role in achieving global peace, security and development as its charter requires. There is an unwillingness to look beneath the surface of our failures and to analyse our own joint responsibility for those failures. The UN is, after all, an intergovernmental organisation; it is not some disembodied entity, sent to rule the world. When it fails, it often does so because its stakeholders, the member states, have failed to give it the resources and political backing that it needs to carry out the tasks it has been asked to undertake.
For the UN, 2003 was a bad year. Its Security Council was divided and paralysed in the run-up to the war in Iraq; its leading members lapsed into acrimonious public dispute; and then, in August, it lost some of its finest public servants in an outrage in Baghdad designed to ensure that it did not play the essential role that was needed if Iraq was to move towards peace, democracy and prosperity. So the Secretary-General was surely right to sound the alarm when he spoke to the General Assembly in September last year and to argue that we were at a fork in the road, where we could either lapse into unilateralism, with the risk of an increasingly insecure world, or summon up the collective will to make the UN more effective at facing up to the threats and challenges that we face. To give him advice on all that, he set up a panel, on which I have the honour to serve, and we are due to report to him in December.
What are the threats and challenges that we face? They are certainly not the same ones as we faced during the Cold War. The failure to think through the post-Cold War agenda in a systematic and purposeful

91
way is one of the explanations for the UN's patchy performance over the past 15 years. During that time the UN has had its successes. It reversed an aggression by Iraq against Kuwait; it wound down a fair number of the proxy wars that had sprung up during the Cold War—in Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, Mozambique and, eventually, in East Timor.
But it had some serious failures too—in Somalia, Bosnia and Rwanda. Those failures and others that followed—in Kosovo and in Iraq last year—reveal basically two types of failure: one of execution and the other of concept. It became clear during the 1990s that the UN was not equipped to handle enforcement operations and that its member states were not prepared to equip it to do so. Nor were they prepared to step in and do it themselves with UN authority, except in the one case of Iraq's attack on Kuwait. The failure of concept arose over what to do when Security Council resolutions were defied, as they were in Kosovo and Iraq, and where fundamental disagreements over the use of force paralysed the Security Council.
Of the new threats that we now face, clearly international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and, worse still, the possibility of the combination of those two threats are real and present dangers. But they are not the only ones, and they are not the ones that seem most pressing in many parts of the world. The collapse of states, leading sometimes to genocide and often to regional mayhem, extremes of poverty, pandemic diseases such as AIDS, environmental degradation and unequal opportunities for trade all represent threats, even if indirect ones, to peace and security.
So we need a broad agenda, not a narrow one. We must not neglect old, festering problems such as those in Palestine and Kashmir, to which the noble Lord referred. They are, if anything, even more dangerous now than they have ever been before, and their neglect leads to legitimate accusations of double standards.
It is clear that the responses to those threats and challenges must be policy-driven. It makes no sense to believe that simply tweaking the institutions in New York will somehow bring of its own volition a substantially better outcome than we have already. But it is surely just as unwise to believe that you will have no need to adjust institutions to make them capable of handling effectively the policy prescriptions for the future.
The two aspects are really two sides of the same coin, and both will need to be addressed. We will need to look at ways of preventing states failing and learning to marshal the joint efforts of the international financial institutions and the Security Council to that end. We will need to consider how the UN can work in tandem with regional and sub-regional organisations. In some parts of the world—Africa for example—regional and sub-regional organisations are showing a welcome willingness to engage in conflict prevention, peacemaking and peacekeeping. But they lack resources. They need help in training, logistics, the civilian aspects of complex operations and, above all,
92
money. The European Union is showing the way by earmarking 260 million euros of assistance for the African Union, but more will need to be done.
We will need to strengthen the organisations working against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In the case of biological weapons we will need to break the impasse over an intrusive inspection regime. We will need to intensify our co-operation against terrorism through shared intelligence and police work and the denial of safe havens for terrorists.
At the end of this year it will be up to the member states to decide what to do with the panel's report and the Secretary-General's recommendations on it. As always at the United Nations, implementation and follow-up are matters for governments, not for panels of experts, however expert they may be. I hope very much that the British Government, as both a permanent member of the Security Council and a leading member of the European Union, will play an important and proactive role in the handling of the report. In the first half of 2005, with a newly elected or re-elected US president in office, we will discover whether the attempt to build a new consensus around a more effective UN has any chance of success. I would argue that no country has a greater stake in the success of that venture than Britain, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something of the Government's thinking.
8 p.m.
Lord Parekh: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Ahmed for raising this important subject this evening.
In international affairs, the United Nations, unlike the League of Nations, which preceded it, enjoys considerable moral and political authority and has, over the years, become a major source of legitimacy. The actions of a state are generally accepted as right and carry a good deal of authority, if they are authorised by the United Nations. Why is that so? There are several reasons. When a state's actions are authorised by the United Nations, that state acts not in an individual capacity but on behalf of and in the name of the international community. Its actions are publicly debated and approved and therefore carry broad global consensus. They are also deemed to be lawful and just.
As the United Nations is so important as a newly emerging source of international legitimacy, everything should be done to respect and nurture its authority. If its authority were to be undermined, we would be in a state of anarchy in which might could become the sole criterion for right. Although that is generally accepted, as it ought to be, the United Nations can be only as good as its members, and their record, sadly, has not always been honourable.
Many United Nations resolutions have been selectively enforced, even when they fall within the same chapter. The latest incident—the war on Iraq—shows how much the authority of the United Nations has been undermined. The way in which the United States went about buying up small, non-permanent

93
members of the Security Council is an example of that. Resolution 1441 was interpreted as if every state were free to consult its own lawyers and decide whether the war was lawful. The United Nations should have been consulted, and a body of international jurists should have been asked to decide whether Resolution 1441 authorised action without a further resolution. The work of the United Nations inspectors was cut short, without the approval of the United Nations. In other words, we went to war in the name of upholding the authority of the United Nations, but we did everything in our power to undermine that authority and to expose that organisation to public ridicule.
There is a grave danger that the United Nations might be reduced to a moral fig leaf for the dubious and aggressive designs of powerful states. The question is not just one of strengthening the United Nations. We could strengthen it, so that it could be used as a moral fig leaf only by certain powers. Thus, the authority of the United Nations would become a veil behind which the aggressive designs of a particular country might be pursued. It is a question of restructuring the United Nations in such a way that it enjoys the respect of world opinion and can exercise independent authority.
How should we restructure the United Nations? We should rely on three criteria. The first is, "How can we make it more representative?"; the second is, "How can we improve the quality of debate?"; and the third is, "How can we increase its independence and capacity for collective action?". Those are the three criteria by which I would judge any proposal made for the restructuring of the United Nations.
There is no shortage of proposals for restructuring the United Nations. I shall not take the House through the whole syllabus, but I shall suggest three or four that are of great importance. Everything possible should be done to increase the power of the General Assembly and to make the Security Council accountable to it. In so far as it resembles a parliament, the General Assembly has a certain representative legitimacy that the Security Council does not have. No war or act of humanitarian intervention should be undertaken without authorisation by the General Assembly. In short, we should increasingly think about making the General Assembly more like a world parliament.
Secondly, the Security Council needs to be more representative, and its powers must be carefully rethought. It is extraordinary that the five permanent members of the Security Council should include two European powers, one Western power and a half-European power—Russia—while the rest of mankind, by accident of history, is represented only by China. The current structure of the United Nations simply freezes the state of the world as it was in 1945. But the world has moved on: either we should get rid of the veto or it should be regionally distributed, so that every major continent has, in one form or another, a right to exercise the veto. Alternatively, the veto could be overridden, either by an ordinary majority on the Security Council or by the General Assembly.
94
Thirdly, the Secretary-General should have the right, as the representative of the United Nations, to require troops or such other help as is needed from member states to carry out the resolutions of the United Nations.
Fourthly, the United Nations, as its name indicates, is really a trade union of nation states. It is a closed shop. Only the states can speak in the name of their citizens, and many important voices, such as the voices of ordinary citizens who are critical of the policies of their government or the voices of civil society and the NGOs, are simply not heard.
It is unacceptable that the state or government should be the only spokesman for all the citizens of a country. There are many ways in which that can be changed. It should, for example, be possible to devise bodies in which non-official bodies can be heard. Lots of proposals have been made. One is that there is no reason why the Secretary-General should not consult representatives of NGOs, civil society and other associations that are accredited to the United Nations and recognised by it. Nor is there any reason why unofficial organisations such as the World Social Forum or others may not be given the facility to meet from time to time and express their views, which, although not binding on the Secretary-General, would have powerful moral authority.
In other words, what should we do? We need to find ways of ensuring that the United Nations does not simply function as a trade union of the states and simply strengthen the power of the states vis-à-vis their own citizens or unofficial bodies.
I should like to think that this debate could not have taken place at a more appropriate time. The Iraq war and what has happened subsequently give us the opportunity and the incentive to restart the debate on how the United Nations should be transformed. The war was conceived in secret, based on deception and manipulation of world opinion, conducted in a legal void and created a culture of lawlessness, the consequences of which we are witnessing even now.
If one embarks on a war without clearly knowing why one is embarking on it, and on the basis of alleged practices that are themselves suspect, a climate is created in which people feel free to take the law into their own hands. What has happened in Iraqi prisons, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere are simply—I am almost tempted to say—moral entailments of the very climate in which the war was conducted and legitimised.
In this country and elsewhere, we have all been ashamed by what we saw in Iraqi prisons at the hands of our soldiers. I readily concede that it involved an extremely small number of soldiers. Nevertheless, that it should have happened or should have been allowed to happen for several months is a matter of disgrace to every sensitive citizen here and elsewhere.
Therefore, it is very important that we should rethink what the United Nations should and could do in such situations. I should have thought that as one small, tentative step to restoring authority, it might not be a bad idea to ask the United Nations to conduct an

95
investigation into what has gone wrong in Iraqi prisons and at Guantanamo Bay. That would be one way in which we could recognise the authority of the United Nations and create a climate in which we can think more intelligently and sensitively about where we should be going in this increasingly chaotic world.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for giving us the opportunity to discuss the reform of the United Nations. As he said, its tasks are enormous. It is impossible to do more than scratch the surface of the subject in the few minutes that we have at our disposal.
I want to pick up the point that the noble Lord made about the credibility of the United Nations having been severely damaged by some of the failures, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has also referred, and, in particular, the failures that we suffered in Rwanda and Srebrenica. Your Lordships may remember that four years ago we had a debate on the lessons to be learnt from the reports that were commissioned by the United Nations on its operations in Srebrenica and Rwanda.
Recently, we have been commemorating the 10th anniversary of the genocide in Rwanda. There was an event in Portcullis House at which the First Lady of Rwanda spoke, as did the Secretary of State for International Development. As people do on those occasions, they said that such an event must never be allowed to happen again. The problem is that people were saying that for years after the Holocaust, and it did happen again. The genocide in Rwanda is a reminder of the fact that we failed the purposes of the United Nations when it was first established, which was to prevent that kind of thing occurring.
A key recommendation of the report on Rwanda was that the Secretary-General would initiate a plan of action to prevent genocide, which would involve the whole UN system. There was to be an effective early-warning system involving NGOs and academics, as well as the secretariat itself. The UN, and in particular the Security Council, were to be prepared to act to prevent genocide or gross violations of human rights. But all that we have done so far is to create better systems for picking up the pieces after the event.
It is true that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations has no doubt been strengthened in the wake of the Brahimi report. I was pleased to see that the Security Council is to conduct a debate on 17 May on the recent surge in demand for peacekeeping operations and to evaluate the progress that has been made on the Brahimi recommendations. I am proud to say that the UK is involved in 14 peacekeeping operations and we have played a leading part in the reform process. We are also closely involved in the Secretary-General's examination of the way in which the UN deals with threats to international peace and security. I think that that is the biggest challenge of all. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on the way in which this is being approached by the panel of which he is a distinguished member.
96
Under the charter, there are only two circumstances in which any state can intervene in another's territory with military force; that is, first, in self-defence, under Article 51, and, secondly, in pursuit of a resolution of the Security Council, under Article 42, which almost invariably is preceded by a declaration that a threat to peace exists under Article 39.
Now there is also said to be,
"a clear justification in international law to protect people where they are threatened by an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe".
That was said by the Secretary of State for Defence in evidence given to the Defence Select Committee, and was the argument for the intervention in Iraq in 1991 and, more recently, in Kosovo. The Foreign Affairs Committee wanted the principles governing humanitarian intervention to be established in the United Nations, and that problem still remains. If, in all the cases not explicitly covered by the charter, the judgment of risk is entirely a matter for the state concerned, there is no law. The essence of the rule of law is that the actors, whether they be individuals in the case of domestic law or states under international law, submit to the jurisdiction of their peers. I therefore respectfully suggest that the Secretary-General's commission should concentrate on formulating a set of rules to cover the circumstances that have arisen or may arise where, in the opinion of the member states, or a majority of them, intervention is justifiable.
I accept that it is not possible in practice to amend the charter. What might be considered by the Panyarachun commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is a distinguished member, is a set of guidelines to be applied voluntarily by states in considering whether to use force under the humanitarian rubric, which I have quoted, or in self-defence under Article 51, and particularly where action is to be taken against a threatened rather than an actual attack. If at some time in the future two-thirds of the UN member states had adopted these guidelines, they could then be approved as a form of secondary legislation to extend the charter.
I do hope that the mechanisms that are to be developed as a result of the Panyarachun commission will confirm the principle that intervention is justifiable against the wishes of the state concerned to prevent an overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. The examples mentioned by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney General in the debate held last month on UN action, and which have cropped up again this evening—Somalia, eastern DRC, East Timor, Sierra Leone and, most recently, Haiti—were all cases where the state concerned had agreed that the UN did have a role.
However, I want to mention the case of Darfur, where Sudan has not agreed to UN involvement. We are now 30 days into the 45-day humanitarian ceasefire. Although ethnic cleansing is still in full swing, there is not even the international monitoring mechanism which has been identified as necessary by everyone from the acting UN High Commissioner for human rights downwards. Outlining an action plan to prevent genocide last month, and specifically

97
mentioning his deep foreboding over the reports from Darfur, the Secretary-General said that the one legacy he most wished to leave to his successors was an organisation better equipped to prevent genocide and to act decisively to stop it when prevention fails. That is our objective too. As Bill Rammell said in another place last November:
"Action should be taken only to prevent genocide or major loss of civilian life that could destabilise other states and threaten international peace arid security". [Official Report, Commons, 11/11/03; col. 207.]
That situation has now been reached in Darfur. US AID warns that perhaps 30 per cent of the affected population, some 360,000 people, could perish over the next nine months. Ten years after Rwanda, 60 years after the Holocaust, Britain must do everything possible to prevent this catastrophe and to see that the action plan to prevent genocide proposed by the Secretary-General is not just a piece of paper.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords. like others, I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, for promoting this debate. He speaks with authority and feeling on this issue and we are all indebted to him. It is difficult to be optimistic about the immediate future of the United Nations, but I believe very strongly that it is necessary and possibly, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, said, more necessary than ever in the past.
To begin where we are, everyone is now looking to the United Nations to step into Iraq and somehow stabilise the situation as it enters its most critical postwar stage. But the question hangs in the air: is the United Nations either capable of performing this role, or willing to do so? If there is hesitation at the UN headquarters in New York, that is entirely understandable. As has already been mentioned, the last chief official of the UN, the late and brilliant Sergio de Melo, was murdered by a bomb. Most of the non-governmental agencies such as Oxfam and the Red Cross are now leaving Iraq, not going in, and in the current frenzied atmosphere it seems that UN personnel are themselves regarded as agents of the coalition in some distorted way, and therefore just as much enemies of Iraqi extremists and terrorist groups as are the Americans. Indeed, the Secretary-General himself, Kofi Annan, has been named by some Shi'ite extremists as the target for assassination, along with Mr Paul Bremer and other leading members of the provisional administration. How can the UN send its officials and workers back into this sinister maelstrom, and who is going to volunteer to go? This questions have to be addressed. One cannot just assume that hope will solve them. It will not.
The Iraq drama has raised even bigger questions behind those. The main question is whether an organisation which includes every recognised state on Earth—all 191 of them— which was constructed more than half a century ago in totally different conditions, is capable of policing a turbulent world. Is it capable of meeting the sort of threats that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned in his very authoritative speech. such as global terrorism, when there are
98
disputes even on how to define terrorism and on what is, or is not, a rogue state? Is this asking too much of the organisation?
The list of where it has totally failed to engage is, alas, a long one: Chechnya, Rwanda, Kosovo. the lethal Arab- Israeli dispute and, of course, Iraq itself. Its failures in Bosnia, notably the appalling massacre at Srebrenica, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, led to probably the lowest point in the inhuman treatment of humans in the 20th century. Certainly it was the lowest point in Europe since the Holocaust.
We all know the current structure of the UN is archaic, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, emphasised. It is perfectly obvious that major nations like Japan, Germany and India ought to have a similar status to the existing permanent five Security Council members, even if the overall status of those nations has to change. Furthermore, the UN's membership includes some of the world's worst dictatorships and, regrettably, these unsavoury regimes play an active role in the UN's activities. It still strikes me as very odd that Libya—where, I read this week, some nurses are currently being threatened with execution —chairs the Human Rights Commission, even if it has recently declared itself to be a more responsible nation. Sudan. which is currently conducting murderous attacks on tribal minorities—as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. constantly reminds us—is a member of that committee, along with Syria and Cuba. That cannot be right.
It gets worse. The entire UN organisation is now mired in a gigantic scandal, arising from the former Oil for Food scheme, which was meant to help Iraq's starving and dying children while Saddam Hussein still ruled in Baghdad. The cynicism and cruelty of that operation is breathtaking, and it seems that all those protestors who were raining down curses on Western governments for making the innocent Iraqi populace suffer were aiming at the wrong target. Suspicion now points not only at the former Iraqi dictator— who no-one trusted anyway—but at officials in Moscow, Paris and, alas, in New York, in the UN itself. Until this stain on the UN is removed, as I hope it can be, it obviously has to be asked how anyone can expect that organisation to fulfil the massive new governing tasks being asked of it, or to carry out, proudly and credibly, its supposed role as the source of all international legality and justice.
Yet, having said all that—and I know it is negative—what could conceivably replace the United Nations? For all its obvious faults, it is a great deal better than nothing. After all, many of its numerous agencies—although not all—do superb humanitarian work, as noble Lords have already said, and are staffed by amazingly dedicated and brave people. I have to say that some of the agencies raise questions somewhat when one looks at them. I am not sure that UNCTAD has fulfilled its role. I have never quite understand what UNIDO—the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation—is up to in Vienna. And I am not sure what the UN Economic Commission for Europe, which is a sort of left-over of the era of the

99
Marshall plan and the Cold War, gets up to nowadays. But no one questions the superb work of the UNHCR, nor of the UNDP; nor, of course, of UNICEF, which is a marvellous organisation.
Currently, the UN has 13 authorised armed forces wearing the famous blue helmets operating in peacekeeping situations around the world. People compare it with the old League of Nations, but it is quite different; unlike the League of Nations, every single nation state on earth is a member. So for all its glaring faults—and we must be realistic about those—it is probably the best kind of global assembly that can be brought together in today's novel, difficult and sometimes terrifying conditions.
In my view the real enemies of a stronger UN are not those who express scepticism or concern about its potential, but those who would overload it with almost divine powers and promote it as some kind of world government which it can never be. Many coalitions and policing operations are bound to continue outside the UN purview. Many ugly perversions of human dignity and rights are bound to continue unchecked by such a diverse and rambling construction.
I believe that the best way to see the UN is as a mirror of the world as it is, a reflection of both our high hopes and of course our disagreements. That amazing man Dag Hammarskjold had a marvellous phrase when he said that it was created not to take mankind to paradise but merely to save it from hell. I thought that a very good summary, made many years ago, of course, before his untimely death. That is probably about right. What does it mean? It means continuing to work patiently to reform the UN, but not to demand or expect too much from it, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, warned us. Dozens of plans for streamlining and modernising the structure, and particularly the Security Council, have been tabled in recent years, including proposals from our Government—indeed from successive governments—in their White Paper and on other occasions. Dozens more will have to be put forward to ensure that there is real improvement.
As for the Iraq situation, with which I began, it is going to be resolved only by the Iraqis themselves, notably by the moderate Shia majority. The sooner they are handed proper sovereignty, and the sooner they state quite clearly what kind of coalition and which security forces they want to stay at their request in their country, the sooner that the poisonous extremist factions will be driven out. The task appears to be too complex for the Americans alone; I have always thought that. But it is also far too tough a task for a UN administration magically to solve, whether the UN is reformed or unreformed and whether it has the capability and the will or not. Other countries, including very much our own, I am afraid, will now have to take not only the strong lead we have taken but a still stronger lead.
Realism, not idealism, is the best friend of the United Nations. That is the approach that will enable it to work as well as possible in a highly imperfect and very dangerous world.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to my noble friend Lord Ahmed for securing this debate. I congratulate him on his powerful advocacy of the role of the United Nations. He was somewhat more optimistic about the future of the United Nations than perhaps was the noble Lord, Lord Howell. However, the whole debate has balanced the need for reform, based on optimism and what the United Nations can do to improve the situation in the world by means of resolution conflict and in so many other ways, with realism about past failures and weaknesses which need to be addressed.
I assure the House that the United Nations is at the heart of the Government's foreign policy and that strengthening it to face the future is a government priority. This debate is particularly timely as the Secretary-General's High Level Panel on the UN response to threats to peace and security is now fully under way. I shall say a little more about the panel later. I am very grateful that we had a contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who serves on that panel. He has given the House some very judicious insights about the challenges that we face and some constructive indications about how the work may proceed.
When discussing the strengthening of the United Nations, we should not lose sight of the fact that there is much that the United Nations already does well. In introducing the debate, my noble friend suggested that the Security Council has been increasingly ignored. That is not entirely true. The Security Council has never been more active than recently; for example, in the past two years we have seen the deployment of an effective peacekeeping operation in Liberia, and UN support for the formation of a transitional government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, offering hope and the chance of peace to millions of people. Sierra Leone, East Timor and, despite recent problems, Kosovo are UN success stories.
I understand that those accomplishments may appear minor compared with some of the very major threats that we all recognise exist in the world at present. I would be the last to ignore the importance of the points that have been raised on all sides of the House in this very well informed debate, but it is also right that we should keep in mind some balance in regard to the achievements of the UN.
In recent years the UN has played a leading role in the fight for justice to be meted out to the perpetrators of the worst international crimes: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Tribunal, set up by the Security Council to deal with the atrocities in Rwanda and the Balkans, has convicted dozens of perpetrators of such crimes.
I turn to the point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we need to act in time to stop such horrors, rather than deal with justice after they have occurred. I shall seek to answer many of the constructive points that he made. Nevertheless, we should also recognise that those who perpetrate such crimes against humanity have clear signals sent out to

101
them that the United Nations and the international community will play their part in bringing to justice those guilty of such horrors.
In 2002 the World Food Programme provided assistance to 72 million of the world's poorest people, while the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees provides support to the world's estimated 45 million refugees. Such matters are not trumpeted widely; those are not the headline-grabbing issues that we see in the newspapers—the great conflicts play that role—but they are solid achievements of the United Nations and they should not be underestimated.
As noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Howell, have pointed, despite those successes, there are many areas where the United Nations is not succeeding as well as we would want. Estimates suggest that over 60 per cent of African nations emerging from conflict return to that state within five years. Despite the many excellent examples of peacekeeping operations, it would clearly be better if the international community, through the UN, could prevent conflict, rather than take action after conflict has broken out.
In the past few years we have seen the emergence of new threats to our security. My noble friend Lord Ahmed emphasised the issues of international terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Issues as diverse as the spread of HIV/AIDS and environmental degradation are beginning to have a potentially devastating impact on the lives of millions of people, particularly those in Africa. Those issues were simply not envisaged as global threats to security when the UN charter was written. If we consider the threats to the quality of life, even to the continuance of life for so many people in the world, we have to recognise how significant the issues are.
The UN has, however, started to take effective action to counter the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The Security Council sent out a clear message immediately after 11 September that terrorism is a threat to peace and security and that those supporting or harbouring terrorists could therefore expect Security Council action. The Counter Terrorism Committee, set up by the Security Council to monitor action taken by countries to suppress and prevent terrorism, has been strengthened and revitalised. A new executive directorate will make it more effective to act against those states that fail to meet their obligations. On the bright side, I should also mention that it is encouraging that Libya, although not under the auspices of the United Nations, has changed its perspective in relation to such issues. We should derive some satisfaction from that.
Similarly, we have recently seen a breakthrough with the adoption of a resolution by the Security Council on Counter-proliferation. All states will be obliged to act to prevent weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of non-state actors. The Security Council will set up a mechanism to monitor states' actions in this area, which the Government welcome.
102
Strengthening the United Nations is possible without changes to institutions. However, some areas will clearly benefit from institutional reform. The UK has long been a firm supporter of enlarging the Security Council. My noble friend Lord Ahmed made it an important part of his contribution, and I believe that it probably was the main theme of my noble friend Lord Parekh, that an institution that was set up against the power relationships of 1945 needs to change in the light of new relationships in a modern and very different world.
We believe that there should be new permanent members. We have supported the candidatures of Japan and Germany for many years. We also support the creation of permanent seats for Africa, Asia and Latin America, and we believe that India and Brazil are pre-eminent candidates from the latter two regions. We also believe that there should be new non-permanent members. That model would significantly increase the representation of the developing world, but the council would not be so large as to be inefficient. The point was forcefully expressed that it is not representative of the modern world while developing countries are unrepresented on the inner councils of the United Nations.
It is important to stress that the strengthening of the UN is about more than expanding the Security Council. The General Assembly has a vital role to play in allowing all member states to debate and vote on a wide range of important international issues. I heard my noble friend Lord Parekh emphasise the significance of the General Assembly's role. The UK supports the efforts of the current president of the General Assembly to improve the workings of that body.
Reform of the UN secretariat is also important. The UK is a strong supporter of the UN Secretary-General's reform programme, which he set out in September 2002. Despite those proposals for reform, the Government feel that a more comprehensive approach is required to strengthen the UN's capacity to deal with new challenges. That is why we greatly welcome the Secretary-General's initiative in establishing the High Level Panel to which the noble Lord, Lord Hanhay, is making a most distinguished contribution. How fortunate it is that this House is able to debate such a significant developing institution and have one of its representatives present to make his contribution to our deliberations.
The panel was established in November 2003. It is tasked with identifying threats to global peace and security and with making recommendations to improve the international community's responses. Peace and security are broadly interpreted to include both traditional threats and those posed by underdevelopment, economic instability, poverty, environmental degradation and social inequality. We consider that an essential task for the panel is to agree on the full range of threats. If UN reform is to be successful, all member states must feel that their security fears are being addressed.
A common theme throughout the debate, possibly expressed most cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was that we need an improvement in the UN's capacity for

103
threat analysis and early warning so that threats to international and human security can be dealt with at an early stage when it is likely to be most effective. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, emphasised that point in respect of Rwanda.
To reply to one other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, we are making a positive response to the Darfur crisis. He will know that we are very concerned about this. Ministers will raise it directly with the Sudanese Foreign Minister tomorrow, seeking immediate and concrete improvements. It is particularly important in relation to the threat of genocide that action is taken early. That is what we hope to see arising from the reformed structure of the United Nations.
This has been an all-too-brief debate on such an extensive and significant topic. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated. They have done what I think the noble Lord, Lord Howell, enjoined us to do—to balance an element of optimism in an area in which we could be constructive with the realism that there are crucial difficult areas which need to be tackled and where early results will not be produced. It is the Government's role to play their part in ensuring that we pursue as constructive a strategy as possible for the reform of the United Nations, which is all we have in terms of representing all the nations of the earth in reconciling each to the other.
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.46 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.41 to 8.46 p.m. ]

Higher Education Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 12 [Qualifying complaints]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 5, line 19, at end insert ", or
() as a member of staff or former member of staff of that institution"
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of Amendment No. 16 is to extend the remit of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator to cover staff complaints as well as student complaints. This amendment is supported by both the AUT and the NATHFE, but not by Universities UK.
The key issue that is acknowledged on all sides is that the visitor system that pertains is archaic and needs to be brought up to date. The office of the independent adjudicator is to provide a modern framework for students which meets the requirements of Article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which grants the right to "fair and public hearing" of disputes.
Staff disputes have also been subject to the visitor system, yet as far as they are concerned nothing has changed. Why should it be expedient to remove the visitor system from the students and yet not from the staff?
Let me make clear at the outset that we do not seek to broaden the adjudicator system. Those working at universities—both academic and non-academic staff—are covered by employment law and have rights of appeal under the employment tribunal system for issues that relate to employment. They are also protected in making complaints by the Public Interest Disclosure Act.
We do not seek to overturn those rights, but there are issues—such as those relating to academic freedom—that are covered by the current visitor system but are outside the employment area where the right of appeal to some independent arbitrator is necessary.
This was acknowledged in discussion in Committee in another place when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State stated,
"there is a problem with the role of visitors and whether that prevents people's ability ultimately to go to court … In a small number of cases, there is some ambiguity. The Government do not believe that the status quo is acceptable, or that the independent route that we are establishing for students is necessarily an appropriate route for staff complaints".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee H, 12/2/04; col. 93.]
I shall quote from an intervention in the same debate by the Member of Parliament for Leeds East, Mr George Mudie. He recalled how, when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the then Department for Education and Employment in 1998, the issue of how best to deal with student complaints had arisen and the universities were given 12 months to sort it out. He said:
"We let the timetable of 12 months' notice extend to five years, and only now we are legislating. I suspect that we are legislating only because of human rights issues. If we let the matter go, it would be challenged in Europe. Indeed, the explanatory notes suggest that strongly."
Mr Mudie went on to urge the Secretary of State to act now on staff complaints. He said:
"The solution cannot be left to the universities, and we will not get another chance to introduce fresh legislation for a long time. We should grasp the opportunity now. The universities have had their chance and demonstrated that they do not have the will to act".— [Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee H, 12/4/04; cols. 95–96.]
Let me conclude by saying that it cannot be right that the current visitor system contravenes the Human Rights Act for students and not for staff. Mr Phil Willis, my honourable friend in the other place, withdrew his Motion in the hope that the Government would do as Mr Mudie suggested, and take the opportunity to come forward with some positive ideas. As far as I know, no further proposals have been forthcoming from either the Government or Universities UK or other parts of the university sector since that debate.
I raise the issue again because I believe Mr Mudie to be right: it is high time that reforms were on the table. Universities have been dragging their feet for too long.
It will be a long time before we have another opportunity to legislate on these issues. If the Office of the Independent Adjudicator is not the appropriate vehicle, let us have some other positive suggestions that we may get on to the statute book. I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, which would bring staff within the operation of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, would very much broaden the scope of that office, as I believe she has recognised. I cannot support that, as I do not believe that it would be helpful to extend the OIA's remit so radically, and certainly not at this stage.
The Office of the Independent Adjudicator was created in response to a need identified by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and subsequently by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, demanding an independent element in student complaints procedures. That is what the proposal delivers. I am of course aware of the concerns raised by the Association of University Teachers that in some areas, outside employment-related issues, university visitors will retain exclusive jurisdiction for staff complaints—for example, in matters when it is alleged that an institution has failed to follow up on its own internal rules.
It has been argued that the exclusivity of the visitors' jurisdiction is contrary to Article 6 of the Human Rights Act, which specifies that a hearing should be conducted by someone who is independent. The problem here is the exclusivity, and it may be helpful to discuss that issue further, but to react to it by making all staff complaints subject to the jurisdiction of the adjudicator seems to take rather a large sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Most forms of university staff complaint were removed from the jurisdiction of the visitor by the Education Reform Act 1988, which also established the university commissioner's model statute. That provides for an appeal to an independent third party when internal complaints procedures have been exhausted—although that is of course restricted to academic and academic-related staff.
Notwithstanding the areas in which the visitor retains exclusive jurisdiction in pre-1992 universities, we should not lose sight of the fact that staff and students are in essence and in law very different categories. The relationship between higher education institutions and their students is distinct from the relationship between those institutions and their staff. All staff have the same legal rights and protections available to any other employee under existing employment law. If there is any dissatisfaction with the outcome of internal complaints procedures, these can be deployed so that staff have recourse to the Employment Tribunal Service to get independent, binding and, indeed, financial redress. For these reasons, I cannot agree that all staff complaints should be brought within the jurisdiction of the adjudicator, or indeed that the adjudicator is the appropriate forum
106
for those complaints. Therefore, while I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue, I oppose the amendment.
I wonder if, while I am on my feet, I could briefly touch upon Amendments Nos. 17 and 18, both of which deal with the issue of—
Lord Lucas: I would really prefer it if the noble Baroness would wait until I have moved those amendments.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I long for the moment when Universities UK has a disagreement with the Government on any issue. I am bound to say that I found these remarks quite inexplicable. There was a long debate in the House of Commons Standing Committee about this. The Minister admitted that there was confusion and a former Education Minister indicated that he had thought that this would be sorted out in 12 months, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has pointed out.
As I understand it, it is not uncommon for people to be both staff and students in the university sector. Reading the proceedings in the Commons, it was not clear into which category they would fall. If someone was a member of staff and also a student he would presumably have access, although it was not clear to me what the position was. Perhaps in her response the Minister will say what the position is for the admittedly small number of people in this hybrid category.
What I understood to be the genesis of this was the Government's decision to incorporate the European convention in the 1998 Act and the need to act in respect of students. For the life of me, I do not see why that should not apply to staff. This seems to me to be an eminently sensible amendment and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has indicated, a very considerable period of time has elapsed in which people could have thought about some of the difficulties. I find it quite extraordinary that we are told that the university visitor system is anachronistic and does not stand the tests required by the European convention so that it is necessary to make a change in respect of student complaints, but that it is not necessary in respect of staff complaints. I hope that in her response the Minister will give us some indication that at a later stage in the Bill the Government will get their act together and come forward with proposals.
Things may have changed in government since my day, but we would not have been allowed to present a Bill to the House of Commons by L Committee without these matters having been resolved. We used to sit in the Star Chamber and cross-examine on the details of a Bill. Quite honestly, I think that it is quite unacceptable for the Bill to have got to this stage, despite the proceedings in the Committee stage of the House of Commons, and for the matter to be unresolved. It is very disappointing that Universities UK is taking such a laid back view of an absurd anomaly, particularly in the light of the representations that are being made by other bodies that represent the interests of staff in the universities.

107
More to the point, several people on the other side of the House in the other place, with experience as Ministers in the department, also felt uneasy about it.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Perhaps I should thank the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for his intervention here. Although I framed my amendment in terms of adding staff to the office of the independent adjudicator, I expressly said that this situation is not satisfactory. Four months ago in Committee in the other place it was agreed that the situation was not satisfactory and that new ideas needed to be put forward. I do not think that either Universities UK or the Government have moved an inch on this one since that time.
9 p.m.
Lord Triesman: Let me start by trying to set out where I think most of the routes to redress lie and then see whether we have a pattern that would be acceptable in the legislation as it is described.
First, it is worth recalling—this point came up on Second Reading—that legal protections in relation to academic freedom have been expressed in legislation introduced by the previous government and by the present Government. The present Government are a signatory to the UNESCO normative instrument on academic freedom and the rights of academic staff—indeed, the rights of academic staff form part of the title of the relevant UNESCO convention. I do not think it can be said that there is neither a right that is operable nor a means of dealing with that right. Having represented people who had issues of academic freedom that they wished to present to their universities, I always believed that the trick was to try to do so in a way which also protected the independence and the autonomy of the universities under their charter or act of government. Broadly speaking, one of the great protections of academic freedom is that the institutions themselves are protected from governments of whatever kind, and from interventions of governments to direct them to do things which might be politically expedient when they might wish to take a course of action which was unpopular, not politically expedient or whatever.
The visitor system, which no doubt has its defects and is based in antiquity, was none the less a rather interesting historic compromise which produced that balance. I can say from first-hand experience that many of the cases where issues of academic freedom were to be tested were tested in that rather odd environment of the visitor, and tested extremely vigorously. For the most part, I believe that that resulted in the protection of academic freedom. Another scheme is not necessary for that purpose.
I do not believe—although I believe that one or two trade unions do believe it—that protection is needed in the sense that this amendment suggests in relation to whistleblowing. There is perfectly competent legislation on whistleblowing. The way of judging that is to see whether people blow the whistle from time to time in universities, and get a hearing, and get the issues that they
108
have raised resolved. I would be interested to hear of examples where someone has been a whistleblower but has failed to get the issue resolved. Many of the other kinds of complaints are routinely brought to the trade unions of members of staff. Those unions represent them on those questions, particularly on procedural matters.
But having said all of that, I entirely understand the arguments that there may be procedural matters, or defects in procedural matters, which are not fully covered by any of the mechanisms that I have described, or, in employment law, by the right of going to the employment tribunals, or, indeed, to the courts. I want to try to look at the matter with that as a background sketch of the processes that exist because I want to start from the point that we are not living in a world quite so defective as perhaps has been suggested.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and I would agree that the current position regarding some complaints is not wholly satisfactory and that there are other issues which need to be resolved in that area. If there are to be other forms of resolution, should they override all the existing arrangements and, indeed, the arrangement for the adjudicator in relation to student complaints? In the previous discussion we considered whether further education students should have the same right of access to certain provision. I imagine that not everyone was agreed about the outcomes of that discussion but none the less we had a very non-partisan discussion. We weighed the merits of doing one thing or another.
I made the point, which not all noble Lords agreed with, that changing the parameters in which the adjudicator worked to include vastly more people in the many different types of institutions would not be a satisfactory way of launching the adjudicator's role. I suspect that trying now to introduce the adjudicator's role into this narrow area, in which I can understand that staff may feel that they do not have adequate redress, would hardly improve the position. I put that point to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who has supported the amendment, in what I hope he will accept are objective terms. I am simply asking whether this is the right way to achieve that objective.
Universities UK and the standing committee of principals consulted widely on the establishment of an independent reviewer to deal with unresolved complaints of all kinds. Across the higher education sector there has not been, as yet, a clear agreement about what should and should not be done about an unusual and narrow set of examples that may have fallen through the lattice work that I have described.
I shall not continue at much greater length about the matter, because a number of the points about the other areas in which people may seek redress have already been made. However, I wish to answer a specific question on the issue of where the jurisdiction lies when a student is also teaching or conducting research as an academic. The situation is perhaps clearer than noble Lords have suggested. When someone brings a complaint about the handling of their position as a student, there is no doubt that the independent adjudicator is the appropriate person to address. Where someone brings a complaint as a member of

109
staff, I hope that I have suggested that there is a set of well established places to which that objection can be taken. I have been trying hard to think of any cases that I knew about, or know about, which might not have fitted that description. that might have given rise to ambiguity. Although my imagination can be fanciful on occasions, I really cannot recall any.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I am sorry that he cannot think of an example. Perhaps I am being slow, but could he explain why he thinks that it is acceptable that someone who is both a student and a member of staff has to sit down and work out, "Am I making this complaint as a student or as a member or staff?". If he decides, "I am making the complaint as a member of staff", he then goes to a visitor—and the visitor system is one which the Government consider to be anachronistic and not effective, which is why the change is being made. Can the Minister not see that it seems a rather odd position for the Government to take? I agree that there may not be consensus, but the had news about being in government is that one has to take a decision and work out what is best. Are the Government not guilty of taking the easy way out and leaving something of a muddle?
Lord Triesman: That is a strange characterisation of events and I shall try to say why, because I have, plainly, not been able to describe adequately thus far the different propositions that are involved in this matter. For the most part, those students who are also teaching or involved in research tend to be people who are at least postgraduates and, in many cases, are taking their PhDs or taking a course of study which is, at least, at that level. I have yet to encounter such a student who was unable to work out objectively the circumstances about which they were complaining. They tend to be quite bright. The distinction which I believe that they will find easy to make is that if one is giving a lecture and one feels that there is something about the conditions of one's employment that is fundamentally wrong, it is clear that that is not a problem that arises because one is a student.
If one has process issues that are wrong, or other significant issues that have arisen in the course of one's postgraduate study or one's doctoral research, then it is clear that they are wrong as a result of being a student. It would be very hard to mistake the two sets of conditions.
I apologise if I have not already said that there are known remedies in almost all the classes of cases that one might face as a member of staff. In the case of employment issues there is a remedy through employment law and the tribunals. There are remedies relating to academic freedom, which, for good historic reason, have involved visitors and continue to do so. As I indicated, there is a class of cases that may not fall into either category and that may give rise to the difficulties that, I accepted, could occur, particularly with regard to human rights legislation.
In that light we certainly will be prepared to look at that area, where there may be a lack of definition that is precise enough to meet the objections made.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I was rather encouraged by the Minister's observation that he could think of no examples that did not betray a degree of ambiguity in this area. Two such cases occurred to me. One arose during my watch as Secretary of State. At one university there was a don who had no students. His courses were advertised—I think it might have been philosophy, but I would not want to put a slur on the subject.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: That is unlikely; it is a rather well subscribed subject.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I do not want to insult any subject, particularly those of the humanities. Let us forget the subject. The don had no students. He was always photographed lounging against pillars as if he was waiting for his students to arrive. There was no redress. That is one reason that led me to try to do something to limit academic tenure. The university could not dismiss him, yet he was using resources that other academics felt should be spent on their courses of philosophy—or whatever it may be. I do not know whether such an issue would ever arise today. No employment tribunal would be involved in such a situation, because the don would have certain rights.
The other example is a little older. It occurred at my own college, Magdalen, at the turn of the last century. The clerical dean at college, Dean Thompson, who was immensely popular with the other college dons, wrote a pamphlet questioning the existence of miracles. The other dons liked him so much that they overlooked it. When he wrote another pamphlet questioning the virgin birth, the dons liked him so much that they kept him still in post. Then he turned to the resurrection. It was only after he had published a pamphlet questioning the resurrection that the visitor appeared—the Bishop of Winchester. He suggested in the mildest terms that it was a little irregular for a clerical dean of Magdalen College not to believe in miracles, the virgin birth or the resurrection, whereupon the dons of the college liked him so much that they kept him on as a history don. He became the most famous historian of the French Revolution. During my time at Oxford the key book was The French Revolution by Thompson.
I do not know whether the adjudicator would deal with such a case; all I know is that the visitor dealt with it marvellously.
Lord Triesman: I never had the opportunity to represent anybody before the Bishop of Winchester, but having heard the noble Lord's account, I greatly regret it. I would probably have won more cases.
I shall say a few words on the two sorts of cases. In the case of the lecturer who had no students, I shall deal with the absence of the students rather than the question of whether anyone took exception to his lounging wherever he lounged. I imagine that after a period he would have been thought to be redundant had it been any other line of work. However, this is not so much a staff complaint as an absence of work. The noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, will recall that it was his government who introduced redundancy as a reason for which academics

111
could be dismissed, even if they had tenure. That was contested hotly for some years but was resolved in the direction that the then government wanted. With great respect, I feel that, with the noble Lord's example, we are looking through the opposite end of the telescope.
As for the miracle of getting away with not believing in miracles, the virgin birth or the resurrection, I do not feel that I could properly comment. It is really not for me. However, people enjoy the right to academic freedom in the United Kingdom because we have sought to protect people in the academic world who have unpopular or unfashionable views. We have tended to think that, on occasion, they will turn out to be an exceptional history don, make a breakthrough in science or whatever else that academic freedom could lead to. That is why we protected it in law, and that is why the system for protecting it was bound to be rather strange. It is such a strange entity, but it is none the less of real importance to the university world. I would be surprised if, in general, people outside in some other form of review were able to deal with the situation as easily as somebody who was content to understand the core of the issue and defend the right of individuals to hold unpopular, unfashionable or anticlerical views.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am not sure whether the dean whom the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, mentioned was the same historian who persisted throughout the 1930s, as women's colleges expanded, in starting every lecture with "Gentlemen, … ". During the war, he was confronted by a lecture theatre composed almost entirely of women. He spied one gentleman at the back and began, "Gentleman, … ".
I do not suggest that such problems are likely to arise in many cases. As I suggested, a small number of ambiguities could arise where employment law is not appropriate. As I said, we are worried that, although the visitor system is seen as archaic with regard to students, it is not seen as archaic with regard to staff.
As the Minister recognises, I was trying to prod the Government and Universities UK to do something about the matter. In the other place, the Minister said clearly:
"The Government do not believe that the status quo is acceptable … There needs to be more work, reflection and thinking within the sector about appropriate vehicles with which to address staff complaints".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee H, 12/2/04; col. 93.]
I moved the amendment to kick the Government into taking action on the issue. I hope that they will take the message. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): If Amendment No. 17 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 18 because of pre-emption.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 21, leave out "matters of academic judgment" and insert "judgments reasonably made as to the academic performance of a student"
The noble Lord said: The amendment explores the meaning of the words "academic judgment" in subsection (2). I like my reinterpretation, but, as ever, the amendment is probing, and I do not want to be hung for the exact words that I have chosen. I hope that it is what is meant by academic judgment, although I failed to find the meaning set out anywhere.
Perhaps, for the convenience of the Committee and because it will apply to all the amendments relating to this part of the Bill to which I speak, I should give the Committee a little background. I come fresh from what I found to be the extremely bruising experience of taking a student whom I helped to mentor through an appeal against dismissal from an undergraduate course. Looking back, I feel that I failed, that the student was failed and that the university concerned behaved abominably. Everybody has ended up bruised and unhappy.
That affair is in the past. I am not trying to revive it and I shall not mention the institution or the course concerned. However, I want to do my best to ensure that the faults that occurred in this procedure or which I see in this procedure would be unlikely in the new system that we are putting in place.
The particular problem that relates to these words is that, on the part of the course concerned, marks had been given. The university appeal procedure clearly said that you were not allowed to question the marks. You were allowed to question only the procedure that had been used to arrive at the marks. But absolutely no information was available to anyone—not to the student or to me—despite repeatedly asking what the procedure was and despite going to lawyers. So it was extremely difficult—I repeat, extremely difficult—to challenge.
In the end, it was necessary to employ a blunderbuss and to hope that one of the bits would hit a vulnerable target. At the very end of the process, we began to get some sort of an answer. Ultimately, it was unchallengeable. The basis on which the marks were given was so obscure that there was no way to establish on what basis they had been given. Under ordinary circumstances, because of those rules, one would just have to admit defeat.
However, the particular circumstances of the student were that she was disabled in a way that made various bits of the course impossible for her to do in the form in which the university required her to do it. Rather than being given something else to do or some way in which she could half complete what she was being asked to do, she was required to sit out in those particular sessions. She was marked zero, but that zero mark counted towards her failure. No deduction was made from the score that she was supposed to have to meet.
Under those circumstances, to say that the mark is "academic judgment" is not right. There are other aspects of that judgment that do not properly count as

113
"academic judgment". To say that a student has scored "x" in a particular paper must in the bare words "academic judgment" bear that meaning. It does not seem to me that that is what it should mean in this Bill. To my mind, in this Bill it should mean what I have put in the amendment. What should be protected is the,
"judgments reasonably made as to the academic performance of a student".
To my mind, other aspects of that judgment were deeply unjust and should not be protected against review by the creature that we are creating in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: In speaking to Amendment No. 17, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. I believe that the words "academic freedom" are liberating, but I am fearful that the words "academic judgment" are a hiding place. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has carefully crafted his amendment in order to get the right turn of phrase by referring to,
"judgments reasonably made as to the academic performance of a student".
As regards this Bill and the whole issue of fees and loans, we will be in the business of value for money. More and more people will be saying, "Am I getting value for money for this course? Is it working out?" I, too, can recall circumstances where a goodly number of people embarked on a course at a certain university.
Three years later, a handful remained on the course and did not get very good degrees. Perhaps something was wrong with the course and the teaching. That would be something appropriate to complain about. The complaint would not necessarily concern one individual with a specific degree at the end, but something is wrong if one sees an abundance of students at one end of the course, but only a handful at the other. Given that, I worry about making the point about one particular student rather than about matters of academic judgment which, as I have said, is some form of hiding place.
In speaking to Amendment No. 18, I repeat my concern about academic judgment acting as a hiding place. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has mentioned, there are disabled students for whom the reason to make the complaint is not made in terms of the academic result; it is not about the work that they may or may not have produced, but about the circumstances in which they are able to perform not being correct. We believe that Amendment No. 18 would flush that out. There would be no hiding place behind academic judgment.
It has been suggested to us that there may be ways in which the Minister can indicate how, perhaps in terms of a code of conduct, the adjudicator will be able to perform when considering disabled students. If that is the case, it would be helpful to have it.
Lord Dearing: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for raising the issue of interpretation in his probing amendment. Several noble Lords may have had experience of students in distress over decisions reached by an institution. I am concerned that the term
114
could be used by a university as a refuge when it did not want to investigate a matter. It would be helpful if the Government could guide the adjudicator into an interpretation which would admit rather than shut out the consideration of a complaint.
I shall give one or two borderline cases. Two concern a course where academics had defined the work. On the basis of that definition of the academic content of the course, two students came at very considerable expense from foreign lands to take the programme. I recall that, at the end of the first term, one found it so distant from what he thought it would be that he went home to South Africa. That cost him a great deal of money. Another student, having travelled from Australia, abandoned a different course.
There was also a case of a student who complained that the lecturer had taken it into his head to say that, given the kind of work on the course, he did not need to turn up. That was put to the student as a matter of the lecturer's academic judgment. In another case, it was alleged that the lecturer told the students the questions that they would face in their final examination. One student did not think that was quite right, but his complaint was not sustained.
It is rather important for the adjudicator, in his interpretation, to be able to take a broad rather than a narrow view of what the term means.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I too should like to record my support for both of these amendments. Perhaps I should declare an interest, having just completed a six-year term serving on the appeals committee at the University of Cambridge. The committee, the Septemviri, is rather misnamed as it includes at least two women rather than seven men.
There is a very real danger that the phrase "academic judgment" could become a secret garden embracing so many areas that it would be impossible for a student to query a judgment. The phrase suggested by my noble friend Lord Lucas is a much better provision that covers what a student may need to complain against; that is, the judgment that is made—it has to be a reasonable judgment—about the performance of the student rather than an overarching academic judgment.
In subjects such as English it is all too easy for a lecturer to retreat into safe territory by saying, "It is simply my judgment that the answer was not satisfactory. I cannot give the criteria or reasons for my decision. I made an academic judgment". If the original lecturer simply stands on this magic academic judgment, it makes it extremely difficult for a student to prove his case, even though he may have got three or four other perfectly competent English specialists to say that his paper was worth a very different mark. Of course, the same is true for the provisions to alter the assessment process for students who have particular handicaps. I hope the Minister will consider carefully my noble friend's suggestion of much more precise wording of what will, and will not, be safe territory for the person against whom the complaint is lodged.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: We must all have some sympathy with the purposes behind this amendment, but it is fatally flawed. It suggests we replace matters of academic judgment with,
"judgments reasonably made as to the academic performance of a student".
Anybody may make a "reasonable judgment of performance", and it is very important in any complaint or appeal procedure that the independence of those who judge the case be secured—but not at the expense of their being informed about what they are judging. You can see the difficulty that can arise, when you consider that a student may feel extremely disappointed that he or she does not get the class of degree to which they aspired.
The process of judging whether the examinations were competently done and executed is one that requires a certain expertise, as well as independence. I do not dispute that we need the independence, but I think it will be fatal if we remove the expertise. I have served as external examiner in a number of universities—the University of Ulster, the University of London, the University of Bristol—and in each case it was a very long process of judging quality. That is, after all, why there is an external eye there, all the way from the initial stage of discussion of examination questions in the light of opportunity afforded, to the final judgment of degree class. If we open this to the thought that it is a reasonable judgment of academic matters, I believe that in the attempt to get an independent eye on it, we lose the question of getting the appropriate level of information and expertise where it is required.
Many of the examples we have heard come from a bygone age. I live in a world in which the amount of information available to students about their courses—how and by whom they will be assessed—is not deficient, but arguably quite excessive, and extremely burdensome to the students concerned. We have to beware adding yet more appeals procedures to the appeals procedures of one sort or another that are already all round the shop. There may be a deft way to do it, but I do not believe that substituting the notion of reasonable judgment for academic judgment will play fair by the people in the business of maintaining quality control in our universities.
We only have one true system of maintaining quality control: the external examiner system. It has been eroded and underfunded for a long time. We have substituted other systems for it, like the late and unlamented TQA, which did not secure quality of teaching. We need to think much more carefully before we move in the direction that this amendment suggests.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I indicated that I would like to comment on Amendments Nos. 17 and 18. The debate so far has demonstrated how thorny this issue of academic judgment is. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, proposes to replace matters of academic judgment with,
"judgments reasonably made as to the academic performance of a student".
116
Ironically, it seemed to me that the very case to which the noble Lord referred might not be affected by this change. There are many cases where it would be legitimate to take into account extenuating circumstances and their effect on performance. For example, it may be necessary to make the very kind of judgment that he was hoping to achieve about a student's probable performance in parts of an assessment where the student was, for example, prevented from competing by either illness or accident. Another example might be where an exam is disrupted by fire or flood or some other event and it would be unreasonable to ask the student to resit. Those are actual examples. I think that to restrict this to actual performance would be potentially to burden adjudicators with matters on which they could not reasonably expect to be able to adjudicate.
I also find myself in disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, whose amendment seems to me to fail to distinguish between the assistance a student might need to take an assessment and the need to undertake the assessment or complete a task which is necessary if that student is to gain an award. For example, a student who is not physically able to undertake a chemistry practical assessment might be aided by an amanuensis, but would have to be able to instruct the assistant precisely in the setting up of the experiment and its conduct. A dyslexic student might be asked to prepare an essay but allowed some aid such as a keyboard or spell-checker or might be given extra time.
In short, I think we have raised several problems that I do not think are addressed by either of the two amendments. There clearly are, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, said, examples that are slipping through the net. But I do not think that either of the two propositions are going to help us in those cases.
Lord Baker of Dorking: This is a very interesting debate. My noble friend Lord Lucas has raised an issue that, if the amendment succeeded, would considerably extend the role of the adjudicator of complaints. At the moment, under Clause 12, the adjudicator deals with,
"an act or omission of a qualifying institution".
This issue takes us into the area of academic judgment, and that, as the noble Baroness said, is a Pandora's box.
I am by no means clear about what is the best solution. However, I remember a case that I had as an MP, more than 20 years ago, which has remained with me. A young woman came to see me who had been studying as a post-graduate for a DPhil. Her subject was the novels of Fanny Burney, an 18th century writer. She did not get a DPhil; she got a BLitt. She was very hurt by that. She claimed that she knew more than the examiner did about the novels of Fanny Burney and asked whether I could help her. I went to the university and put the complaint. It may well be that complaints procedures are better now than they were 20 or 25 years ago. I got absolutely nowhere. The ranks of the profession absolutely closed. I even read a few of the novels of Fanny Burney to see whether I could understand my constituent's case better. I got

117
absolutely nowhere with the vice-chancellor. I was not allowed to meet the examiner or to question the matter at all. That has always rankled with me as I have always felt that I had let down my constituent. I was never satisfied that she had justice, but I could never prove it one way or the other.
All I can say is that, in the future, as the years roll on, once one sets up an adjudication of this sort, that sort of problem will become more and more of an issue for the adjudicator. I think that students will say, "We have an adjudicator. Why cannot we extend it further?", in the way that certain Peers have suggested today. As I said, I have no answer to that, but I think that the Government should think about it quite carefully.
It would be interesting if the Government could collate some statistics on it. In how many cases do university students claim they do not have the right level of degree? I do not know whether such statistics exist. Will this be a huge extra burden? Will more people be excited to do it? It comes down to academic judgment, which is a very fine matter. The claims might be meretricious in most cases, but in some cases they will not be. It is a very difficult and interesting issue and I hope that the Government will reflect on it.
Lord Skelmersdale: It seems to me that this group of two amendments is rather like Gaul. Noble Lords will remember,
"Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres".
The three parts into which this group is divided is the operator under Clause 13 behaving reasonably, academic judgment and disabled rights. They have all been lumped together in the discussion that we have just had.
Therefore, my first question is on reasonableness—what a horrible word, but it will do for this time of night. The department and the Secretary of State are subject, if they behave unreasonably, to judicial review and therefore the Wednesbury test applies. Will the operator, when he or she is created, be subject to the same regime? Also on reasonableness, I am unsure, even after the discussion, what criteria will be used to consider the matter and by whom it will be considered? Will it be the operator again or someone else? Perhaps my noble friend has given this some thought or even the noble Lord, Lord Shutt.
I also have a problem with academic judgment and the complaints thereon. For example, recently I have done a certain amount of work with student nurse placements, which involve the integral teaching and practical development tools of what will become, loosely speaking, their trade. Should complaints on the issue, should they have them, be taken to the new designated operator, as provided for in the Bill, or to the NHS establishment where the placement is completed?
On a similar note, my son undertook a four-year course at university, one year of which was a year in industry. If he had problems, or if another student in the future has problems, where should they raise their complaints in relation to the placement or to treatment
118
while on placement? The Government and myself are keen on the Erasmus scheme which is even worse because that takes us into the far reaches, certainly these days, of eastern Europe. That is a problem.
I am no expert on disability rights, but I believe that the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 covers disabled students in higher education institutions to a greater or lesser extent. I understand that their ultimate recourse is to the courts. One of my noble friends who is not in his place at the moment has a research assistant who came out of a four-year course at university totally unsupported by parents, grandparents or anyone else and ended up with a debt of £30,000. That is under the current system. We shall come to what may happen under the system envisaged in the Bill possibly on Thursday and possibly later on in the month. However, I cannot imagine a student who is already in debt finding the finance to take an institution of higher education, further education or whatever to court.
I accept that many of these matters are likely to be matters of process rather than academic judgment, but even so, surely the Minister of State's comment that they are likely to be qualifying complaints is germane. Of course, ultimately, the reviewer would have to judge the merits of the case. None the less, I believe that SKILL and the RNIB—lobby groups as they are—have a very good point as regards Amendment No. 18. I would accept with them, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, that a student should not be able to complain when he or she has received a low mark for a poor piece of work. But they posit the case that a visually impaired student might have failed an exam because of the university's failure to provide papers in, say, Braille or some other suitable format. I believe that that should be a qualifying complaint.
That leaves me with support for the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and, as I said at the beginning, with questions about the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Triesman: I thank all noble Lords who have so far spoken in this debate for their contributions. I am deeply impressed by the way in which people have brought to the debate their very real experience or knowledge of what has happened to particular students. It is difficult not to be moved by many of the accounts that have been given, and I share that feeling. I therefore welcome the discussion and hope that I shall be able to do justice to it.
As we are all aware, the issue concerns what constitutes academic judgment and how it is to be dealt with. I begin first with Amendment No. 17, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I shall then develop some of the issues that have been raised to discover whether we can see through to the heart of the matter.
After Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Ashton wrote to Lord Lucas about his particular concerns relating to cases of discrimination. I am glad to be able to place on record for Members of the Committee our views of complaints that fall within the remit of the scheme. I believe that that is the best starting point. However, I add

119
an immediate observation of my own. It seems to me that any attempt by any institution to say that its procedures were secret and could not in any circumstances be questioned must inevitably fall within the remit of the scheme. Were that to be the case, it would be impossible for anyone to proceed in any kind of process, which would have to be sufficiently transparent for people to become involved in it.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has two effects. First, it seeks to narrow the exclusion of academic judgment complaints to those relating to, "the academic performance of a student". Secondly, it introduces the notion of judgments having to be made reasonably. I shall deal with the issue of academic judgment head on. Taking first the concept of academic judgment, compared with academic performance, the noble Lord will be aware that traditionally the visitors and the courts have not intervened in matters of academic judgment. This legislation would continue that practice. As matters stand, it would not change the practice. Academic judgment is genuinely difficult to define. I understand why the noble Lord seeks to define the exclusion more narrowly. However, I believe that it risks drawing into the remit of the reviewer matters that are unsuitable.
Before any noble Lord draws the conclusion that I, too, simply for these purposes would choose to hide behind words that are difficult to define, I should say that I strongly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, about the fundamentals of the way in which the system currently works. I know of no institutions that are immune from multiple scrutiny of the marks that are awarded for completed coursework in achieving a degree. If in any particular case, whether or not with a disabled student, there was no mechanism to provide a rigorous check of that matter, I would be deeply alarmed about what had happened in that institution.
I wholly accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, that the external examiner system is probably not as strong or as well staffed as it once was. However, it was and should remain fundamental to the best practice. On examiners' boards, double or multiple marking were the norm in my working experience. As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, quite rightly says, external examiners have an expertise which is vital—even if one goes away and reads the novels oneself later—born of many years of study, reflection, writing and being criticised by one's peers and having to argue one's case. Those are the ways in which we try to ensure that the notion of academic judgment is more sustainable than it would be if a single individual were simply expressing an opinion upon a matter. Indeed, in many cases where the external examiner system was the fundamental basis, there were also moderator systems, in which the external examiners routinely met to make sure that their view across a range of universities in which they were external examiners bore comparison with one another. All those factors are fundamental.
120
Although judgments about a student's academic performance is what is usually meant by academic judgment, there are occasions on which academic judgments are made which are not directly related to the student's academic performance. For example, a student and a lecturer might quite genuinely have a difference of opinion over an academic issue such as a scientific hypothesis, and the student seeks to complain about the lecturer's academic opinions. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would bring such issues within the remit of the scheme. I do not think that that is what he intends, and I think he would accept that it would not be desirable.
I would add one final point, which arose from the very telling account given by the noble Lord about the experience he had and that a student had. I am sure that he would accept that that is the student's account, not the institution's. It would be extremely important in such circumstances to know whether the course content as described in the prospectus would have led someone to conceive of any circumstances in which they might be excluded from a module which was being marked, and awarded a zero mark because they had some difficulty which made it impossible for them to take that module. If they were put in a position where they had a reasonable expectation that they could do the course and they were denied that opportunity, that would plainly be grounds for a complaint. It could not be covered up in any way.
With regard to a lecturer's non-attendance, when students had been led to expect that they would be taught and would have access to teaching—which is, in my view, the norm—I believe that that must be covered by issues of the provision of the service. An institution which was negligent on that matter would be found to be negligent and would have to be found to be negligent.
The judgments must, however, be reasonably made. That is why I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that they would be subject to judicial review.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked whether unreasonable judgments, made unfairly, on a discriminatory basis, would be open to challenge. They certainly would be under the scheme in the Bill. Were that to fail, they could potentially go through to judicial review.
I can reassure noble Lords that students who believe that procedural errors have resulted in unfair decisions would and must have access to the scheme. When students are unhappy with the way in which decisions have been made in relation to their academic performance, institutions should have their own internal procedures for appeals to be made. It is the job of the institution's academic or examination appeals panel to ensure that decisions are made reasonably and in accordance with the institution's procedures. Robust systems within an institution, far more than anything that exists outside, will always be the cornerstone when it comes to ensuring quality in the first instance.

121
The independent reviewer will be able to review complaints where such procedures were faulty or the outcome of the appeal was clearly unreasonable. Where students' complaints are about the academic or examination appeals panel, examples of the type of complaint that will be admitted to the reviewer include where the panel is improperly constituted; where it fails to take account of relevant information provided by the student; where, as my noble friend Lady Warwick has said, some calamity has occurred in the course of the examination which has meant it is very hard for a student to do as well as she or he could; or where it fails to give the student the opportunity to make appropriate representations on his or her behalf. These are complaints that the independent reviewer can consider.
In addition. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was concerned at Second Reading—
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Can the Minister tell us in whose judgment it would be whether it is a question of academic judgment?
Lord Triesman: I will come to that point in a few sentences and I hope that that will lend some coherence to what I have said.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was concerned at Second Reading that some institutions may not have adequate procedures for dealing with student complaints and appeals. I can reassure your Lordships that such issues are also capable of being referred to the reviewer.
I turn now to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. Dame Ruth Deech, who as we all know has been appointed as the independent adjudicator is an academic of enormous experience and an administrator of superb experience. We could have hardly dared hope to have somebody better in the position and more able to make the judgments about how things fall in and out within the guidance that is provided. Along with Michael Reddy, who has been appointed as the deputy adjudicator, she will be in a position to do exactly that.
I will deal briefly with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. The operator of the students complaint system which we believe will be the office of the independent adjudicator will consider unresolved complaints against HE sector institutions. Any complaint should relate to the responsibilities of the institution, so for HE students on placements the respective responsibilities of the institution and the placement provider—which might be an NHS trust for a nursing student, an example that was given earlier—should be set out as clearly as possible in the standard part of the placement arrangements.
These responsibilities will determine the route taken in pursuing the complaint. If it relates to something which the provider is responsible for, then they should complain to the provider. If their complaint is against the HE institution, then that is where they should lodge their complaint if it is not resolved. The student will have recourse to the student complaint scheme,
122
the OIA. The intention is that the guidance documents and the forms that would be available and the publicity that we touched on in an earlier part of our discussion should make those routes very clear and help to guide people through them, as I believe they must.
Turning now to Amendment No. 18, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the important issue of the arrangements that institutions make to meet the needs of disabled students and whether complaints about these arrangements will fall within the scheme.
By way of background, I should first mention that the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, the right honourable Alan Johnson, wrote to the Royal National Institute of the Blind confirming that complaints relating to examination procedures—such as whether an institution has complied with its policy on exam arrangements for disabled students—would be matters of process rather than academic judgment and therefore will fall within the scheme. I hope this gives a degree of reassurance to those who have raised similar points.
In debate on a similar amendment in another place, the Government also committed to look further at this issue. Officials from the Department for Education and Skills subsequently met with RNIB and Skill and confirmed that the Government would be happy to put on the record, through an exchange of correspondence, any particular services, arrangements and adjustments for disabled students that they wanted confirmed as being within the scheme's coverage. I am happy to repeat that commitment to noble Lords today and to commit to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on these issues.
Institutions should have clear procedures setting out the adjustments disabled students can expect to meet their needs. If a student has an unresolved complaint about their institution's compliance with the procedure, it will fall within the remit of the reviewer. That is a reassurance which should give some comfort. No doubt everybody will study the text to make sure if it does or does not.
In that spirit I ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
10 p.m.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: I thank the Minister for responding as he did. We shall have to consider his statement. It is quite interesting that the clause that we are amending is 22 words in length. I dare say that the Minister has taken up a fair amount of Hansard in his remarks, and I wonder whether there is sufficient in the Bill or whether we should fold Hansard into the Bill. We shall think on these matters and may or may not return to them later.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to all who have spoken and particularly to the Minister for that explanation. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, was right in saying that the drafting of my amendment strays too far—and the Minister confirmed that.
I am comforted by some of the things that the Minister said would be included. In the case that I had to deal with, the only written evidence of the student's

123
performance was the marks. There were no backing documents, there was nothing on which to base a judgment and no willingness to discuss the matter. I imagine, under those circumstances, that the independent adjudicator would be happy to have a conversation about the process, and we would not be blocked by a statement that the academic judgment of the institution or the people concerned was that it was unnecessary to provide the student with any information as to how she had done on any particular occasion or the basis on which the marks had been awarded. That is my understanding.
I heard the Minister in his remarks mention the words "judicial review". To my mind, a debt of £30,000 is quite enough for a student, without taking on the same again to run a judicial review. I shall look very carefully at Hansard at the place where the Minister mentions that, because I do not believe that that is a satisfactory road down which to push a student. Let the independent adjudicator be the one who decides whether or not a matter comes under his rubric. That would be helpful.
I shall need to read carefully what has been said, rather than take up more time tonight speculating on what I might decide to do once I have read it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Designation of operator of student complaints scheme]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 23, leave out "body corporate" and insert "person"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 19, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 20 to 27 and Amendments Nos. 29 and 30. Of the batch of amendments, the key one is Amendment No. 29, which would insert in Schedule 1,
"is appointed Higher Education Ombudsman".
The purpose of the group of amendments is to discover why the Government have chosen to introduce an independent adjudicator rather than a fully fledged ombudsman for the higher education sector. We are supported in the amendment by NATFHE and the AUT, and I understand that the NUS have also given its support for the amendment.
We have already touched on the issues under the amendments that I tabled to Clause 12, which suggested the reasons why we favour an ombudsman with a wider remit than the more limited remit of the independent adjudicator. The model being established was proposed as a self-regulating one, to be financed by the university sector itself. It was proposed by the UUK, the employers' voice in the universities, after considerable prodding from the Government, and the question is why the Government have simply backed them in their choice rather than exploring other models.
The advantages of introducing an ombudsman system are straightforward. First, it would be provided outside the university system and financed by the Government, not the universities and, secondly, it would be in line with other ombudsman services in local government, health, financial services and Parliament. Thirdly, the tertiary education sector is already large and is expanding fast, and the FE sector is already using the Parliamentary ombudsman as an arbiter of last resort. Here we are setting up legislation to set up an arbitration system of last resort for universities, but it deals only with student complaints and does not cover the whole sector, because a number of large and influential universities have not signed up to it. That leaves some students still subject to the archaic procedures of the visitor system, and it leaves, as we have seen, the whole problem of staff complaints which are not appropriately handled by employment legislation. Discussion on this issue in Committee in the other place was cut short by time. In his response, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State explained his confidence in the procedures that had been established and paid tribute, as I do, to the board's choice of adjudicator, Ruth Deech. But he did not explain why it was that the Government opted for this limited self-regulating service, rather than for the broader-based ombudsman service. The proposal for an ombudsman model had the widespread support of the general public, students and academic staff. We have a right to know, if I may say so, why the Government prefer this more limited model. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: This seems to be a very sensible set of amendments. I have nothing to add to what the noble Baroness has said, except that the only explanation that I can see for not moving towards an ombudsman is that perhaps somebody in the Treasury thought it was a very clever way to avoid paying half a million pounds. If that was the case, then I urge the Minister to stand up to the Treasury.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has rightly said that the National Union of Students, as well as NATFHE and the Association of University Teachers, support a proposal for an ombudsman. Perhaps I should also point out that the NUS worked very closely with Universities UK in creating the office of the independent adjudicator and establishing it on a voluntary basis.
Perhaps I can remind the Committee that the proposal for an independent forum for reviewing those student complaints that have exhausted an institution's internal complaints procedures emerged from the recommendations of the Nolan report and were supported by the 1997 report by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. Universities UK and the Standing Conference of Principals consulted extremely widely on these proposals so I warmly welcome the Government's decision to legislate to build on the self-regulatory framework that the sector had already established and which is operating with great success.

125
The Office of the Independent Adjudicator has won the wide support of the sector. It seems preferable that the Government should choose to build on something that has established a successful track record rather than to bring forward an entirely different scheme that would need to seek wide support. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator will be a real benefit to students and to institutions.
Perhaps I can correct a point that was made by both noble Lords. It was in fact Universities UK that pressed the Government to put a statutory framework onto the voluntary scheme in order to address the very real problems that have been identified in this House in relation to the role of the visitor and to establish a more consistent approach, which several noble Lords have urged. Universities UK very much pressed the Government and I am delighted that they moved swiftly to incorporate in the Bill the means of introducing this scheme. The statutory framework requiring all higher education institutions in England and Wales to participate will ensure a much greater degree of equality for all students. Although the OIA is not a regulator, it can make recommendations about how HEIs might handle complaints internally. I think that this is the right approach and that it is the right tool for the job. I commend the amendment.
Lord Triesman: The amendments suggest that the Secretary of State should appoint a person, which could be either an individual or a company, rather than a body corporate as the operator. As we have said, and as my noble friend Lady Warwick has just said, the operator that we intend to designate is the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. The OIA has been set up as a private not-for-profit company limited by guarantee and it is a corporate body. Its board consists of representatives from the higher education sector and the National Union of Students as well as a number of independent members.
During debate in another place, and as proposed by Amendment No. 29, there were calls for an alternative approach: an individual higher education ombudsman who would be appointed by the Secretary of State. There are two reasons why we favour our approach to that of an individual ombudsman. First, the Secretary of State is not involved in the appointment of members of the OIA board. Before the operator is designated, we will require that its board of directors should have a majority of independent members. In Schedule 1 we have said in the conditions to be met by the operator of the scheme that the body corporate is a suitable person to be designated the operator. This would include the majority of independent members. This ensures both independence from the Secretary of State and that sector interests do not dominate. Secondly, the Secretary of State will have no say in the independent reviewer who looks at cases. We believe that these arrangements will give greater confidence to institutions and students regarding the independence of the scheme than a Secretary of State appointed ombudsman.
126
However, that is not to say that the OIA and the reviewers will not operate in a manner similar to other ombudsman schemes. No doubt there will be much common practice. Indeed, organisations such as the National Union of Students have previously used the term "ombudsman" as a general characterisation of the arrangements that we are proposing—of which they are also fully supportive—and which this legislation is designed to underpin. They have supported it in the sense that they took part in establishing it. I congratulated them on that earlier.
I hope Members of the Committee will accept that we share a commitment to ensure the independence of the student complaints scheme and will feel able to withdraw the amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said, it is a case of building on something that works and to which we should give a real chance.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. I accept that the office is newly established so we have yet to see how well it works, but we have every expectation that it will work very well. I repeat my tribute to Dame Ruth Deech, who has been appointed as the independent adjudicator. I certainly have much faith in her acting in that position.
I shall withdraw the amendment, but in doing so I suspect that in the course of time we may well find that we need to have a broader ombudsman working in this sector. I come back to the points that I made earlier; namely, that the borderline between what is further education and higher education will become increasingly blurred. We shall have to find some sort of system to cover staff complaints as well as student complaints. It may be appropriate, as in the health service and local government, that we have a broad office of ombudsman to deal with these matters. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 26 not moved. ]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Conditions to be met by operator of student complaints scheme]:
[Amendment No. 27 not moved. ]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 24, line 9, at end insert ", and shall not in any way be connected with an institution subject to the student complaint scheme"
The noble Lord said: This amendment is extremely badly drafted so I hope that I can briefly say what I mean by it, which is that the independent adjudicator, or rather the body corporate, should not be a creature of the universities that it sets out to sit in judgment over.
The Minister said that the board should have a majority of non-university people. That is not enough. Control, in terms of control of a public company, is generally reckoned to be 30 per cent of the shares. In the ordinary dynamic of the hoard, I reckon that control is about the same. If you have a board of nine

127
people, four of whom are university appointees, you will very rarely find the five going against the four. This needs to be a board that can stand up screaming to the universities when the adjudicator has dealt them a painful blow or two. If we have a board which is in hock to the universities, my fear is that that will not happen. A simple majority is just not enough. It needs to be a board which is properly independent of universities. I beg to move
10.15 p.m.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: It is necessary that the board is wholly independent of any institution in which it is investigating a complaint. That goes without saying, but it would be a somewhat different matter to say that it should be wholly independent of the entire sector. Even if we move away from the contentious area where academic judgment may be involved, much more routine and more common matters that require no academic judgment—for example, complaints that student residences were not adequately heated or that security on campus was not up to what it might have been—may, nevertheless, reasonably need people who have some experience of what campus life is like nowadays, what is normally provided in student residences and the like. So, I am slightly puzzled at the suggestion that the board should be wholly independent of the HE sector, as opposed to the institution against which a complaint is brought—with which I fully agree.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I have put my name to the amendment and I endorse the arguments made by the noble Lord. It is important that the adjudicator's office should be independent of the institution. The noble Lord has admitted that the exact phraseology that he has used may not necessarily be exactly correct, but the amendment states that the adjudicators,
"shall not in any way be connected with an institution subject to the student complaint scheme".
That degree of independence is necessary.
Baroness Seccombe: We support the principle of the amendment which is important for two reasons—that we have both knowledge and lack of bias. What criteria would be used in the selection of adjudicators under this provision and would they receive any specific training?
Lord Triesman: I was intrigued by the idea that if there was a board of nine, of which four were from the universities, those four would be likely to agree with each other. That falls wholly outside my experience.
Thus far, we have covered the first steps that have been taken in setting up the current arrangements. However the OIA is now up and running and we believe that it has to be independent and that its board of directors is vital to the credibility of the scheme. The Secretary of State will have the power to designate a body corporate as the operator, which must be "a suitable person". In order to be judged suitable, I can assure noble Lords that the Secretary of State will
128
require that the operator can demonstrate full independence. We would expect the operator seeking designation to have a majority of independent members on its board. It is probably true that as long as there is a genuine majority—and it is often unlikely that everyone else will stick together in one position—the body is unlikely to be towed around as an individual group by the universities.
I can understand the concern that the OIA's current board does not meet that requirement and that one might wonder why it has been designated as the operator. However, I can reassure the Committee that the OIA board has agreed that it will move to the new position before it seeks designation from the Secretary of State. The change will have been made. The board is currently in the process of increasing the number of independent members and is considering reducing the number of representative members so that an independent majority is fully achieved. I hope that that will encourage the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I do not agree with the argument that no members of the body corporate should have connections with qualifying institutions. It is important that the sector has a degree of representation on the board, which implies connections to higher education institutions. What is crucial is that they do not dominate; I fully understand the feeling behind that view. The process for appointment will be independent; it will meet the criteria that we would now expect of independent appointment processes, of which there are a good many that are routinely discussed in the Chamber, to which the Nolan principles have been applied.
I have probably already made all the points that I should about Dame Ruth Deech and her immediate colleague Mike Reddy. Those are good initial independent appointments. They show the tenor in which everyone intends to proceed. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: What the Government intend is certainly in the direction for which I was hoping and I am happy to bow to their greater judgment as to the exact structure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved. ]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Conditions to be met by student complaints scheme]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 25, line 21, at end insert—
Guidance
Condition B(1) is that the scheme shall include guidance for the conduct of internal procedures for the review of complaints, and for the terms of such procedures, and shall prohibit the placing by such procedures of any limitations on access to the scheme."
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 32. Amendment No. 31 arises from the requirement that students should have been through the procedures laid down for the individual institution before they can have access to the independent adjudicator. Under those circumstances, there should be some degree of connection between the two sets of procedures. To start with the back end of the amendment, there should be nothing about an institution's internal procedures that make it difficult to reach the independent adjudicator.
So far as the first part of the amendment is concerned, I hope that we will have an independent adjudicator who feels able to spread good practice among universities.
One problem I had with the case to which I referred was that the university concerned, immediately on telling the student concerned that it intended to dismiss her from her course, banned all her tutors from talking to her and said that they could not help her in any way to understand what had gone wrong or to make a reasonable judgment of what she should therefore do next by way of her career or otherwise, unless and until she abandoned all appeal procedures. In fact, having now reached the point where she has abandoned all appeal procedures, it still will not let her talk to any of her tutors.
As I said, that ended extremely unhappily. One reason for that is that the course that she was on is one where her tutors are likely to have an effect on her future career. She should have been studying something sensible, such as history, where all the students go off to be merchant bankers. Unfortunately, the academics on the course that she chose are in close contact with the people who are likely to employ her afterwards. Being a talented individual, she wishes to pursue that course.
So I am very concerned that we should have some mechanism to deal with such bad practice. It seems to me that the best way is to have someone who understands good practice able to pass that good practice down to the institutions—especially, of course, when a complaint comes through and it is clear that something has been wrong with the institutional practices below.
I have expressed that in the language of guidance; it should probably not be that formal. I want to ensure that the independent adjudicator feels that he has the power and position to make suggestions and do whatever is necessary in the context of university structures to spread good practice and indicate that unless individual institutions' complaints procedures comply with a reasonable set of criteria, the complaints that reach the adjudicator are more likely than not to fail because the student has been badly dealt with beforehand. As I said, that goes back to the difficult experiences through which I have been.
Amendment No. 32 is simply a suggestion. It is based on the ordinary experience: if you go to court and lose, you pay more than if you win. I do not see why institutions that neither lose cases nor produce
130
students who have been badly done by should pay as much as those that produce a stream of students with complaints that are upheld. I certainly would not dream of pressing the amendment if it did not appeal to the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Dearing: Perhaps I may take the opportunity to raise a matter on Amendment No. 31. so that peradventure I could return to it on Report. I am particularly concerned not to limit severely access to the adjudicator by a complainant at an institution where there is no access to a visitor, or where it is very limited, and where internal procedures having been exhausted the only resort is to the courts. A student simply cannot afford to take a case to the courts.
In dealing with such a case, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, said to a Member of the other place in a letter of 5 February this year that the Government agree that it is inequitable that there should be access from some institutions but not for others. That is particularly so when the institution has no provision, not only for a visitor, but for any external person whatever, and all cases are handled in-house.
I hope that as a matter of practice rather than through legislation the adjudicator will be encouraged to take a lenient attitude to considering cases where it seems that perhaps the procedures have not been entirely fair, and where a case, although it is out of time, has been rumbling on—the one that I have in mind has done so for several years and has still not gone away from my e-mail. Perhaps the adjudicator would be prepared, provided that a case was supported by one, or perhaps two, Members of Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales, exceptionally to consider the matter.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I have enormous sympathy with the aims of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in that all universities should have student complaints procedures. However, I would like to know whether the intention of the amendment is that all the procedures that universities have been required to construct over a number of years must now be revisited.
I had taken it that in this construction we aimed to create the apex of a system whose infrastructure was already in place. Who is to say that every bit of that infrastructure is as good as it should be? However, in my experience, student complaints procedures are now ubiquitous and elaborate, possibly over-elaborate. If the Office of the Independent Adjudicator is there, any procedure constructed under existing guidance and requirements will be found out if inadequate. I do not believe that we need to rebuild the whole infrastructure.
The same goes for the handling of student disability, where, in my experience, for 25 years universities have used the sorts of procedures that have been discussed. They are now very much in the hands of disability advisers. Negotiations are conducted with students who declare a disability before they come on campus, so that one knows what adjustments are needed, and so that they can be provided. There is a problem about undeclared disability. I do not think that institutions

131
can prepare themselves to deal with a disability if it is not disclosed either upon application or, quite often, until a late stage. So far as I am aware, where a student is disabled and discloses it at the admissions process, every institution is required to build that in. That includes time allowances on assessment. Similarly, complaints procedures are now there.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Triesman: I start with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. It can be dealt with relatively rapidly. It will up to the scheme to decide when it wants to lift the time limit. There will be exceptional cases in which it may wish to do so, but, by definition, exceptions are exceptional, and it is hard to build the legislation to reflect that. The OIA can do that. Anything or everything can be put to the OIA, and it is for the OIA to decide whether to exclude it, even if it is clouded in history and e-mails
The amendments would add another three conditions to the minimum conditions that would apply. I shall deal with guidance first. I agree that getting the internal complaints procedures of universities and other institutions up to standard in the first place would alleviate many of the problems that we are trying to deal with and reduce the need for appeals. In some circumstances, we could probably avoid the problems altogether. So, I understand the noble Lord's desire for a scheme that includes guidance about the conduct of internal complaints procedures. However, it is for individual institutions to determine their own procedures for handling student complaints. We have recognised in other contexts and emphasised that they are independent, autonomous institutions. In devising their own procedures, they need to take account—most of them already do—of guidance issued by sectoral representative bodies and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may wish to note that the QAA has issued a code of practice on student complaints and academic appeals. I would be happy to send it to him, so that he can see whether it deals with the issues that he has raised. The code sets out clear guidance to institutions on handling student complaints and, although there may be a case for the experience of the OIA informing future development of that guidance, it does not seem sensible to duplicate the QAA guidance.
When dealing with a student's complaint, the independent reviewer can also make specific recommendations to the higher education institution about the effectiveness of its internal procedures. Where appropriate, we would expect the reviewer to set out aspects of the procedures that were flawed and say how they might be improved. That would be useful guidance. The reviewer may also make general observations about the institutions' complaints procedures in the annual report, and that will be useful guidance to the sector as a whole because it will be available to the sector as a whole.
132
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, also suggests that the scheme should ensure that institutions do not prohibit students from accessing the operator's scheme for reviewing student complaints. I assure the noble Lord that it will do so. Clause 15(1) requires the institution to comply with any obligation imposed upon it by the scheme. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 requires that the operator must provide a scheme for the review of qualifying complaints that meets all of the conditions in Schedule 2. In order to comply with that requirement, the operator of the scheme will have to ensure that all qualifying complaints are capable of being referred to it. That is also in Schedule 2. The operator will need to place an obligation on the institutions to that effect, and we anticipate that that would be in the rules of the scheme. In the unlikely event that higher education institutions made it a contractual term that students were not to refer complaints to the OIA, they would be in breach of their duty. They cannot do that.
The noble Lord should also be reassured that, under the voluntary arrangements currently operated by the OIA, participating institutions are required to issue a completion letter to students when the institution's procedures have been exhausted. The letter must provide information on how to get access to the OIA, if the student remains dissatisfied with the handling of the complaint. The student will know when the process has come to an end and what steps can be taken beyond it. That ensures that students are clear about the routes of redress.
Amendment No. 32 would mean that the operator should charge fees in relation to the outcome of the case. I can understand the amendment. The Bill does not prescribe how fees payable by institutions will be apportioned. That gives flexibility to the operators to decide on a fair and reasonable fee structure while preventing the operator charging excessive fees above the costs that are incurred. It is not a profit-making organisation. That kind of flexibility is already there.
We understand that the OIA is also considering a fee structure that might be introduced at a later point, which includes a mixture of a fee based on the size of institutions plus a fee per complaint referred from the institution. That is another flexibility in the charging system. So those kinds of options are open. I suspect that, in due course, the scheme will be able to codify them in a way that should be helpful.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for that explanation, which, again, I shall read carefully. As usual, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, is right. Most institutions—certainly all my academic colleagues to whom I talked in this place when I was having difficulties—said that the schemes that they operate would not run into those difficulties. None the less, it is extremely difficult to know what to do when you run into something where the documentation is all there, but what is happening in practice is a travesty. There does not seem to be any way in which this can be made to work better at the moment.

133
The Minister has made it clear that there will be enough feedback from the independent adjudicator. Should such problems occur in the future, there is some hope that they will get picked up and cleared up. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Duties of designated operator of student complaints scheme]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 27, line 32, at end insert —
"() In relation to the requirements set out in sub-paragraph (2), the identities of the individual parties involved must be anonymised."
The noble Baroness said: At this hour I shall not detain Members of the Committee for long. I apologise for the wording of Amendment No. 33. I had asked for the wording to be changed from "rather must be anonymised"—I am not sure that anonymised is a word that appears in any English dictionary—to "should not be revealed". Somehow, the gremlins got in and I am afraid that the amendment appeared as it was originally sent to me.
I am moving this amendment on behalf of the Association of University Teachers. Its main purpose is to amend Schedule 3, which relates to the duties of the adjudicator in relation to requirements of the annual report. The amendment would ensure that in the annual report the names of all individuals involved in any arbitration procedure should not be revealed.
University staff and the AUT have very strong concerns at the apparent lack of thought in the Bill about the impact on and implications for those staff who are directly affected by or implicated in cases that are referred to the adjudicator. Whether we like it or no, in any such adjudication the full facts of the complaint will inevitably be aired. We assume that the adjudication will therefore involve hearings, written evidence and other details of the original complaint, including the names of those involved.
That will mean that the annual report, which has to include information about the complaint itself and the decisions and recommendations made, will also potentially include details of named individuals. That provides considerable scope for someone's reputation to be damaged and for potentially groundless complaints to be repeated in an important public document.
We are asking therefore that the names of the individual staff involved should not be revealed in the annual report so as to protect their reputations, professional credibility and employment rights. Parliament will still be able to hold the adjudicator to account, but without damaging the staff involved. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Over recent weeks, we have had quite a lot of exchanges on this subject in regard to the medical profession, which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, will recall. I cannot see any good reason why an annual report—or, indeed, any report—of this particular organisation should name and shame, so to speak. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is absolutely right. It could get into the press and could do great damage, not only to staff, as she mentioned, but also to students.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I strongly support this amendment. Indeed, it may not go quite far enough. I think that I am more aware of the possible damage caused to students than to staff. If names of either party were revealed, it would lead to immediate attention of the sort that will spread an account of the case that may not cover all the nuances. However, one has to recognise that where a case is thought to be lurid or interesting, because they imagine that they have an unqualifiedly good case, there will be a temptation on the part of one or both parties to reveal the name of the other party. In addition to anonymity in the report, it may be as well to consider whether those who bring complaints should not have to agree not to reveal the name of the other party or the details of the case.
Lord Triesman: The amendment proposes that individual parties should not be named in the designated operator's annual report. Of course the parties concerned are students and the governing bodies are the institutions. I can assure noble Lords that we agree that the operator should not name individual students in its annual report. However, we do believe that the reviewer should be able to comment on the extent to which the governing body of an institution has followed the reviewer's recommendation. This would involve naming an institution. The amendment would prevent the reviewer from, for example, highlighting in its annual report an institution which has not complied with its rulings. We do not want to limit the reviewer in that way.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a degree of public accountability for their response to decisions is important to the success of a non-binding scheme of this kind. I can also assure noble Lords that such practice is common in other ombudsman-type schemes. For example, the Local Government Ombudsman names individual local authorities and councils, but does not name individuals. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education has made it clear in its guidance that it will only ever publish cases in an anonymised form—I believe that the word does exist, and I am now the second person to use it. All correspondence between the OIA and the parties to a complaint will be treated in confidence and only shared between the parties involved.
I hope that that explanation gives a reassurance about the way the reviewer will treat individuals involved in complaints, and makes clear the importance of the reviewer being able to report on

135
institutions not complying with the scheme. In that light, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank all noble Lords who have supported me on this amendment and I also thank the Minister for his response. It was a cheering response and made it clear that in these particular instances, the names of individuals will not be revealed. Obviously we agree that it is absolutely right that institutions should be named. Given those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 19 agreed to.
Lord Grocott: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at fifteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Civil Partnership Bill [H.L.]
(First Day)
Monday, 10 May 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, I will remind your Lordships about two points of procedure: noble Lords will speak standing and the House has agreed that there will be no Divisions in Grand Committee. Unless, therefore, 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 for 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Civil partnership]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1 line 4, leave out "relationship" and insert "contract"
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may begin by expressing my appreciation to Ministers for having arranged a briefing meeting on what is undoubtedly an extremely complex and technical matter and for providing us with some briefing material. This has proved helpful.
As I mentioned at Second Reading, the view on this side of the Committee is that this should be a free vote issue. My right honourable friend Mr Michael Howard has made it clear that we will have a free vote on the issue both in this House and in another place. I was not clear—I do not believe the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, responded to the point at Second Reading—whether the same situation applied to the Government Benches; or, indeed, the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps that might be clarified.
I must apologies to some extent because many of our amendments are simply in the form of "leave out" this line or "leave out" this clause. After 33 years' experience of the procedure in another place, I rather hanker after the process where the stand part debate on a clause takes place automatically, whereas in your Lordships' House one has to ask to leave out the clause concerned. That does not imply necessarily that one disagrees with it; it is simply a means of seeking to establish the precise meaning and intention of a clause. So there is no automatic implication that the fact that we are seeking to leave something out means that we are against it; on the other hand, we may find at later stages that it means exactly that.
We need to proceed through a series of extremely complicated issues, many of which are concerned with social security and tax rather than other aspects of the Bill or its central purpose. It is not unusual to complain from the Opposition Benches that what ought to be on the face of the Bill is not there but in regulations and so on. With regard to a large amount of the content of this Bill, that is certainly not the case; there is a most extraordinary degree of detail. Indeed, it seems almost to recast the whole of existing legislation with regard to marriage into a form applicable to the Bill. On the other hand, as the committee on delegated legislation pointed out, the provisions with regard to social security are extremely wide and the provisions with regard to tax—an issue we shall come to on a later amendment—have previously not appeared.
As to the amendment, the opening paragraphs of Clause 1 states:
"A civil partnership is a relationship between two people of the same sex ("civil partners")",
and so on. It seems to us that the word "relationship" is inappropriate for two conflicting reasons. First, it may be that a relationship already exists between two people and a civil partnership will not necessarily alter that fact, although it may of course follow after it. Secondly, the kind of relationship is not specified and could be one that is not a civil partnership. The clause as it stands states that,
"A civil partnership is a relationship",
and it seems to us that the word "contract" would be more appropriate in the present circumstances, particularly given the complicated and legal specifications which appear in subsequent clauses. It is also unclear, for example, whether a civil partner is or is not a spouse, but that is another point that we may pursue later. The amendment seems to be entirely appropriate. I hope that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I join the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in thanking the Government for their helpful background briefing. Our party is committed to supporting the Bill. Except where personal conscience otherwise dictates, we shall express that support collectively in any Division.
I should apologise for my absence at Second Reading, but it was for a very agreeable reason. I had the honour of being elected, for some reason, as a fellow of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia. As I shall speak only once for a few minutes today and as I was not at Second Reading, I shall make one or two other points. First. I am delighted that my Private Member's Bill has borne fruit in the form of the Government's admirable Bill. Secondly, I regret that Lord Williams of Mostyn is not alive and here today, because, as Robin Cook's memoirs show again and again, they were both particular supporters of the idea of civil partnership. Gareth Williams made that clear to me in a diplomatic way.
The Bill is well constructed and well drafted. I shall certainly act as a midwife to ensure its speedy enactment to protect one of the most vulnerable

GC 3
minorities in society. It is a pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in charge of it, as, unlike me, she is a great expert on family law. However, I regret that the Bill does not protect opposite-sex couples who are unmarried in the way that it protects same-sex couples. Although I shall oppose other ways of trying to widen the Bill, I shall explain why that omission is regrettable.
In 1995, the Supreme Court of Canada had to consider whether there was unjustifiable discrimination in Canadian law between unmarried heterosexual couples and married couples. By a clear majority, significantly led by its two women members, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé and Beverley McLachlin, the Supreme Court decided that there was no justification for treating unmarried heterosexual couples less favourably in law than heterosexual married couples. Both of the leading majority judgments emphasised that women in particular tend to be the victims of not being able to persuade their partners to marry them and to give them the full protections that they would otherwise have. They explained in ways to which I do not wish to devote time today why they considered that there was a denial of equal protection.
It was the judgment in a case called Miron and Valliere v Trudel, where the court decided that there had been a breach of the charter of rights, that led the legislator in Canada to begin to reform the country's cohabitation law so as to make it possible for unmarried heterosexual couples to be protected in the same way that married heterosexual couples.
Although I well understand why the Government cannot possibly carry out those reforms in time to get this Bill through, I very much hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the Government will put their weight behind law reform in that area and will not simply educate unmarried heterosexual couples about the fact that there is no such thing as common-law marriage protected in law. That seems to me to be a really pressing reform.
However, I do not think it right or sensible to use these proceedings to carry out general law reform. It seems to me that we need to confine reform to the mischief with which the Bill seeks to deal—that is, the mischief that homosexual couples cannot marry and are unprotected in a variety of ways, especially in relation to their property rights.
It is because the principles on which the Bill is based concern the loving, continuous and, it is hoped, permanent relationships between same-sex couples that I think the amendments that we shall consider later are misconceived when they seek to treat other relationships in the same way. I understand the arguments. If the Bill were conceived of simply as a property Bill, there would be a good deal to be said for widening it in that way. But, in my view, the Bill rightly concentrates on the continuing loving relationships which are analogous to those of heterosexual couples—especially those who marry. Therefore, I do not consider it sensible to support that widening, although no doubt there will be a debate on one part of it.
GC 4
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, has not yet scrutinised the Minister's compatability statement to see whether it is entirely compatible, and I have no idea what I and my colleagues will, in due course, say about that. But—we shall see what my colleagues think—I should have thought that there was at least an argument for requiring the Government to justify the different treatment maintained between unmarried and married heterosexual couples and, for that matter, between gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples.
I turn briefly to the first amendment, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. One answer to that amendment was given in the same Supreme Court case in Canada, where Justice L'Heuvreux-Dubé said the following. It is the only quotation to which I want to refer now but it is quite telling:
"In my view, the decision of whether or not to marry can, indeed, be one of the most personal decisions an individual will ever make over the course of his or her lifetime. It can be as fundamental, as momentous, and as personal as a choice regarding, for instance, one's citizenship or even one's religion. Although certain rights and obligations follow from each one of these three diverse choices, it does not render any of these choices justice to reduce them to a question of contract. I highly doubt, for instance, that people enter the institution of marriage because it strikes them as offering an attractive package of contractual rights and obligations. By the same token, people who make a conscious decision not to subscribe to the institution of marriage may very well be motivated by very personal beliefs which have nothing whatsoever to do with the contractual rights and obligations that incidentally attach to that status".
In so far as Amendment No. 1 is designed to define a civil partnership as a contract rather than as a relationship involving a change of status, I know that that is not the intention behind the movers of the amendment, but I believe that turning them into contracts downgrades the loving, committed relationships of homosexual couples. It runs against the purpose of the Bill, which is to recognise and celebrate the validity of same-sex relationships.
Amendment No. 1 may be a paving amendment to achieve a wider change dealing with siblings and other home-sharers, enabling them to enter into a civil partnership, and other amendments seem to do that. For the reasons I have given we would not support that. Family law is based on bundles of rights and responsibilities, not on contractual obligations. In my view, a civil partnership is not to be treated as a contract. A contract analogy is unsuitable. I hope I have explained our general approach to the Bill and why we cannot support the amendment.
3.45 p.m
Lord Alli: There seems to me to be two ways to approach the Bill. The first is to downgrade the nature of civil partnerships to a series of contracts; and the second is to extend its eligibility beyond acceptable limits. The amendment deals with a downgrade. I am disappointed in the amendment, particularly given the Bill's warm welcome by the noble Baroness at the Dispatch Box at Second Reading. I equally was fulsome in my praise of the party opposite and the changes that have happened in the party that find us all in the same place.

GC 5
The amendment concerns me because it takes away some of the shine from that speech. It is inevitably saying that a loving, committed relationship should be downgraded into a contract. It removes the validity that many of us are seeking in our relationships—the recognition that many gays and lesbians are looking for in terms of the state—to a mere contract.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said,
"I am reconciled to it because the central issue is, what is love?".—[Official Report, 22/4/04; col. 419.]
I would argue that love is not found in a contract, but love is borne of a relationship I hope the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tebbit: Unless I am suffering with a lapse of memory, which is quite possible because my mind goes back to an event some 48 years ago, when my wife and I were married we entered into a contract. We did not think that debased the relationship, which has endured for the past 48 years. I should like to give my support to the amendment.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): Bearing in mind the tenor of the debate we have just had, it might be right if I take a little time to clarify why the Government chose to express the legislation in terms of a relationship as opposed to a contract, and indeed to take up a few of the questions asked. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, first in relation to the commitment of the Bill, that this is a government Bill. It has the whole-hearted support of the Government and it is expected that those who sit on our Benches will fully support it.
Perhaps I may just comment on the absence of Lord Williams of Mostyn. I warmly concur with the remarks made because it is a great tragedy for us that he is no longer with us. I know that this Bill would have given him more than a modicum of pleasure.
It is clear that the purpose of the amendment goes to the heart of what the Government seek to do in the Bill. As this is the first amendment, I should be grateful if I could take a little time to explain why we see this as so important. It is the intention of the Government, in bringing the Bill to the House, to allow same-sex couples to gain legal recognition of their relationship. Civil partnerships would be a new legal entity, and the Bill provides us the opportunity to set out clearly what we hope to achieve by it.
I accept straightaway that a marriage is a contract, as the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said, but marriage is also an expression of a relationship. It has been acknowledged for many hundreds of years. What same-sex couples seek now is an acknowledgement of their relationship, not, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, says, simply a recognition of a series of contracts. At Second Reading, we heard of many difficulties that same-sex couples can face. They face them because their long-term, mutually supportive relationships are, at the moment, invisible in law. They have chosen to share their lives together, emotionally and financially, separately from other family ties, but as same-sex couples are unable to marry. That is the acknowledgement that we have to make.
GC 6
Of course, there are those who find such relationships to be anathema and believe that they should not exist. They may even go so far as to suggest that they are an abomination. However, we are talking about an acknowledgement of those relationships and the humanity inherent in them.
The formation of a civil partnership would be a very serious commitment for those who chose to enter into it. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said at Second Reading that civil partnerships should come with a health warning. I respectfully agree. Registering as civil partners of each other would mean that the couple would accept onerous responsibilities that were not easily excused. We are not talking about an arrangement or relationship that should be entered into lightly. For example, the ending of civil partnerships could occur only by death, dissolution or annulment. In the case of dissolution, responsibilities do not end there; questions of financial support will often continue.
The rights and responsibilities are those set out in the Bill. There is no second option to legal recognition for same-sex couples; there is no "civil partnership-lite", with fewer duties and obligations for which people can opt. It is not a pick-and-mix affair. Couples who choose the relationship and its legal consequences are highly unlikely to do so unless they have good reason to believe that their lives would remain closely entwined.
Lord Tebbit: How does one annul a relationship? I thought that one could only annul a contract.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: One can annul the registration.
Lord Tebbit: No, the relationship.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The relationship is what becomes registered. If one wishes to get out of the legal consequences that the state now seeks to imply by virtue of that registration, the first option is to annul it. In that instance, it should never have been formed in the first place due to a fundamental flaw, meaning that it was a nullity and was not capable of being recognised in law. For example, if someone is already married, fails to declare it and then enters into a civil partnership, the civil partnership never existed; it was a nullity. The other option is to dissolve the partnership, there being grounds set out for the basis of dissolution. Those are the two issues.
I see the noble Lord smiling, but I should say to him that the matter is not one of humour or mirth for those who wish not only to enter into the partnerships, but to have their relationships honoured.
Lord Tebbit: The noble Baroness knows that I was not laughing at that; she knows perfectly well that I was laughing at her efforts to get round the issue of whether one can annul a relationship or whether the relationship changes, when the partnership is entered into, into something that is a contract. I was laughing at her difficulties.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I acknowledge the noble Lord's right to find amusing anything he pleases.

GC 7
I do not share that amusement, but there we are. In the Government's view, a civil partnership is a legal relationship which is formed when two people register their names as civil partners of each other. It is that simple but solemn procedure which brings a civil partnership into being. By taking the step of entering into that relationship the couple would gain rights and undertake responsibilities which are set down by the law, not chosen by agreement between them.
We do not see that relationship as being based on a contract. It is a fundamental part of a contract that you can put anything in that you like and have any limitations you like. You can cut it and turn it any way you wish. That is not what we propose here. For those who enter into this relationship and then have their agreement to so enter registered, there will be state-identified consequences which they cannot get out of. That is very clear, and that is the difference.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the Minister. Does she agree—this might be helpful to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—that in the old days there was something called an action for breach of promise to marry, as in, "I've promised to marry you and I break the promise and you sue me for breach of contract"? That was a contract to marry. However, in a civil marriage the position is that the registration of the marriage is a registration of evidence of the relationship, not of a contract. The contract has been entered into by being registered but the registration is the act which is then annulled if the marriage breaks down. To the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that may seem like a legal nicety but I wonder whether I am right in saying that that is approximately the position in family law, including marriage law.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It is. The Government are fully committed to explaining to people who wish to enter into a civil partnership what it is they are signing up to. Indeed, there is an argument that says we should be much clearer right across the board on the implications for both opposite-sex and same sex-couples who wish to formalise their relationships.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the Minister for giving way. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and, indeed, to the Minister, I am very confused. Surely, the contract can be drawn up in the same way as the legal registration will be drawn up and would be prescribed in the same way as the registration is prescribed. As regards the contract being cut whichever way one would like, if there are to be regulations for drawing up the registration, can there not be the same regulations for drawing up the contract? I do not understand how a contract and a legal registration differ as there can be a legal registration of a contract, or am I completely wrong? I should like clarification.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have been very clear that the whole point of this provision is for same sex couples to be able to register their relationship; that they are in this relationship and that they intend to be
GC 8
bound to each other. That happens at the point of registration. Once there is registration, the legal consequences of that registration are all those things which are contained in the Bill. The noble Baroness says it is a contract. We say that it is a recognition and registration of the reality of relationships.
The breach of the terms of the registration may be brought into question. Of course, there are issues as to the way in which one can get out of the relationship; that is, by annulment, dissolution of the registration, and so forth. However, the acknowledgement that this is a valid relationship is at the very core of what the Bill seeks to do. Failure to acknowledge that these relationships are valid is the cause of much pain and distress over the years as anything else. If we were simply to refer to this as a contract without acknowledging the inherent nature of the relationship which brought it into being, we would do a great disservice to all those who seek the acknowledgement.
Therefore, I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and, indeed, of those opposite to downgrade—I use the word adopted by my noble friend Lord Alli—the relationship to a contract. But the Government hold firmly to the view that that would not be appropriate, and we do not think that we can accept the amendment.
4 p.m
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that what he entered into 48 years ago would better be described as a "covenant"—
"For better, for worse; for richer, for poorer; in sickness and in health".
Those are like, let us say, pre-marital arrangements, which I am not keen on but they are more in the nature of a covenant. If I buy or sell my house or a piece of machinery, I would normally talk about that in terms of a contract and not a relationship. One might refer to it as a business relationship, but it is primarily a contract. If one used the word "relationship" at all, it would have to be qualified as, for example, a business relationship. It seems to me that the word "contract" is not appropriate for marriage because marriage is primarily a covenant.
Lord Tebbit: With the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate, my recollection of my marriage is that it did not include anyone saying anything about a covenant. I am fairly sure that I recollect it being referred to within the church by the officiating minister as a contract into which my wife and I were entering. Indeed, in the Women & Equality Unit's Civil Partnerships document, I read about the creation of a new legal status. That legal status, which imposes obligations upon the parties to it and brings privilege to them in relation to others, is surely more like a contract than anything else. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to my possible view that he was spouting legal nonsense. But it would not be the first time that legal nonsense had been spouted, would it?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am not sure that one needs to prolong this debate much further, but I say to

GC 9
the noble Lord that there is a fundamental distinction between status and contract and between contract and status. The noble Lord recollects that his marriage was described as a "contract". However, for all I know, the priest may have been referring to a contract or a covenant with God in a religious form of marriage—I have no idea. But it is not legal nonsense; it is absolutely clear that, when one marries, one is changing one's status. A marriage contract may be made between the parties concerning how they are to share the loot and so on. As I said, in the old days, actions could be taken for breach of promise of marriage. However, in my view, the Minister is completely correct about the legal position. If anyone has any better view, I should be interested to hear it.
Lord Higgins: I am conscious of the fact that, after 40 years in Parliament in which I have mostly been preoccupied with finance Bills and social security legislation, I suddenly find myself thrown in at the deep end on highly emotional issues. Until now, I have been extraordinarily clever in avoiding those.
Perhaps that is why I saw this amendment as improving the legislation. I do not take the view that it downgrades the Bill; I take the view that, when one is legislating, it is important to be very precise. The reason one refers here to a "contract" rather than a "relationship" is that in huge chunks of the Bill—page after page after page—there are legal requirements and contract requirements which follow as a result of someone entering into a civil partnership.
At Second Reading, many of us were impressed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who referred to the importance of love. I certainly was very much influenced by it but, alas, one cannot legislate for love. That is why, I presume, no amendment has been tabled in respect of that issue. Therefore, to read as much into the word "relationship" as has been read into it is rather to exaggerate the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, made various comments on this particular aspect. He seemed to imply that this was not only his maiden speech but also his swan song so far as the Bill is concerned. I hope that that is not so. The reality is that we shall be seriously in need of legal advice on many of these clauses. For example, on the point with which he seems extremely preoccupied—namely, the state of the law with regard to co-habitation—we shall be very much in need of advice. I hope, therefore, that he does not feel that his assistance would not be valued by us in our deliberations.
It is certainly not my intention to filibuster. We must give the Bill the due weight it requires—no more; no less—but, having said that, I am somewhat puzzled by the Minister's reply. She also seems to be reading into the word "relationship" far more than its natural meaning would imply. Loving relationships exist not only between couples of both sexes and couples of the same sex, but in many other human relationships as well. To suggest that love is somehow restricted to this or that particular category seems to be a mistake. However, again, I express a personal view.
GC 10
We shall need to consider further the points that have been made, but my own feeling is that the amendment, if accepted, would improve the Bill rather than in any way downgrade it or undermine it. However, having said that, at this stage of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 4, after "relationship" insert "between two people in the categories set out in section (Additional categories of civil partners) or"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 2, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10, 15, 19, 35 and 36 which are grouped with it.
Under the Bill, same-sex couples are to be given all the legal rights of married couples. It is, therefore, I submit, a highly discriminatory Bill. A daughter who nurses her elderly mother for 10 years will not benefit from the Bill; neither will two sisters who have lived together all their lives; nor two pensioners who share a house; nor a carer who looks after a disabled person. The discrimination arises because the Bill creates a marriage-like state and provides that only same-sex couples may enter into it.
The focus of these amendments is solely to widen the pool of those who benefit from the right that the Bill creates. I shall seek to address the similarities with marriage in later amendments. We have all heard the cases cited by those who supported the Bill at Second Reading and we all have sympathy with them—some cases definitely elicited our sympathy—but the hardships that have been cited for those in homosexual relationships also arise in other kinds of relationships—for example, two sisters who live together, or friends in a platonic relationship who share a house on a long-term basis.
Let us suppose that two friends share a rented house for 20 years. If one dies, the other could be evicted; there is no right to inherit the tenancy. If the Bill becomes law, a homosexual couple could have next-of-kin rights to the tenancy, but not the two friends. I suggest that this is unjust.
Take another case of two sisters who live together after their respective husbands die. On the death of one, the other must pay inheritance tax. A niece moves into her uncle's house to nurse him because he suffers from a degenerative disease. She sells her house and gives up her career to look after him. She has no right to inherit the tenancy. She also has to pay inheritance tax.
Those who support the Bill have cited cases where estranged family members can suddenly be treated as next of kin, while the person closest to the victim is ignored—yet that situation is not unique to homosexual couples. Sadly, I have had an all-too-personal experience of it. Many people are estranged from their families, to varying degrees, for all sorts of reasons—religious reasons, cultural reasons, and misunderstandings. If one's only relative is a brother from whom one has been estranged for many years,

GC 11
one might not necessarily want him to make life-or-death decisions about one's medical care or, indeed, to inherit one's estate.
The issue of next-of-kin rights could have been dealt with in legislation that helps everyone, not only homosexual couples. The Government have chosen not to do that. They have chosen only to address those in a homosexual relationship. Only homosexual couples will escape the hammer blow of inheritance tax under this Bill.
At Second Reading, I made my outright opposition to inheritance tax itself very clear. I pointed out that someone who moves into a flat to care for a friend with a long-term illness may still face a swingeing inheritance tax bill, even if he or she lived in the same flat for 20 or 30 years. Two unmarried sisters who live their whole lives in the same family home would also be liable. The surviving sister may well lose the home as a result. If the legal rights of married couples are to be handed to others, there is surely a legitimate public debate to be had about who should receive the benefits.
The Bill addresses only those in a homosexual relationship, and completely ignores the needs of families, friends who care for each other and elderly people who spend their twilight years looking after each other. I have tabled amendments to cater for each of those categories. I accept that not every possible case is covered, but the purpose of the amendments is to provide a fair way to help those friends, relations and long-term house sharers who are in the same kinds of difficulties as those cited in support of the Bill.
If the Government reject my amendments, the message will be sent out that homosexual relationships are much more important than the platonic and caring relationships of long-term house sharers, be they pensioners, relations or disabled people and their carers. According to the recent census, there are up to 4.6 million house sharers in a non-sexual relationship, compared with only 80,000 homosexual couples who share a home. Those data were provided in recent Parliamentary Answers in the Commons Hansard on 24 March 2004 at col. 844W, and 31 March 2004 at col. 1411W. For many specific cases of hardship experienced by a same-sex couple—there are such cases; we have heard about them—there would be almost 60 times as many cases among house sharers in a non-sexual relationship. If the rights and benefits of marriage are to be extended because of cases of hardship, that must be done in a fair and consistent way.
Amendment No. 10 inserts a new clause after Clause 1, to extend civil partnerships to family members, disabled people and their carers, and pensioners. In each case, there is a requirement that the parties have lived together in the same house or flat for seven years. That ensures that we benefit only highly committed relationships that have endured over time. Unlike the rest of the Bill, which is wide open to tax avoidance, that requirement would prevent people using civil partnerships as a tax avoidance measure. If a father gives his property to his son, capital gains tax
GC 12
is avoided only if the father dies seven years after the gift has been made. The Inland Revenue believes that a seven-year period is a sensible precaution against tax avoidance and that is why I have followed this logic in my amendment.
Amendment No. 35 is consequential. It allows for regulations to assist in determining whether the applicants pass this residence test for a minimum of seven years living together.
I turn to the details of my new clause. The first category in paragraph (a) is close family relationships. The list of relationships simply mirrors the existing list in Schedule 1 to the Bill, which is the prohibited degrees. These are the very people who are expressly excluded from civil partnerships. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, made the point strongly at Second Reading on 22 April, col. 413.
The category in paragraph (b) is disabled people and their carers. It is not uncommon for two friends to live together because one of them is disabled. In fact, the costs of having live-in carers at home is usually so exorbitant that few people who want to keep their loved ones at home can afford it. The able-bodied friend effectively becomes a full-time carer. This is one of the most selfless and loving relationships I can think of, yet the Bill does not recognise it. Under my amendment, if the carer and his or her friend live together for seven years, they can register and gain recognition for their friendship.
In both categories, my amendment requires the parties to be aged over 25. The seven-year qualifying period must relate to their adult lives. Any period of sharing a house while one of the parties is under the age of 18 does not count.
The third category in paragraph (c) relates to people over 70. The age of 70 is chosen in order to focus on those cases where the greatest hardship could arise. If two friends in their 70s have lived together in a relationship of mutual companionship for more than seven years, most people would think it unfair if they would be penalised by inheritance tax when one died, solely because they were not in a homosexual partnership.
My amendments do not require the parties to be of the same sex. Amendments Nos. 15 and 19 amend Clause 3 to make clear that the ban on opposite-sex partnerships and partnerships between relations does not apply to those who fall within the three categories I have outlined.
In conclusion, I express the hope that the Minister will not seek to oppose these amendments on merely technical grounds. I know that there will be other issues to address on what would happen to a civil partnership between two sisters if one wished to marry. The answer is that the partnership could be dissolved automatically on entering into a marriage or on expressing an intention to do so, but these are details. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is a problem of fairness and be willing to consider ways of dealing with that problem. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I support the noble Baroness. Lady O'Cathain, in her amendment. We cannot vote on amendments in Grand Committee, but if she tabled her amendment again on Report, I would vote with her.
The Treasury is not keen on widening the scope of the Bill to include the categories of people listed in Amendment No. 10. As the law presently stands, where a wife inherits a life interest in her husband's estate no death duty or inheritance tax is payable—she gets the estate. However. when she later dies, the Treasury gets the tax. My goodness, it gets it—in spades.
Lord Tebbit: I certainly support my noble friend's amendments, although I have tabled some later amendments that would accomplish the same and a little more in a rather simpler, cleaner fashion. The basis of the amendment is surely what is recognised in the Women & Equality Unit publication issued by the DTI. To what the DTI has come since my day as Secretary of State, when we used to think that it was our business to support business and commerce in the British interest. Paragraph 2.6 of this curious document states:
"The creation of a new legal status that is open only to same-sex couples and not to opposite-sex couples would amount to a difference in treatment. However, the Government believes that this difference in treatment is justified because it would remedy an inequality that already exists between opposite-sex and same-sex couples".
Two wrongs make a right, do they not? It is apparently a well established principle of legislation these days.
Let us consider, however, that the central argument of this Bill is that same-sex couples would be prohibited entering into marriage so there should be something for them. The Bill provides it. What about those who are still prohibited; for example, a mother and a daughter? Why should they not be able to register a partnership in order that they may benefit from the same tax concessions as would be granted in this case? There is no way in which the mother and daughter can achieve those advantages. Nor can brothers, nor sisters, nor father and son. Those are all expressly excluded. They are all brushed aside. They are a difference that does not matter, because the Bill remedies one inequality. By so doing, it creates an another enormous inequality. I absolutely support my noble friend Lady O'Cathain in seeking to improve the Bill by making sure we do not have a new category of people who suffer disadvantage—a disadvantage from which they cannot escape.
Lord Alli: I knew that all things were possible in this House, but there were parts of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, at which I was nodding my head in agreement. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, raised two important issues. The first was cohabiting couples. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised it in his opening remarks. There is indeed much work that needs to be done to protect couples who find themselves in relationships and who believe that they have a degree of protection which they clearly do not.
GC 14
The second issue raised by the noble Baroness was, quite properly, that of inheritance tax. Huge hardship is suffered, particularly by mothers, daughters and sisters. One has to look only at property prices. There are huge issues surrounding inheritance tax at which the Government need to look seriously again.
However, while those are important issues, this is the wrong Bill. That is the essence of my problem with the amendments. It is a bit like taking a Bill designed to help the water companies and turning it into a Bill for other utilities by amending it in Committee or on Report.
All I am saying to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness is that what you are trying to do here is very difficult and I do not think it will work. I believe that we should ask the Government to consider these issues much more seriously—they would have many more friends in the House—and to take action on them but, I stress again, not in the Bill. This is not the place for these arguments.
Lord Goodhart: I make the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Alli. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to extend the Bill to cover relationships of an entirely different kind: those between a carer and the person who is cared for; those based on co-residence, such as that of a daughter who is looking after an elderly parent or two siblings or elderly friends who are living together for companionship and cheapness.
In our view, that has nothing to do with the purposes of the Bill. The central purpose of the Bill is to give public and legal recognition to the relationship between two gay or lesbian people. That relationship will be one of love and commitment and one which it is hoped will last for life.
Lord Tebbit: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I thought that I had read the Bill thoroughly. Where does it say that those entering into a civil partnership must be homosexuals?
Lord Goodhart: It does not, any more than the laws of marriage require marriages to be between a heterosexual couple who intend to have sexual relations. However, I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, disagrees that it is clearly the intention behind the Bill to provide a status for a legal recognition for homosexual couples. The essential point concerns the changes in provision that the Bill contains, for example to the law on inheritance tax and other kinds of tax, to pensions and to social security where a couple living in a civil partnership will suffer rather than benefit. All those changes are consequential on the creation of the new status and absolutely not the reason for it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, there is clearly a case for changes to the tax and pension systems in relation to carers and co-residents but that is a matter for another Bill on another day. There are obvious defects in the amendment, which must have been seen by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. What about trios? What about a daughter who is looking after both

GC 15
parents? After all, she cannot enter into a civil partnership with both of them, but it may be the wrong one who dies.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I did not spell it out, but I did say that there are other areas to the amendment. Surely, if a daughter was looking after a mother and father, when the father died or the mother died, the estate would go straight to the other surviving spouse and it is only when the second spouse dies that the daughter would have to pay inheritance tax. There would be no inheritance tax payable.
Lord Goodhart: That is the sort of point which, frankly, discredits the whole idea behind this situation. It makes clear that this is merely what I would call a tax avoidance scheme. I suppose that one might call it a tax reduction scheme.
4.30 p.m.
Again, would the daughter looking after her mother wish to enter into a contract that she would then have to break in order to enter into a marriage with a man? The noble Baroness did say that in that case you could write into this Bill that the civil partnership would come to an end automatically when she married. That seems to me to make this whole idea of a civil partnership ridiculous.
It is nothing more than a tax reduction scheme. If tax reduction is desirable under the circumstances, it should be based on the fact of co-residence and not on the adoption, or entering into, of some special contract of this kind. Furthermore, the contract that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, envisages, does not extend to the case of those who probably need it most—that is the unmarried, heterosexual couple who could, under this amendment, only claim on each other's death either if one was disabled and the other was caring for them, or if both were over the age of 70.
The defects of these amendments are so obvious that it is clear that the motive behind them is to undermine the whole scheme of civil partnerships, so that they will cease to hold any attraction of special legal recognition for homosexual couples and will simply become a vehicle for tax avoidance. In those circumstances, my noble friend and I have no hesitation whatever in offering no support to these amendments. We shall oppose them as strongly as we can.
Lord Higgins: There used to be a very popular undergraduate or sixth-form debate on, "the line must be drawn somewhere". That is essentially what this debate is about. I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, but I fear that I have problems with it. The problem with it is that it does not go far enough.
Also, I have considerable difficulty with Amendment No. 10, which seeks to specify a number of specific categories. I am not the least bit clear why the additional categories should include only two persons over the age of 70, rather than over 65. I am a
GC 16
little clearer why they must be over 25. In either case, it is not right to specify the categories in the way that has been suggested. There are other problems with it. I am not the least bit clear about why, under one of the categories, they should have had to live together in the same house. It would be rather odd if, for one reason or another, they happened to have moved house in the mean time. One can go through this list. I will not be tedious and do so. It seems to me that specifying categories in this way is not a sensible way of proceeding.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in a sense put his finger on the exact point when he said that it does not say that this is a homosexual rights Bill, or whatever one might call it—it does not. That is why it is not the least bit clear why the line will be drawn where the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would like to see it. If one is going to exclude the other categories that the noble Lords, Lord Alli, Lord Goodhart and Lord Lester, would like to exclude, at that point one must establish whether there is a sexual relationship. We shall come to this point on some of the other amendments.
It seems to me that once we are going down the road that this Bill takes us down, it will not be possible to draw the line where those noble Lords would like to draw it. That would mean that one would run into all the problems that one does, for example, with cohabitation and social security, of having people sitting outside front doors, saying, "Is there a sexual relationship going on in that house or not?". That is not a practical way of proceeding.
As I understand it—I may be sadly surprised and perhaps disappointed—the Government are not saying that categories such as the classic two spinsters living together will not be able to form civil partnerships. It seems to me that they will and that no one will know whether or not they have a sexual relationship. Therefore, in practical terms, the restrictive way in which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and others are trying to operate is not a way in which it is possible to operate the Bill.
I believe that I have support on this view from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. It is a question of what is practical. If you wish to go down this path, drawing the line where they want to is not practical. We shall come to this issue on later amendments.
It seems to me that if the tax privileges—and it is not clear what they are at the moment but, again, we shall find out on a later amendment—are to be extended to those forming a same-sex sexual relationship, they will inevitably apply to those in the kind of category, but not exclusively so, to which the noble Baroness referred in moving the amendment.
Perhaps I may also say in parenthesis that, so far as concerns the inheritance tax provisions, unless you get a serial civil partner going through a series of individuals, from the Treasury's point of view it will be a cash flow problem, not a loss of revenue. Be that as it may, there are very real problems. I hope that one will draw the line where I have suggested.

GC 17
There will be other problems—which, again, we shall come to at later amendments—if you seek to go beyond that because we shall run into all the problems specified in the Bill about prohibited relationships. They include what I described, but had difficulty in pronouncing, on Second Reading as the "spinster sister" problem. At the stage when we debate it later, a different set of issues will arise.
So, while I have sympathy with my noble friend's amendment, I do not feel that I would wish to support it because it is too restrictive, rather than otherwise.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. As he said at Second Reading, he and I were once opponents in a place called Worthing in 1966, in which he beat me, arguing the Conservative interests against the Labour interests, so decisively that the votes did not need to be counted; they could have been weighed. I remember what a pleasure it was then to be defeated by such a fine and honourable opponent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): In Worthing?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: In Worthing. I received the highest vote for Labour that it had ever had in Worthing until then. Now it is a Liberal Democrat place, I think.
Let me try to simplify this issue into concepts that at least I can understand. As I understand it, the starting point for the Government is this: gay and lesbian couples cannot marry; because they cannot marry we are going to allow them a relationship which will not be a gay marriage in the full sense—for all kinds of reasons, good or bad—and treat them, as far as we possibly can, as though they were heterosexual so far as the recognition in law of their relationship is concerned.
This does not mean that we will give them special benefits that married couples cannot have. Gay and lesbian couples will be subjected to the burdens as well as to the benefits that married couples now enjoy. For example, in social security, those who register will be worse off. We will not give them any special tax advantages. This is not to be a tax avoidance scheme and they will be taxed exactly the same as married couples. We will prohibit various individuals from entering into this relationship for the same reasons as they are prohibited from marrying as heterosexuals. By that, I basically mean the prohibitions against incest and matters of that kind.
It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and others have pointed out, that there is no reference to sexual love or the need for sexual relations in the Bill. That may be for a very good reason, which is that one does not want those who are to be registered to have a state official inquiring into their sexual relations, in the same way as no one asked my wife or me before we got
GC 18
married whether we intended to have sexual intercourse once we did marry. It would be entirely inappropriate on grounds of privacy so to do.
Lord Higgins: That raises precisely the point that I seek to make. If two spinsters live together, are we to understand from what the noble Lord says that they will get the tax concessions if they have sexual relations, but not if they do not?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Let me not get side-tracked. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said early on that the Bill was discriminatory. If the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, moves some of his amendments later, I will quite agree that there is a strong argument for saying that it discriminates between same-sex unmarried couples and homosexual couples who want to marry. That is because one can make a fair comparison between couples who wish to live together in a marital state. We shall later look at why there may be discrimination of that kind.
The idea of discrimination envisages a difference of treatment between people in comparable situations that is not justifiable. The noble Baroness says that hardship is the criterion, and if people live together and suffer hardship they should be put into the same position as gay and lesbian couples who suffer hardship. However, the fallacy is that the comparison to be made is between gay and lesbian couples and heterosexual married couples. The mischief with which the Bill is designed to deal is nothing to do, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, with the wider issues, such as that in the example he gave of utilities and water companies. It is to remove that particular kind of discrimination.
My only concern, which is why I have great sympathy with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is whether, in removing that source of inequality we do not create another as regards other couples in other similar relationships. However, that is a much broader question. I hope that my comments have clarified matters rather than obscured them.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. I also listened with great attention to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and noted the emphasis on rights. I never once heard "responsibilities". I want to say very clearly that those who enter into civil partnerships will have rights, but also onerous responsibilities in relation to their partner—responsibilities of care, support and providing succour. Those will be legal responsibilities.
The noble Baroness will probably not recall it, but there was a time when mothers and daughters were held to be responsible for each other's support. In terms of social security, in the 1930s, a household means test was applied that enabled a daughter to be held responsible for her father and for others who lived in that household. That caused a huge amount of dissent and fractured relationships, because siblings did not want to be responsible financially for each

GC 19
other or, indeed, their parents. One could argue whether that was a socially responsible attitude, but it was the reality.
4.45 p.m.
We are not trying to conflate the relationships between siblings and parents and others. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, made clear, we are trying to right a wrong and to address the current mischief of there not being a capacity to recognise and acknowledge the reality of a relationship that exists between a couple of the same sex. It is not all about finance. It is about the acknowledgement of a relationship. It is not simply about the money in the pocket, just as marriage is not about pounds, shillings and pence. There are those who say that if it were, they would never enter that estate. Many choose not to enter the estate of marriage because they care more for the pocket than for the person. That is a choice that same-sex couples will now have the capacity to make—either to commit to each other or to commit to the pocket.
If one looks at how the Bill is constructed, it is clear that it addresses the homosexual couple. Civil partnership is so described in Clause 1(1):
"A civil partnership is a relationship between two people of the same sex".
The grounds on which civil partnership is void specify those who fall within the bounds of consanguinity or other prohibited degrees of relationship. We are therefore excluding those who are blood relatives and those who have entered those relationships by way of adoption. That confines a person to having a same-sex relationship with someone to whom he or she is not directly related.
It is right to say that the Bill is silent on the nature of the sexual relationship that exists between the couple, save to require that they must be of the same sex. We have not replicated in the Bill the grounds of adultery. Those who have had the delight of dealing with adultery litigation will remember all those tests, such as whether penetration took place. The Bill will address none of those issues. There is no adultery in it.
However, there are provisions for unreasonable behaviour. Those who enter civil partnership will therefore have the capacity to tell of their reasonable expectation of what that relationship would entail. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was right to say that if two spinsters had a loving and long-term, platonic relationship and wished to enter a civil partnership, there would no way in which we could determine that they were not so entitled. The Bill is not about the sexual content of the marriage; it is about the quality of the relationship of two people of the same gender who enter a registered partnership. A clear distinction is made between a marriage and the estate that we are now offering to same-sex couples by way of registration. They are different. We have tried to make that absolutely clear. Civil partnership is not marriage, but it is a recognition of a relationship which has value.
Therefore, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, would be well founded if the issue were merely one of tax avoidance or an opportunity to
GC 20
expunge a category of person's entitlement to pay inheritance tax. If that were the case, the noble Baroness's qualifications would perhaps be merited, but it is not. Therefore, the Government will not and cannot support any such amendment.
My noble friend Lord Alli was right to say that the nature of tax relief for those who live in new relationships has been an issue for many years. We have a much greater range of relationships today than we had in the past.
Let us not mistake ourselves. A wide category of provision is already made for siblings and for those who live together. The issues faced by same sex-couples are very different from that category. Perhaps I may give some examples. Siblings are recognised in the intestacy rules in a way that same-sex couples are not. Siblings already have succession rights in the case of secure and introductory tenancies if they resided with the tenant for 12 months preceding the tenant's death. In the case of Rent Act tenancies, siblings have succession rights if they resided with the tenant for two years preceding the tenant's death. Usually, there is a question over a close relation's ability to attend a funeral or to visit a sick person in hospital. Those are not issues which arise.
The position of carers and companions over 70 who share a home is different again. For example, should they really have joint financial responsibilities which could be set aside only after court proceedings for dissolution? We already have a difficulty persuading people that they wish to undertake the care of those in need. If they are to be financially and otherwise responsible for them as well, and have to bind themselves and be financially responsible for discharging their care, we may well find that fewer carers than there are at present will wish to enter into that estate.
Should a person in such a relationship have an automatic pre-emptive share of the estate if the person he or she lives with dies without making a will, particularly a paid carer? We know that some carers are very expensive indeed, particularly if they live in. Should they, therefore, automatically receive half the person's estate when they die?
As those questions show, the concerns of homesharers, whether as family, carers or companions, are a separate issue to the concerns of same-sex couples. The Law Commission's report on home sharers in 2002 supports that fact. That report concluded that no single solution was possible for all the different permutations of home sharer. The Law Commission considered that the solution to the specific issues raised would be best determined by reference to the nature of the relationship in each case. Thus, the solution to the needs of those in caring relationships may not be the same solution to the needs of siblings who live together. So, it is clear that their problems are different from those of same-sex couples who lack legal recognition of their relationship because they cannot now marry.
As I have said, civil partnership is an acknowledgement of the existence of committed same-sex relationships. I do not know whether the reason

GC 21
that those who find difficulty with that is simply because they do not want to acknowledge that these relationships have any special significance. Perhaps they do not want to acknowledge them as a reality or as existing at all. If that is the case, that is a sadness, but we might as well recognise that that is what they are trying to do.
The Bill is designed to meet the needs of such couples, not anyone else. It provides a framework which allows same- sex couples to organise their joint lives, which is especially important if they are raising children together. It does not provide the type of framework that would remedy the different kinds of problems faced by persons in other types of relationships. That was accepted by many noble Lords who spoke.
If we were even to trespass into some of the different permutations which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, invites us to consider, we could enter a nest of intractable problems by trying to abstract different relationships which would thereby be bound up. That is not our intention. We are trying to do something relatively straightforward and fundamentally decent; that is, to treat people equally. We are acknowledging for the first time in law that homosexual relationships exist. They have existed for a couple of hundred years. We are now just allowing people to acknowledge them. They have probably existed longer, since time immemorial. I think there is a reference to them in relation to Sodom and Gomorra.
That is what we are faced with. I accept that there will be a lot of debate about how we meet these different needs. Families do not come in the same sizes any more. The grandparents are not looked after so intimately as they used to be within the home. There are not always two parents living with children. There is a plethora of differences, and that is something with which we will grapple, but not in this Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: In the light of what the Minister said in the earlier part of her response, I draw attention to a point that I made at Second Reading. At the moment, it is proposed that a couple simply register their partnership, but there are no prescribed words to indicate or define what it is that they are entering into.
In marriage, whether in church or in a registry office, the words are different, but nevertheless there are clear words. We know the familiar words of the marriage service—for better or worse; for richer or poorer; in sickness and in health. If there were some prescribed words, however simple—and not necessarily the same as those in the marriage service—indicating that this is a profound commitment of two people, it would get over the question of whether this is a sexual relationship that we are talking about. As the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, you are not inquiring about that in marriage. This is a commitment of two people. That is the fundamental point about it, not necessarily that it is a sexual relationship as people understand that. It would also say something to the range of amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain.
GC 22
Let us take a daughter and a parent who accept mutual responsibilities for each other, who are committed to each other, and who may have financial rights that are not recognised at the moment. On the whole, they would not want to get up in public and make that kind of commitment. They already accept a range of commitments to one other, by the fact of their birth and their blood relationship. I will return to whether we should have some kind of prescribed words to indicate that this is a commitment, and that people are entering into a profound relationship.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We on this side have strong sympathy with the Liberal Democrat side and with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford has just said.
Lord Tebbit: This end, you mean.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: This end. Not the right end, but the progressive end of this Bench. We have strong sympathy with what has been said, and we will be supporting that approach when we come to it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I will make it clear, if I did not make it clear at Second Reading, that the words are something which, although not incorporated in the actual ceremony, can be incorporated in other procedures. For instance, there can be a separate blessing, if that is what the couple want. Local authorities can organise other ceremonies, but the words will be similar to the two facts that currently must be ascertained for civil marriage. First, the registrar must ascertain that the couple are able to marry, that there is no legal impediment to their marriage; and, secondly, that they come to register that marriage. In fact, those are the only two issues that must be clear for a civil marriage.
It has become the norm, in agreement with the registrar, to have a whole set of other words that can be agreed between the parties and one can have an infinite variety. It would be possible to have a procedure, separate from the civil procedure, which could encompass all of that. We are sticking clearly to the simplicity that currently must be proven for a nonreligious, secular marriage. This is a non-religious, secular procedure.
Lord Higgins: Contract.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Registration of the relationship. As a result, it can be encompassed in that way. I need to make that clear. There is no impediment to that in this Bill.
Lord Tebbit: Am I correct in thinking that something else is required for a civil marriage—as for a religious marriage—and that is for consent to be given?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I said: first, that there is no prohibition; and, basically, that they consent to the registration. They are agreeing to the registration. I said those two things.
Lord Tebbit: One is consent.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I know the noble Lord loves to split hairs and I would hate to deprive him of an opportunity to do so.
Lord Tebbit: It is not splitting hairs to distinguish between an impediment to a marriage and the giving or withholding of consent to the marriage. That is not hair-splitting.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I said two things. I shall say it slowly because I know that sometimes it is difficult to absorb. The first is that there is no legal impediment—that is category number one. The second is that the couple consent to have their relationship registered. I hope that that is said with sufficient clarity for the noble Lord to accept it.
5 p.m
Baroness O'Cathain: I first thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. I particularly thank my supporters. This time there have been more on the ground than there were at Second Reading, which is rather nice.
Perhaps I may just go through the various points dealt with by the various speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, said that I dealt with the unfairness to cohabiting couples. I did not: I did not mention cohabiting heterosexual couples at all.
Certainly, I mentioned the unfairness about inheritance tax. I shall come back to that. We are told this is a relationship Bill, a partnership Bill, not a tax avoidance or an inheritance tax Bill. Unless I am very mistaken, the original impetus for the Bill came out of the very sad, untimely and horrific death of Lord Montague in the House at a debate one Friday, as I recall. There was a big move after that because his companion of so many years was left in very difficult circumstances. If they had been an ordinary married couple, they would not have had the inheritance tax problem. There was great sympathy from people around the House for Lord Montague.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I think it was Lord Oxford.
Baroness O'Cathain: No, it was Lord Montague of Oxford.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am afraid that the noble Baroness is quite mistaken. The origin of this Bill was that at a conference my party passed a unanimous resolution advocating such a Bill. The reason it did so was because so many European and Commonwealth countries have passed similar legislation. It had nothing to do with any particular case of hardship of
GC 24
an earlier period because we were bringing our law up to date and in line with European and Commonwealth law.
Baroness O'Cathain: I apologise. Certainly, a lot of people to whom I have spoken about the Bill felt that that was the start. The situation elicited an enormous amount of support.
I return to the point: this is not a relationship Bill, it is seriously a tax Bill. The amendments I have tabled have dealt with that situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said—
Lord Alli: From a reading of the Bill, it is a relationship Bill. The noble Baroness is trying to make it a tax Bill, but it is currently a relationship Bill. The second point I make to her is that if it were a tax Bill we should not be discussing it.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Lord. I was about to make the point that we should not be discussing it and that we should change the whole Bill to make it a relationship Bill and a recognition of loving relationships for same-sex couples, but not give them the benefit of inheritance tax. That would cause no problems at all.
I finally reach the point about siblings having some of the advantages that I did not admit that they had. They do, of course, but they do not have them all. This is really a tax reduction scheme to enormous excess.
My noble friend Lord Higgins said the line has to be drawn somewhere. He has a difficulty with Amendment No. 10 and the example with over 70s rather than over 65s. If I did not say it, I certainly intended to say that these are examples. The reason for using the age of 70 was that the greatest hardship seems to occur to people over the age of 70. Up to the age of 70 most people are capable of earning an income but a lot of people are not. I think that is where the problem arises.
I was chided for talking about the same house. My noble friend was slightly—if he does not mind my saying so—splitting hairs there. By sharing the same house I did not actually mean the same location in Surbiton and moving to Crawley, to Doncaster or whatever. It was actually within the same home; sharing a home. My noble friend says they all moved to Worthing—and they all voted Conservative.
Furthermore, the problem was described as not being a Treasury problem, that the only Treasury problem was a cash-flow problem. That is slightly naive because after the survivor receives the relief from the inheritance tax do you think that he or she will leave all that money to the Treasury when he or she dies? I really do not think that that is a cash-flow problem; it is actually a serious problem for the Treasury if the inheritance tax provisions are extended to cover all the people I have suggested they should. So I do not think we can be too naive about that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that I have laid great emphasis on rights and never on responsibilities. She said that the fact is that carers looking after disabled people certainly have

GC 25
responsibilities; younger sons or daughters looking after elderly parents certainly have responsibilities; and the sisters living together provide succour to each other. I took down those three levels of responsibilities. The noble Baroness said that in the Civil Partnership Bill would acknowledge that same-sex couples living together have those responsibilities. I maintain that all the people I suggested ought to have those responsibilities.
The point made about the 1930s—I do not remember them—where daughters were responsible for their parents. In fact there are still some of us, even though we were not around in the 1930s, who were brought up to accept that we always would have familial responsibilities. I can say that mine ended only three weeks ago. I felt deeply responsible for my parents and for my siblings until the death of my last sibling three weeks ago.
So, I do not think that it necessarily means that people do not feel they have responsibilities. A lot of people do feel they have responsibilities. Perhaps I may also say that when the responsibility has gone you typically feel, "Well, what is the purpose here?".
However, we have to recognise that there are of course fantastic loving and supportive relationships between same-sex couples. It is wonderful that you can have these sorts of relationships. We all want loving and supportive relationships. But, marriage is not on the basis of inheritance tax or tax relationships. This Bill, I fear, has far too much emphasis on that area. I wonder whether there is some way that we could equalise that. Of course the best option would be to do away with inheritance tax altogether. The second best option would be to include all the categories that I suggest. The third option would be to give no one other than married couples the benefit.
In the examples siblings can have rights over friends living together or carers looking after disabled people. They can have tenancy rights and intestacy rights. But they cannot have any inheritance rights or pension rights. I have mentioned four sets of rights. The Bill would give all four sets of rights to same-sex couples in civil partnerships. Siblings would have two of the rights but not all four. Many of the categories I have mentioned would have none of the four. So it is still a discriminatory Bill. It is unfair and unjust.
I fear that the Government have constructed a Bill that looks very much like civil marriage. We can strip out some of the elements that most closely resemble marriage. I shall try with later amendments to do so. But that should not stop us from trying to address the fundamental injustice which the Bill creates. It is not fair that only homosexual carers should be exempt from inheritance tax; that only homosexual pensioners should be able to obtain next-of-kin rights; and that family relationships should be excluded altogether.
What could be done would be to bring into the Bill an absolute requirement to say that those in long-term homosexual relationships—male or female—should have the sort of rights to counterbalance the appalling situations, which were raised I think by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, at Second Reading; for instance, a
GC 26
dying person having no access at the last rites and no say in medical treatment or in anything. Perhaps we ought to be doing something about that.
People say that the specified degrees of family relationships are too limited. I have simply duplicated the list of prohibited degrees in Schedule 1. These are the people who are specifically excluded from the Bill. Of course at a later stage I shall be very willing to think about broadening the list. But the primary purpose of the amendment at this stage is to draw out the Government's reasoning for excluding familial and platonic relationships.
Finally, I have chosen a seven-year qualifying period for relationships. Only those who make a decision as adults to live together are making the kind of commitment that I think merits recognition. An 18-year old who moves in with his or her disabled friend will be 25 by the time they have lived together for seven years. As for the elderly, it seems that targeting the over-70s addresses those instances in which the most difficult cases of hardship could arise.
I realise that I have very little support, either from my own party or from others. However, I shall have to withdraw these amendments because of the nature of Grand Committee, but I can promise everyone that I shall be back with them on Report and at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): Amendment No. 3 not moved?
Lord Tebbit moved Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 4, leave out "of the same sex"
The noble Lord said: It most certainly is moved. I am accustomed to being discriminated against, but not that much. "Not yet moved" would be the appropriate expression.
I was unfortunately not able to be at Second Reading. I was away on holiday with my wife. Had I been present, I would have pointed out—what seems to have come as a slight shock to some—that this Bill does not provide for civil partnerships to be confined to homosexuals. Merely, that they are to be undertaken only between persons of the same sex.
If anyone believes that marriage has never been undertaken for financial reasons, they must be poorly experienced and very poorly read in great literature. And if anyone believes that civil partnerships will not be abused in the same way by some smart lads somewhere in the world—and there are a lot of awfully smart lads in this world—very eager to find a way to avoid taxation, then they will be in for a considerable shock.
The Bill raises some very curious issues. Any two men or women not subject to the consanguinity rules can enter into a civil partnership for whatever reasons. There is no requirement for them to be homosexual; to have a sexual relationship; or for them to have a loving relationship. The nature of the relationship is not specified in the Bill.
With marriage, certain specific undertakings are made and its purposes are clearly known. We therefore have a very curious situation. There is essentially a consanguinity rule in the Bill. I shall discuss it in a moment in the detail of the amendments. Why should brothers or sisters not be allowed to enter a civil partnership? We know why there is a consanguinity rule for heterosexual marriage. It is for the protection of potential offspring. That is the basis of it. In a marriage between persons of the same sex, there will clearly be no offspring, so why is that rule included? All it does is to prohibit siblings entering a civil partnership. Sooner or later, a pair of homosexual siblings may turn up in the courts, claiming that their rights have been abused and that they are not allowed to enter a civil partnership purely because they are related. They will claim that there is no good reason for it.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I may also plead guilty to an error of omission. I had intended to move an amendment to the first line of Clause 1 that would delete,
"of the same sex".
5.15 p.m
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is what the amendment states.
Lord Tebbit: I am terribly sorry. I thought that that amendment had been dropped.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord can drop it if he wishes.
Lord Tebbit: That is Amendment No. 3 of course. That is correct. That issue is at the heart of the Bill. Why should civil partnership be restricted to persons of the same sex? There is no particularly good reason why it should so be. Indeed, I have in this group the further amendment—
Lord Higgins: I think that that point came up at Second Reading. It was pointed out that if people of opposite sexes were allowed to become civil partners, it would to some extent undermine the principle of marriage.
Lord Tebbit: That would be a good argument if this Bill did not undermine the principle of marriage. My noble friend is straining at the gnat having swallowed the camel if he supports this Bill.
Lord Higgins: Not at all.
Lord Tebbit: He says "not at all", but that is so. By restricting civil partnership to same-sex couples, it is a fundamentally discriminatory piece of legislation. It is as simple as that. My Amendment No. 16 to Clause 3(1)(a), which requires that eligible persons
GC 28
should not be of the same sex, would be deleted. My Amendment No. 18 would amend Clause 3(1)(d) so that it would read,
"if, being of opposite sexes, they are within prohibited degrees of relationship".
There could of course be children of such a union if that were allowed. One would have to introduce a consanguinity rule to keep things tidy.
I can see no logic at all in refusing homosexual brothers from entering a civil partnership open to other same-sex couples. The rules against consanguinity are there to safeguard against inbreeding and to protect potential children. There is no place for those to be in a same-sex relationship. I suspect that they are there in an effort to confine this legislation at the behest of the Treasury. If it is widened at all, the Treasury would see itself losing too much revenue. It is intended to prevent father and son, brother and brother, mother and daughter, or sister and sister—however dependent they may be, and however strong their relationships—from entering a partnership that would bring tax advantages.
As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, this Bill cannot actually provide for tax concessions because it is in this House, but it paves the way to give a tiny minority tax concessions that are not available to those who are equally deserving, but exist in greater numbers. This is a case where it is a disadvantage to be a member of a large group. The Treasury will not give tax concessions to members of large groups. This Bill is applicable only to a very small group. It will, in fact, only give advantage to a minority of a minority. After all, why do we exclude from the benefits of this Bill daughters who gave up their lives to care for their fathers, sons who care for their mothers, or indeed mothers who care for their sons? The Bill is shot through with illogicality and discrimination.
I have a feeling that somewhere down the line, this Bill will be challenged in the courts for discriminating on the grounds of sex. I look forward to seeing the Government wriggle when that comes. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 4, due to pre-emption.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The point that I wish to address is about discrimination between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples.
The White Paper, as has already been said, explains in paragraph 1.4 that the Government have considered the position of opposite-sex couples, many of whom now choose—I emphasise choose—to cohabit instead of marry, and other people who live together in a closely supportive household environment. The Government believe that these situations are significantly different from those of same-sex couples who wish to formalise their relationships, but are currently unable to do so. The Government's argument for not providing benefits to unmarried, opposite-sex couples, is that they can choose to marry, whereas gay and lesbian partners cannot choose to marry.

GC 29
If the Government's argument were, "We quite agree that the position of opposite-sex couples is anomalous and may need protecting, but it will take us a long time to work out the horrible details of law reform, and that justifies dealing with this mischief straightaway, and getting round to the wider mischief later", that seems to be possible grounds for justifying the difference in treatment. It may be that the Minister will reply to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, on those lines. If she can indicate that the Government have it well in mind that something must be done on law reform in relation to what we will loosely call common-law marriages, that would be most welcome.
If Members of the Committee look at the tables helpfully included in the consultation paper, they will find that table 1 on page 15, and table 2 on page 16, show that many other countries are already protecting opposite-sex couples in the way that they also protect same-sex couples. That is particularly true outside the European member states. If noble Lords circle the word, "both" in table 2, they will see that many of those countries are protecting opposite-sex as well as same-sex couples. I am sympathetic to the argument, even though my Bill dealt with opposite-sex and same-sex couples, but the matter is very complicated and it will take a while to get around to acting on it.
I want to deal with the argument based on choice, as that is the only argument that the Government have put forward. They have not made an argument based on administrative or law-reform problems. The choice argument has been well dealt with in the Supreme Court of Canada case by two women justices. I emphasise that they were women; they looked at the matter very much as women in their two judgments. I very much hope that the Government will look at the judgments; I am sure that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be asked to do so as well.
Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé made three points. She said:
"First, discrimination on the basis of marital status"—
that is what we are talking about; it is not on the basis of sex—
"touches the essential dignity and worth of the individual in the same way as other recognized grounds of discrimination violative of fundamental human rights norms. Specifically, it touches the individual's freedom to live life with the mate of one's choice in the fashion of one's choice".
Justice L'Heureux-Dubé's second point is that,
"marital status possesses characteristics often associated with recognized grounds of discrimination … Persons involved in an unmarried relationship constitute an historically disadvantaged group. There is ample evidence that unmarried partners have often suffered social disadvantage and prejudice".
That is the common-law marriage problem. She said that, historically in Canada,
"the unmarried partner has been regarded as less worthy than the married partner. The disadvantages inflicted on the unmarried partner have ranged from social ostracism through denial of status and benefits".
Then she talks about illegitimacy and says that it is no longer quite the problem that it was.
GC 30
The third point that Justice L'Heureux-Dubé makes is that:
"A third characteristic sometimes associated with analogous grounds—distinctions founded on personal, immutable characteristics",
in the sense that one cannot change one's colour or gender—is present in common-law marriages, albeit in attenuated form. That is an important point. She said:
"In theory, the individual is free to choose whether to marry or not to marry".
That is the Government's argument. She continued:
"In practice, however, the reality may be otherwise. The sanction of the union by the state through civil marriage cannot always be obtained. The law; the reluctance of one's partner to marry: financial, religious or social constraints—these factors and others commonly function to prevent partners who otherwise operate as a family unit from formally marrying. In short, marital status often lies beyond the individual's effective control. In this respect, marital status is not unlike citizenship".
I mention those points only because I wonder whether the Government are on safe ground in founding the whole of the justification for not doing what my Bill did—covering common-law marriage couples—on a matter of choice. The judgment says that, in the real world, many of those who would like to marry cannot do so because their partner will not marry or for other reasons. No doubt the Human Rights Joint Committee will need to go into those matters. The Government may in due course have to justify that difference of treatment under the Human Rights Act, if it ever comes to that.
I am not arguing in favour of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit—that the Government should somehow now accept common-law marriage—as that would simply be impractical. The change to the Bill would be so massive, in terms of law reform, that it would be beyond its scope and kill it altogether. However, I ask the Minister whether she can give a fair wind to the notion that we will not simply warn common-law marriage couples that there is no such thing in law and that they had better get married if they want to. We should do what Canada and many other countries have done, which is to reform cohabitation law. I do not believe that that will undermine marriage in this country any more than it has done in other jurisdictions, such as Canada.
Therefore, I support the spirit behind the part of the amendment which seeks to remove the difference of treatment. I fully understand that there are serious Treasury reasons why that would not be very welcome as it stands and, as I said, I recognise the practical problems. However, I believe that the difference of treatment cannot be justified on the simple argument that, in theory, a heterosexual couple can marry. It is a little like St Paul's terrible statement that it was better to marry than to burn. It seems to me that one should not be saying anything of that kind—a civil registration—should apply in this context.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: In connection with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I believe that the consanguinity rules originally had

GC 31
nothing at all to do with offspring but came into being because, in ancient times, the Roman Catholic Church believed that people who were already related would have their natural affections so increased by marriage as to exceed their love for God. I do not know whether that has any application to the Bill, but I think that it rather does away with the contention of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that those rules came about in some way to prevent damaged offspring coming into being.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have had a fascinating debate and I am very glad to enter into the fray. However, I should deal directly with one of the noble Lord's assertions that a large group of people is being disadvantaged and that large groups are generally disadvantaged. Of course, the largest group who are already advantaged by similar, if not identical, measures to those which we now seek to offer to same-sex couples are those who already enjoy the estate of marriage, and that is an incredibly large group in our country. Therefore, it is not that we seek to disadvantage large groups in general.
Perhaps I may deal, first, with Amendments Nos. 3 and 16. I have already made it clear that the Bill would not be open to opposite-sex couples as they already have the opportunity to gain a legal status for their relationship through marriage—the matter already foreshadowed for me by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It is true that, thereby, they are given a choice—either to choose to marry and have the advantages and disadvantages that may flow from that or not to marry.
I also accept what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, says—that is, for some, that choice is muted because there is a reluctance by one partner to marry the other. As the noble Lord rightly said earlier, often it is the male partner who chooses not to invest in the female partner the rights which, by the nature of the relationship, she probably deserves. One has to grapple with that issue, not least because there is a failure to understand the distinction which is still drawn today between those who have entered the estate of marriage and those who remain resolutely outside it. To that end, the efforts of the Department for Constitutional Affairs are currently focused on demystifying that division.
I also listened with great care to what was said about the need to consider cohabitation as an issue on its own, separate and apart from marriage and separate and apart from the issues with which we are dealing in the Bill. I shall certainly undertake—if not later in Grand Committee, then on Report—to give the House the more mature reflection of the Government in relation to how to respond to that issue. I think that I made clear both today and at Second Reading that these issues have percolated to the top of the discussions on a number of occasions. They are issues with which the Government have grappled and they will wish to continue to do so.
Lord Higgins: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. We shall obviously have to deal later with
GC 32
the issue of cohabitation and the implications for the social security system and so on. Therefore, when the noble Baroness says that the Government will grapple with those matters, I presume she means that we will debate them in due course.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We shall be debating them in due course in our deliberations on this Bill. However, what I mean, and have already said, is that I do not think that these issues can be dealt with adequately within the Bill because of their complexity and depth. We made very clear the regime that we are currently suggesting in relation to the tax consequences, and those are the issues that will be debated later. We tried to make it clear that those who enter into a civil partnership will be in a similar position to those who marry; and those who choose not to enter into a civil partnership will be in a similar position to opposite-sex couples who choose not to marry. I see that the noble Lord still looks mystified. I do not know whether I can help him further at a later stage.
Lord Higgins: I am not mystified; I am merely saying that I do not believe one can take a view on the Bill unless one knows what the Government's views are on the social security implications.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We shall be dealing with the social security issues, as the noble Lord has defined them, in the amendments. I know that he and my noble friend Lady Hollis are looking forward with some relish to discussing those issues in depth.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am very encouraged by the fact that the noble Baroness says that the door is ajar to further thoughts by the Government. When the Joint Committee on Human Rights comes to consider the Bill, we shall have to consider whether or not the difference of treatment between heterosexual and homosexual couples is objectively justifiable. Of course, through our committee the Government will, as always, give a fuller explanation of their case, which we shall evaluate.
If there is any indication by the Government that they are open to long-term considerations of law reform in respect of cohabitation, personally I shall find that far more convincing than resting the whole case on what may be an illusory choice. Therefore, if the noble Baroness and her colleagues could think about whether the justification might be more broadly based than what is in the consultation paper, I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, need be troubled about this matter. I am not talking about social security, pensions or tax; I am talking about providing some basic legal protection for the basic rights of both sets of couples. I recognise that that cannot be achieved in the Bill. I hope that that is helpful.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I shall certainly take fully into account what the noble Lord has said and, of course, as I have indicated, I shall try to give a fuller answer—if not later in Committee then on Report.

GC 33
Whether the answer will meet the noble Lord's satisfaction, I cannot say. I can say only that I shall aspire to have a fuller answer later.
As I believe I made clear, the Government recognise that some unmarried opposite-sex couples are under the mistaken impression that they have rights that they do not have. Some jurisdictions have adopted a deeming provision, which states that if a person lives with someone for x years, he or she is deemed to have assumed the rights. The indication is that the number of people who then marry is enhanced because they think that there is no point in not doing so in terms of avoiding responsibilities.
Those issues have been open to debate, and the misconceptions that currently abound in this regard have led to difficulties. For example, one partner may be left financially vulnerable after the breakdown of the relationship because the partners did not make any clear arrangements about ownership of property bought with joint funds.
There is also the issue of serial relationships. How many relationships does one remain responsible for in the long term, bearing in mind, in particular, the increasing tendency for people to have serial relationships instead of one long-term relationship? As I indicated, colleagues in the Department for Constitutional Affairs are currently working with two voluntary services—the Advice Services Alliance and One Plus One—on a public awareness campaign to tackle that myth. The campaign will aim to clarify the legal position of unmarried couples as it currently stands and will suggest ways that unmarried cohabitants can protect themselves if things go wrong with their relationship.
We debated at length the fact that the Bill is designed to meet a different problem—that of same-sex couples. After consultation with family lawyers, it is our understanding that civil partnerships would be unlikely to help opposite-sex couples where one member of the couple was unwilling to marry the other—not least because the rights and responsibilities in same-sex partnerships are similar, although not identical, to those entered into by married couples. Therefore, if people are unlikely to want to enter one, they are unlikely to want to enter a partnership. The noble Lord is right to identify the major problem—that of shouldering the financial responsibilities that flow from marriage. Many people do not want to do that and therefore they do not get married.
In addition, some opposite-sex couples have told us that they would wish to form a civil partnership because. for example, they already have a spouse who does not agree to a divorce or they fear losing a pension left to them by a deceased spouse. The Bill would not help those people either, and, in fact, similar duties and eligibility requirements would apply to civil partnerships as do to marriage. Civil partnerships would not therefore meet the needs of those couples. For those reasons, the Government do not believe that the new legal relationship of civil partnership is appropriate for opposite-sex couples.
GC 34
I now turn to Amendment No. 64, which seeks to remove the requirement that the members of a couple must both be of the same sex at the time they entered into an overseas relationship in order to be treated as civil partners in the UK. I hope that I have explained the Government's position. This is reflected in Clause 156, which deals with the recognition of relationships formed overseas. We do not intend that overseas opposite-sex relationships should be recognised as civil partnerships. I hope that the noble Lord will feel comforted and able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tebbit: The noble Baroness is hopeful that I will be comforted and feel able to withdraw the amendment. She knows that I have no choice and therefore she can be comforted on that issue. She is absolutely right that my proposal that civil partnerships should be open to opposite-sex couples would not, in fact, be the greatest thing on earth. If partners in an opposite-sex couple did not wish to enter into a civil marriage, it is unlikely that they would enter into a civil partnership. Although the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has a point in that respect, I think that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said, it is not going to be the big issue.
I was surprised that the noble Baroness said that my amendments would unduly complicate the Bill. I believe that that was the general gist of what she said. In my view, they would bring admirable simplicity and clarity to the Bill, but I think that that is really what she fears most.
In the amendments, I am more concerned about those who do not have the choice of marriage than those who do. I refer to close family members, who have no opportunity to marry, whose commitment to each other is at least as great as that of any who would qualify under the Bill as drafted, and who would suffer similar disadvantage, hurt and discrimination as if they were not related in any way. I think that that group, which we typically describe as those in a parent and child relationship in old age, is most discriminated against. At present, they can perhaps shrug and say, "Well, that's the way the world is". However, with the enactment of this Bill, I think that they will see another very small group being given preferential treatment. The argument is that these people cannot enter into a marriage contract and therefore we give them a way of obtaining the benefits of it, yet we do nothing for parents, children or siblings who care for each other. Although I shall withdraw the amendment today, as I am required to do, as the noble Baroness may suspect I shall be back to argue the case again.
Of course I take the noble Baroness's point concerning Amendment No. 64, but I tabled it merely for the sake of consistency with the other amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 4, leave out "sex" and insert "gender"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 4 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Wilcox. To a considerable extent we have probably already covered some of the ground on this issue, because of the answer which the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, gave in response to the earlier debate on the situation of same-sex couples who are not involved in a sexual relationship. None the less, while one would not want to go into the tedious business of looking up dictionary definitions, it seems to me that there is some implication that "sex" is an active situation and "gender" is a relatively passive one. I do not know whether that is true. However, as, in any case, "gender" seems to be a politically correct expression nowadays, is it not more appropriate that that should be the term used here rather than "sex", which appears in the Bill at present?
I believe that much debate took place on this matter during deliberations on other Bills, which happily I was not involved in, and perhaps that experience will enable the noble Baroness to give us a fairly brief answer. However, as it stands, I would prefer the wording proposed in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tebbit: As my noble friend Lord Higgins said, he was not one of the campaigners on the earlier legislation concerning the words "sex" and "gender" and therefore he was not able to enjoy the debates that we had on the difference between the two. At the end, I came to the conclusion that the Government could not clearly define the difference between the two words, and they certainly did not like the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary, where "sex" is essentially described as a physical concept whereas "gender" is a concept of the mind. "Sex" is what a biologist would call it; "gender" is what a sociologist would call it. I really do not like to see my noble friend putting himself in the sociologists' camp as against the biologists' camp, and therefore I do not have too much sympathy with him on this occasion. But I shall be fascinated to hear what the noble Baroness says.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that my response can be brief. There really are sound legal reasons for using the term "sex" in this Bill. Almost without exception, existing legislation refers to "sex" rather than "gender". There is one honourable exception, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has firmly in his mind. It is the terminology traditionally used by legislation—for example, in the Sex Discrimination Act, although there are many others—to describe the characteristic of being male or female. It is also the approach taken in recent Bills—namely, the Housing Bill and the domestic violence Bill, with which we are currently dealing and which make provision for same-sex couples.
It has been pointed out that the Gender Recognition Bill, which was recently debated in this House, seems to be the one exception. The reason for that is relatively clear. In its report on the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted that the law has always regarded the question of being male or female as one of sex and not gender. It was explained to the
GC 36
committee that the Gender Recognition Bill deals with issues arising from a person's gender identity, which concerns whether a person regards himself or herself as male or female. In that context, "gender" is the more appropriate term and it is the term preferred by individuals with gender dysphoria.
In this Bill, we are dealing with couples of different sex or the same sex and therefore we do not believe that "gender" is the appropriate term to use. On this occasion, we delight to be with the biologists and with the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in that "sex" is the clearer term and it is one that fits more easily into other legislation and, therefore, into this Bill, too.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful for that educational lecture and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) which is subject to the Finance Act 2004"
The noble Lord said: This is an extremely important amendment. It will be apparent to Members of the Committee that, in a way, this is a peg on which to hang an extremely important argument. Nowadays, the Government seem able to do almost anything— including abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor, or at least trying to do so—in press releases. In relation to this Bill, the Inland Revenue issued a press release under the heading:
"Civil Partnership Bill: child & working tax credits, child benefit & guardians' allowance".
In the final paragraph, ahead of the "Notes for Editors", the press release states:
"The Civil Partnership Bill is social policy legislation, so any tax consequences will be dealt with in the first available Finance Bill".
That seems to me to be a complete non sequitur. I do not believe that one follows from the other. In fact, one would have thought that, if it was social policy legislation, the tax consequences would be dealt with in this Bill.
Also, the expression,
"in the first available Finance Bill",
is extraordinarily confusing and inappropriate. I am not in the least clear about it. and that is after years as a Treasury Minister and after decades as the chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee in another place. I am not at all sure what those words mean. I presume that they mean the first Finance Bill in which it is possible for the Government to legislate on this subject. Of course, a Finance Bill is going through another place at present, and there is no reason at all why the opportunity should not be taken to spell out the financial provisions relating to this Bill.
In an earlier debate, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, pointed out that it would not be appropriate for us to deal with financial matters. But I find it difficult to recall any piece of legislation where the tax and social security implications are not more important. To introduce this Bill without any clear indication of the proposed legislation so far as concerns the financial consequences really is a "Hamlet without the prince"

GC 37
situation. Therefore, my first question to the noble Baroness is: will she give an undertaking that these matters will be dealt with in the Finance Act 2004? That was the purpose of the amendment.
Having said that, there is now a long tradition, which I started back in 1972, of publishing draft clauses to Finance Bills if they concern complicated issues. It seems to me absolutely clear that, so far as concerns the financial implications of this Bill, those draft clauses should be available. Therefore, my second question to the noble Baroness is: are those draft clauses available? Does the Treasury have those draft clauses? If so, it seems to me to be essential that the Committee should see them before agreeing to the general provisions of the Bill. Having said that, it seems appropriate that they should be published as a draft—as I say, that is a well-established Treasury procedure—otherwise we will have no idea what the provisions really are on a whole range of issues.
I think it is broadly clear from the press release what will be the changes in regard to the Tax Credits Act. We have debated time and again today the question of inheritance tax and we still have no idea of what will be the situation in regard to it. We have no idea to which groups it will extend if relief is indeed to be given. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us today—we will need more detail later—whether inheritance tax will apply to those covered by the Bill.
As I pointed out earlier, what is involved is really a cash flow problem rather than an actual loss of revenue. The department has published an estimate that the cost would be £1.3 billion if inheritance tax relief were given to those covered by the Bill. Is that £1.3 billion the interest on losing the cash flow during that period, or is it some estimate of the absolute cost? I find it difficult to believe that it is the absolute cost, but no doubt the noble Baroness can clarify the matter.
I have received various representations. For example, the Society of Conservative Lawyers points out that the situation with regard to fiscal matters as far as a married couple is concerned—and so also, I imagine, as far as concerns those covered by the Bill—is different in status from other legislation because it not only affects the two parties' obligations as between themselves, it also affects their relationship with the taxman.
Various bodies have expressed considerable concern. For example, the Tax Law Review Committee of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is a highly reputable body, states:
"Despite the introduction of independent income taxation in 1990, the tax system is neither neutral or consistent with respect to marital status".
It continues:
"For some purposes it matters critically whether two people of opposite sex are married or not. For other purposes it is critical to know of a married couple whether they are 'living together' or not. For yet other purposes it is critical to know of an unmarried couple whether they are 'living together as husband and wife"'.
That very distinguished committee concluded,
"that the treatment of marriage overall in the tax system is confused".
It is going to be more confused if we do not get the legislation right in the Bill; and even more confused if we have no idea what the Government intend to do.
I was very worried by a statement made earlier by the noble Baroness in the context of tax and social security, which suggested they are still trying to work out the right approach. Perhaps she could tell us whether there are outstanding issues relating to the Treasury which a whole range of other government departments have not yet managed to resolve.
The Tax Law Review Committee, which is a non-party body, also expressed concern about the situation with regard to income tax and, in particular, tax credits, which, it points out, graft elements of the social security system into the income tax system. It is a key principle of social security law that "couples living together as husband and wife" are to be treated in exactly the same way as if they were married. But this is quite alien to tax law. Are we going to introduce that particular provision in relation to not only married couples, but to those covered by the Bill, and perpetuate the fact that the social security side of the issue—the tax credit system—is alien to tax law?
6 p.m.
I have already covered the question of the likely costs of the inheritance tax situation—at least to the extent of saying that we do not know the answer and look forward to seeing what is the position. There are further complications with regard to the extension of the surviving spouse exemption, and we are still not clear whether under the Bill one or other of the partners will be described legally as the "spouse", a word which turns up in a number of places in tax law. The Minister seems to indicate dissent, suggesting that one or other of the partners—I am not sure which one—will not be described as the "spouse" so far as concerns tax law.
These are not simple issues. We need to be clear about what the Government propose before we agree to the Bill going forward. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others have pointed out, the basic principle of the Bill relates to the disadvantages that same-sex couples are said to have suffered as a result of not having a fixed, stable relationship. Nevertheless, the whole of the tax and social security aspect is extremely important and we cannot allow the Bill to go through without knowing what on earth the Government have in mind. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The amendment seeks to insert a cross-reference in the Civil Partnership Bill to an Act that is not yet law but is currently proceeding through Parliament as the Finance Bill. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will agree that it is very unusual to attempt to amend a Bill before it has reached the statute book on the basis of another Bill which also has not reached the statute book and is subject to debate. It has never been done before, and I hope that the noble Lord will be only a little disappointed when I tell him that it is not going to be done on this occasion either.

GC 39
The Finance Bill includes no references to civil partners at the moment. That is not surprising because we are debating the matter now and, as I explained at Second Reading, Her Majesty's Treasury tends not to foreshadow that which may become law, choosing instead to deal with matters only once they are law. One can see the sense in that because we do not know what the Bill will look like in the final analysis. If it looks like a Bill which would delight the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, it will not look anything like the Bill as currently drafted. It is therefore impossible to say what will or will not be included—for instance, whether it will refer only to same-sex couples; whether it will refer to opposite sex couples and whether or not it will cross the bounds of consanguinity. Such issues would make a nonsense of the Finance Bill currently passing through Parliament.
We have to look at the certainties, and I can certainly be clear about the Government's intentions. It is not correct to say that the Government's intentions regarding the fiscal consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill are not crystal clear, because we believe that they are. The Government have already announced that for all tax purposes the intention is to treat civil partners in the same way that married couples are treated. Nothing can be clearer than that.
The Government have gone further, however, and clarified the tax consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill, which will be addressed and debated at the appropriate time in the first available Finance Bill. One knows that Finance Bills come round as regularly as good buses: if you miss the first one, you are assured that another one is coming right behind. The first bus might have left without the Bill, but the next one will be there in good time. So to insert a cross-reference in this year's Finance Bill would anticipate the outcome of the Civil Partnership Bill, something we need to avoid.
In addition, it is likely that the Civil Partnership Bill we are currently debating will not come into force until about a year after Royal Assent. So there will be plenty of time for another Finance Bill to include provisions dealing with the tax consequences of the Civil Partnership Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that that is as comprehensive an answer as I am able to give at this stage.
Lord Higgins: Quite the contrary. I am now not the least bit clear that if the Bill passes through Parliament and receives Royal Assent, as intended, which will be the next available Finance Bill to incorporate the tax provisions. It seems clear from what the noble Baroness said that it will not be the one now going through the House—although it is quite possible this Bill will be in fairly clear shape before then—but I can understand that. In which case, the statement in the press release that it will be in the next available Finance Bill is simply wrong.
The alternative is to say that it will be in the first Finance Bill after this Bill receives Royal Assent. That seemed at first to be what the noble Baroness was saying. But she then qualified it by saying that the Bill
GC 40
was not coming into operation until somewhat later and another Finance Bill will be coming along. That also is not the next available Finance Bill. So presumably the Government are saying—and ought to say—that the provisions relating to the Bill that require fiscal legislation will be in the first Finance Bill after it receives Royal Assent. Is or is not that what the Minister is saying?
The noble Baroness has totally failed to answer some of the important questions I raised. We need to know what the Government have in mind and whether, indeed, they know what they have in mind. The Minister seemed to imply earlier that they did not. We need to see some draft clauses. It is not unusual for the Treasury to produce draft clauses for debate, and it would enable the Committee and the House at subsequent stages of the Bill to have a precise, informed view.
It is not, with respect, adequate to say, "We will do exactly the same as with married couples". This is not simple legislation, and it will require detailed scrutiny in another place in due course. We need to know precisely what the Government have in mind before we agree to the Bill. We might be letting ourselves in for something quite unforeseen, and noble Lords could be asked to vote for it without knowing exactly what the Government have in mind. This is not a satisfactory situation. I again pose the question: do these draft clauses exist, or are we to understand that the Government are going ahead without producing any draft clauses in order to clear their minds in advance of putting forward the Bill? I hope the noble Baroness can answer these specific questions.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can certainly tell the noble Lord that I do not have, and have not had, sight of any draft clause; neither would I expect to. I hoped that I had been crystal clear. There are direct fiscal consequences which currently exist as a result of entering the state of marriage. They include inheritance tax; fiscal arrangements; the benefits one gets from additional allowances; and the disadvantages involved in being treated as a couple as opposed to single individuals. The Committee will know that in various financial categories some consequences are beneficial and some are not.
It is on that basis that I agreed with the statement made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that the Bill comes with a health warning. Those who believe it is all benefit and no responsibility are wrong. Just as with those who enter the state of marriage, there are rights, responsibilities and fiscal consequences. We propose that those who register as civil partners should have a similar distinction and the same rights, responsibilities and fiscal consequences as married couples. Those who choose not to register their relationships will have the same advantages and disadvantages as those who have chosen not to join with a partner in a recognised relationship. That is the way it will be divided.
I know that the noble Lord has had many debates—not least with my noble friend Lady Hollis—as to whether the current fiscal arrangements in relation to married couples should be changed because of

GC 41
anomalies and so on. However, we do not seek to resolve those difficulties through the Bill. There will be no difference between the tax relationship for those entering a partnership. They will not be spouses, because it will not be a marriage. The rules will relate to "civil partners" or "spouses", not simply to "spouses". There is no way in which civil partners could ever be described as "spouses" because they would not be in marriages.
Lord Goodhart: I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to confirm that the timetable runs something like this: that the clauses cannot be put into a Finance Bill until after the Civil Partnership Bill has received Royal Assent; and that the Civil Partnership Act, as it will then be, cannot be brought into force until the tax changes are made. Therefore, while this rules out any possibility of bringing the Bill into force in 2004, or the tax year 2004–05, it should be possible to bring it into force half-way through the tax year 2005–06. Can the noble Baroness confirm that when the Finance Act 2005 is passed—assuming, of course, that the present Government are responsible for that Act— the provisions will be drafted in such a way that, if the Civil Partnership Bill is brought into force in, say, October 2005, it will then be possible for one partner to transfer assets to the other partner and claim the capital gains tax exemption for any transfers made after the date of the civil partnership registration but before the end of the tax year 2005–06?
While I am not quite as sure as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that it is essential to see the clauses in advance if we are told sufficiently about what they will achieve, nevertheless it would certainly be advantageous to see them in advance and before the Finance Bill 2005 is published.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I think the noble Lord has it about right. I hope that I have put it clearly. All the tax changes will be made by the time of implementation. We anticipate that the Act will take about a year to implement after Royal Assent. I am sure that the usual practice in relation to a finance Bill will be followed and that there will be opportunities to debate it.
Lord Higgins: I shall try for a third time. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has put forward a reasonable scenario, but if the press release means anything at all, and if it does not refer to the finance Bill now going through the House, it must surely mean the first finance Bill after this Bill receives Royal Assent. Is that the case?
The noble Baroness also said that the expression "spouse" will not be used in relation to the Bill, but she said that the provisions in the finance Bill will mirror exactly, as I understand it, the provisions which already exist on the statute book in relation to marriage.
I reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said: there is ample precedent for draft clauses being published, not only in advance of another piece of
GC 42
legislation receiving Royal Assent but years before that. When I first introduced draft legislation on value added tax, it was published a full year before so that bodies such as the one to which I have referred, the tax committee of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, and so forth, could look at it and point out to the Government what changes were necessary.
It is extraordinary if the Treasury has not yet drafted these clauses. The matter needs careful scrutiny because one knows only too well from finance Acts that very often something emerges in the course of discussion, either on draft legislation or actual legislation, where problems arise which had not been foreseen. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to clear up those extra one or two points. Will it be in the first finance Bill after this Bill receives Royal Assent? If not, what on earth does the press release mean?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have said on four occasions— there is no other way I can say it although I am happy to repeat it—that all the tax changes will be made by the time of implementation, which we think will be about a year after Royal Assent. Those matters will go into the most convenient Bill. So it will be Royal Assent; implementation after one year and then a finance Bill. I cannot put it any clearer than that. The noble Lord can ask me 1,000 times and I will give him the same answer.
Lord Higgins: I feel bound to say that that is a highly unsatisfactory answer. No doubt we shall raise the issue again on Report in anticipation of a better answer. I hope that the noble Baroness will consult with Treasury Ministers in advance of that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 7, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv).
The noble Baroness said: This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in Grand Committee on the Civil Partnership Bill. I thank my noble friend Lord Higgins for opening the batting so well for me. I also take the opportunity as others have done before me to thank the Minister for the helpful meeting she arranged in my absence for my noble friend Lord Higgins and other colleagues. When I returned from my break they were able to brief me on the meeting. This will be the first time I have taken a Bill through the House for this side and I am happy to be supported by people as experienced as my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lord Henley, who also has yet to speak.
Part 1 is a helpful introduction to the Civil Partnership Bill. It has the effect of easing us into the slightly daunting 195 clauses which lie beyond Clause 1. That clause sets out the categories into which the provisions regarding civil partnerships are divided namely, England and Wales, Scotland. Northern Ireland and outside the UK. My amendment seeks to leave out this division of provisions for countries.
Clearly it is not my intention to leave these categories out of the Bill completely. At this stage this is a probing amendment but, in tabling it, my noble friend Lord Higgins and I are asking the Government why it is necessary to have different provisions for each of the categories outlined in Clause 1, and exactly how different are they. Is it the case that only the language used is different—for example, to cover the different legal systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland—or are there substantial differences of which we should be made aware? If that is the case, can the Minister explain why that should be?
In a Bill of this size it is not always easy to spot the differences between provisions, especially as we on these Benches do not have the luxury of an army of excellent civil servants and legal advisers at our disposal. As I said at Second Reading, the devil in a Bill such as this is always in the detail and I am taking this opportunity to ask the Government exactly what is meant by these provisions. I look forward to receiving clarification. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley: This is also my first speaking occasion in Grand Committee. I hope to give my noble friend Lady Scotland a breather.
As I see it, the purpose of the amendment is to remove the different registration procedures in the devolved administrations. It would also appear to remove the ability of same-sex couples to register as civil partners at British Consulates, or for Armed Forces personnel to register.
Under Clause 1, two people who are eligible to do so would be able to register as the civil partner of each other in either England or Wales, in Scotland or in Northern Ireland under the relevant part of the Bill. This ensures a coherent system across the United Kingdom while respecting the different legal jurisdictions in the different parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that answers one of the noble Baroness's questions. We are seeking a coherent system across the United Kingdom.
In addition, under provisions to be made by Order in Council, eligible same-sex couples would be able to form a civil partnership outside the United Kingdom in certain circumstances similar to those where marriage is available. This facility would be available at British consulates and for Armed Forces personnel serving abroad.
If noble Lords are seeking to reduce a civil partnership to a contract, it may be that they do not accept that the formation of the new legal relationship of civil partnership should take place when same-sex couples register as the civil partners of each other in accordance with the procedures set out in the Bill. However, I hope that point was explained in the debate on an earlier amendment. The Government see civil partnership as a new form of legal relationship, which is brought into being by partners registering.
The laws and practices of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are different in many areas of family law, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said.
GC 44
They each have their own statutory provisions. There are also different practices in registration procedures in the devolved regions when important life events are recorded. By acknowledging these different procedures the Bill seeks to respect the distinct legal systems and practices and to accommodate the diversity and character of the devolved administrations. The sub-paragraphs are an essential part of the description of how a civil partnership is formed and are linked to the parts of the Bill containing the registration procedures. For the reasons I have explained, we are not able to agree with the amendment and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Wilcox: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. The clarification she has provided is very helpful. I shall read it carefully. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (iii).
The noble Baroness said: The principle behind the amendment is to remove reference to Northern Ireland from the Bill. It is not intended to undermine the amendment of my noble friend Lady Wilcox, which was a probing amendment. This is something quite different.
Let us be under no misapprehension: there is no way that the Civil Partnership Bill would ever get through the Northern Ireland Assembly. In Northern Ireland, the level of objection to gay marriage would be overwhelming. I think the majority of people in Britain would oppose the Bill if they knew what it was about; in Northern Ireland the opposition would be almost universal—and yet the Bill seeks to impose civil partnerships on the Province.
We all know that Northern Ireland has a very different religious and political culture. Family life is very strong in the Province and divorce rates are much lower than on the "mainland", a term I use advisedly because it is how the people of Northern Ireland refer to England, Scotland and Wales when they are speaking of Great Britain. On the mainland, many of the hard cases amongst platonic relationships arise as a result of family breakdown. There is much less of that in Northern Ireland. As a matter of fact, there are very few homosexuals. A recent census found that there were only 288 same-sex couple households in the whole of the Province. The reference for that is the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Online-Census 2001. As if we did not know for other reasons, this simply shows that the situation is very different there.
Above all, we cannot be seen to be riding roughshod over the wishes of the electorate of Northern Ireland. It would be a constitutional outrage for the Bill to impose civil partnerships upon them.
In June 2003, the Government published a consultation paper announcing plans to introduce civil partnerships in England and Wales. In that paper, the Government stated that,
"no decision has yet been taken as to whether a parallel civil partnership registration scheme might be introduced in Northern Ireland".
On 19 December 2003, five months later, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ian Pearson, launched a consultation on civil partnerships in the Province. The closing date for submissions was 5 March 2004.
One would hope that a two-month consultation from 19 December to 5 March would elicit a good number of responses from members of the public and interested parties. One would also hope that the Government would take adequate time to consider such responses. However, on 30 March, only 25 days after the consultation closed and before any report had been produced, this Bill was printed. It came complete with at least 49 clauses and three schedules applying civil partnerships—in full—to the Province.
The England and Wales consultation closed on 30 September 2003. Six months passed before the Bill was published, yet consideration of the opinions of members of the public in Northern Ireland apparently took only days.
In answer to a Written Question, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said:
"All responses have been examined carefully and the points made, both points of principle and detailed comments, have been properly taken into account".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/04; col. 918W.]
Such detailed consideration simply cannot be possible in such a timeframe. Will the Minister tell the Committee what was said in the responses to the consultation and how many were made? The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State promised a report on the consultation in early May. I know that today is 10 May, but when is early May? When is it likely to happen?
As we all know, the Northern Ireland Assembly is, sadly, currently suspended. The Government are therefore exercising all its functions. Could it be that the Government are trying to get gay marriage on the statute book in Northern Ireland before the Assembly reconvenes because they know that the Assembly would not support it? The opinions of those in Northern Ireland are being bypassed, and it is clear that we should not extend civil partnerships to Northern Ireland in this Bill. The Government should let the elected Assembly debate the merits of civil partnerships in due course. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Perhaps I may give a number of minor corrections? The England and Wales consultation closed on 30 December 2003. I hope that it will give the noble Baroness pleasure to learn that the consultation paper has been published today and that we hope to be able shortly to get copies to all those who
GC 46
have participated in the Bill. We will put copies in the Library immediately. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to take advantage of that today.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, that I understand entirely why she says that there is a difference in terms of Northern Ireland. We need to be clear that the effect of this amendment would be to prevent the formation of civil partnerships in Northern Ireland and that it would therefore be the one part of the United Kingdom where parity of treatment did not prevail. When the Government consulted on this issue in Northern Ireland, we made clear our views that considerations of fairness and social justice applied just as much to same-sex couples in Northern Ireland as elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
I hear what the noble Baroness said about the numbers of homosexual couples or individuals who have chosen to declare themselves. If one were to have asked a similar question in England, Wales, or Scotland a few years ago, one might have found similar low numbers of homosexual couples apparently resident in England, Wales and Scotland. We know that that would have not been the correct case. Simply because of the prejudice and disadvantage, many fear to disclose their sexual orientation.
The consultation in Northern Ireland generated a considerable response. The majority of responses from individuals were opposed to the introduction of civil partnerships but, on the other hand, most groups or organisations who responded—including the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission:—were supportive for the reasons set out in the consultation paper. I understand that the analysis of the responses, which has just been published, will inform noble Lords and others of the detail of that.
The Government have considered carefully the responses received, both the numerical balance and the arguments made. Ultimately, we have decided that the reasons why this proposal was put forward in the first place still hold good. We remain convinced of the strong equality and social justice imperatives behind this proposal. No matter what size the population, we have come to the conclusion that fairness and social justice are demanded by each individual and group of individuals, no matter what their size or number.
There are also strong practical and administrative reasons for ensuring that comparable schemes would be established in each of the three jurisdictions, to ensure that a comprehensive package of rights and responsibilities would be available to civil partners wherever the civil partnership was formed. There are issues of inequality and social justice that affect everyone across the United Kingdom. Our preference is for co-ordinated schemes benefiting everyone in a comprehensive way.
I hope that Members of the Committee would agree that it would be invidious if some of the rights and responsibilities attaching to civil partnership were removed from some couples on the basis that they had,

GC 47
for whatever reason, moved from England and Wales or Scotland to Northern Ireland. If there were no civil partnership in Northern Ireland, same-sex couples from Northern Ireland would have to travel to England, Wales or Scotland to register as civil partners of each other. That would present obvious disadvantages to those on lower incomes and with disabilities.
Furthermore, civil partners returning to Northern Ireland would be subject only to the rights and responsibilities falling within the reserved or excepted field, such as immigration rights. Rights and responsibilities in transferred areas such as inheritance and intestacy would not be extended to them. I hope that Members of the Committee agree that that would be grossly unfair.
A theme that has run very strongly in Northern Ireland is the desire to have parity of treatment and equal rights and responsibilities. We think that an exception should not be made in the area, and I ask the noble Baroness not only to withdraw the amendment, as she must today, but to consider that it would be right not to bring it back on Report.
Lord Goodhart: I shall speak very briefly on the amendment. I concur entirely with what the Minister said. I will not comment in detail on what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, because I would find it difficult to do so without my language becoming unparliamentary.
Lord Higgins: I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I was not entirely clear to which document she referred that had only just been published. Is it the response to the consultation, or the consultation document itself? I was also rather puzzled by what she said about the situation if, supposing the provisions did not come into force in Northern Ireland, an individual came to the UK and then returned to Northern Ireland. Would he or she not be in the same position as someone who otherwise has an overseas civil partnership? I am not clear on that, but it is a difficult area and I am not at all familiar with the law on it.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The report to which I referred is the report that analyses the responses made to the Northern Ireland consultation. We have been waiting for it for a little while, so I am very pleased that I am able to say that it has been published. It will be put in the Library, but I thought that, as a matter of courtesy, the Members who have participated in this Committee might like to receive a copy directly. Therefore, we have undertaken to send a copy to each of them.
In terms of support, I referred to the ability of those whose country of residence is Northern Ireland to take advantage of the fiscal and other opportunities that the Bill gives. Members of the Committee will know that, within England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, there is an arrangement in relation to how benefits are paid and what one can draw and not draw. That is relatively easily done when the system is well
GC 48
co-ordinated. It would be difficult if a recognised civil partnership system in England, Wales and Scotland, operating in the context of those three separate administrations, enabled a person to claim benefits and advantages as a full partner, but if those benefits were not made available to him or her when residing in Northern Ireland. For example, if someone were to leave Northern Ireland in order to enter into a registered partnership in England, Wales or Scotland and then go back to Northern Ireland, where there would not be a similar recognition of that status, the benefits that would attach to partnership would not attach in Northern Ireland. That would not be fair or just.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the Minister for always being gracious and kind and for respecting other people's views. I am sorry that some other people do not ever seem to think that I am prepared to have a view, which is probably not fair.
The Minister has had a considerable benefit in responding to the amendment. She has seen the document. I am operating in the dark. Have there been any revisions, or are any revisions planned, to the sections of the Bill that deal with Northern Ireland following the consultation?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: A policy decision has in effect been made as a result of the consultation on whether to exempt Northern Ireland. The policy decision is that all British citizens have to be treated equally in this way. For reasons of social justice, we simply did not feel that it was possible or proper to exclude Northern Ireland from an opportunity that we were giving to the rest of the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness will know the particular sensitivities that flow both ways about difference of treatment and the sensitivity that surrounds our response. We have taken the decision, for reasons of equality and social justice, that we could not, in all conscience, maintain a distinction.
We understand the sentiments that the noble Baroness has expressed. We understand why she said that the situation in Northern Ireland is different from that which prevails in England, Wales or Scotland, but it is right to remind your Lordships that there is 83 per support for the Bill in England and Wales right across the board. Eighty four per cent of individuals supported it and 74 per cent of organisations. Only 17 per cent did not support it or did not express an opinion. There is whole-hearted support for what the Government are doing right across the board in England, Scotland and Wales. We understand that Northern Ireland may fall into a different category, but, as a policy consideration, we have come to the conclusion that it would not be fair, just or proper to treat those who want a same-sex relationship in Northern Ireland differently from those who want that relationship in England, Wales or Scotland. This is, after all, still a United Kingdom.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the Minister for that answer, but the problem is that Northern Ireland is

GC 49
very different. The very fact that she considered exempting Northern Ireland from the Bill indicates that the Government are very aware of the difference.
I wonder where the Northern Ireland Assembly fits into all of this. Although the Minister said that the Northern Irish people should not be deprived of the opportunity, I am quite convinced that it would not be regarded as an opportunity in Northern Ireland. This looks as though again it is the mainland riding roughshod over Northern Ireland—a sensitive issue at a sensitive time when the Assembly is suspended. And there is the importance of dealing with Northern Ireland with kid gloves—I have railed against that on occasions, too—but we have bent over backwards in order to try to defuse trouble. I fear that this is yet another of those situations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that above all there is a desire to have parity of treatment. It is the desire of us in Westminster to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have parity of treatment, irrespective of whether they want it or not. After all, the Bill is a fundamental rewriting of family law. For example, we have never sought to impose English divorce law on Northern Ireland. It has its own laws which reflect differences in culture and the strong religious faith. Why must we insist that they accept English—Westminster and London—ideas about how to deal with homosexual partnerships?
I am sorry if this offends the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but homosexual practice is much less acceptable in Northern Ireland. That is a fact. One can say that that is narrow-minded, bigoted, unfair, uncaring and all of those things, but that is a fact. We must not impose English civil partnership legislation, particularly while the Assembly is suspended. I know there is nothing I can do about this now—anyway, I probably have absolutely no support—but in withdrawing the amendment I give the Minister notice that I shall return to it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: This is a small point and I shall not hold the Committee up for long with a long explanation as to why we have tabled the amendment. Clause 1 is an introduction to the whole idea of civil partnerships. It is a summary—an overview. Subsection (2) states that all civil partnerships, no matter where they are formed—England, Wales or Scotland—can be void under the Act in the ways stated. Our amendment would leave out subsection (2).
We do recognise the ways in which a civil partnership can be declared void, but we have tabled this amendment as a drafting point. It seems to me that in a generally well-drafted and articulate Bill, subsection (2) of Clause 1 is somewhat out of place. It does not really even seem to make sense until you have read it several times—and I say that as a founder of the Plain English Campaign. Can the Minister confirm that this is the drafting which will appear in the Act?
GC 50
Or might she take the amendment, as it is intended, and ask the draftsmen very kindly to have another look at subsection (2) with a view to making it more understandable for all of those who will, in years to come, be using the Act? I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I apologise if the noble Baroness found the provision difficult. It was hoped that the meaning of subsection (2) was relatively clear, but I accept immediately that clarity to a lawyer seems always to be so opaque to those who are not burdened with constant interpretation—or so it has come to appear to me since I joined this House.
The amendment would remove from the Bill the idea that a civil partnership can be void. I do not believe that that is what the noble Baroness intends—she is worried only about the wording. It was hoped that in the way in which the subsection is constructed—I shall certainly go back to the draftsmen—it would be crystal clear that we are introducing three ways in which you can get out of a civil partnership. They are on death, or on dissolution or on annulment.
If the registration is void for a specific reason—for example, if two people enter into a registration of a partnership and at the time of that entry one of them is still married, or within the bounds of consanguinity, and should not have entered into the partnership—that would not be a voidable partnership. It would be void ab initio—it would have been void right from the beginning. It would be null. If we look at the basis on which we are setting out the procedure to get out of these registration partnerships, it would usually take two years to bring it to an end, whereas if it were void from the beginning the partners would be entitled to want to set it aside.
Therefore, the wording is hoped to be short and succinct in paragraph 2, because subsection (1) is subject to the provisions of this Bill, under or by virtue of which a civil partnership is void. Subsequently, we go on to deal with the provisions that would make a partnership void. Paragraph 3—if your Lordships look at it—sets out the same basis; death, dissolution, or annulment. In the later sections we clarify each of those.
If the intent of the noble Baroness is not to remove the ability to invalidate a registration and express it as being void, we can look again. I fear that I will be told that the drafting is as precise and as succinct as we can make it, and that if you look at the rest of the Bill, it becomes explicable. I do not know whether that helps the noble Baroness. I am happy to explain as we go along what will make it void, voidable, or subject to dissolution, and the consequences that flow from that. I regret to tell your Lordships that for a family lawyer, I am afraid that these phrases would be all too familiar.
Baroness Wilcox: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. For the lawyers, it is all perfectly clear. However, if we draft everything for lawyers, only they will ever have access to anything. I am not sure that that is right. The National Consumer Council will "tut, tut, tut". I have no choice at this stage but to

GC 51
withdraw the amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for having said that she will go back to her team and ask them not to exclude the man on the Clapham omnibus.
I remember when I was chairman of the National Consumer Council, and we did some work on access to justice. Out of that flowed a lot of awfully good work. Now that the Minister has explained it to me—absolutely wonderful. However, if I had to pay her to explain it to me, it would have cost me a great deal of money. For the moment, I will withdraw the amendment, but I am grateful that she will go back to check whether it can be made a bit clearer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ", dissolution or annulment" and insert "or dissolution"
The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 9, and with the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 47 and 48. We touched on the first amendment and the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, had a discussion. The Minister did go some way to explaining the position. If noble Lords would be patient, I would prefer to read out exactly what I have written down. I am not sure that I understood what she was saying, or how much it answered my question.
It is a probing group of amendments. We are still in the introductory stages of the Bill, and I wanted to raise the point about the ending of a civil partnership early on, to be clear in my own mind what exactly this entails.
Amendment No. 9 relates to Clause 1(3), which states:
"A civil partnership ends only on death, dissolution or annulment".
My amendment would leave out one of the processes of bringing a civil partnership to an end; namely, annulment. It is annulment with which our amendments are concerned. Amendment No. 47 would leave out the paragraph in Clause 36 which allows the court to make an order which annuls a civil partnership. Amendment No. 48 would leave out the subsection in that clause which deals with the time when a civil partnership will cease to exist due to nullity.
Clause 48 deals with the grounds on which a civil partnership will be held to be void. Annulment for civil partnerships seems a rather puzzling idea to me. For example, it is a commonly held belief that a marriage will be annulled when it has not been consummated. I cannot believe that that is to be the case for civil partnerships. It does not seem likely and, from reading the Bill, it would seem that some procedural irregularity would need to occur in order for it to happen. However, I felt that we needed to make the point that it seemed unlikely that such an irregularity would occur, given the very detailed process through which two prospective civil partners have to go before
GC 52
achieving civil partnership status. Is it really necessary to have the two separate categories of dissolution and annulment? I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I certainly now understand why the noble Baroness tabled these probing amendments. I say to her straightaway that it is not only lack of consummation that can bring a nullity order; there can be all sorts of additional examples, such as a person marrying under the age of 16 or masquerading as a different gender. There are all sorts of issues that would mean that, right from the beginning, the relationship—whether a marriage or a partnership—could not have been valid in law. That is why the provisions on nullity remain.
Amendment No. 9 would remove the statement that a civil partnership may be annulled. Amendment No. 47 to Clause 36 would remove the power of the court to make a nullity order, and Amendment No. 48 to Clause 36 would remove the description of the effect of a nullity order in cases where a civil partnership is voidable. It is quite important to retain those provisions because of the Bill's complexity. We thought it necessary to emphasise how serious the relationships were; they cannot be entered into lightly and they cannot be dissolved or removed lightly.
Clause 36(3) provides that a nullity order made in respect of a civil partnership which is voidable annuls the civil partnership only for any period after the order is made final. The civil partnership is to be treated as though it had existed up to that date. Clause 48 sets out the grounds on which a civil partnership would be void, and therefore invalid, under the law of England and Wales, and Clause 49 sets out the grounds on which a civil partnership would be voidable.
I should make clear the difference between "void" and "voidability". Something void never had any value from the beginning—it could not have happened. Something voidable can be declared not to be void at the instance of one person. Those concepts have sat in our law for a very long time. One is void from the beginning—what we would call void ab initio—and was never valid; the other can be challenged and found not to be valid and therefore voidable.
The provisions provide that a civil partnership would be void where the fundamental eligibility requirements were not met. The examples that I have given apply. Other examples would be where the couple were not of the same sex, where one of them already had a civil partner, or where a serious procedural breach had occurred, such as where the due notice of proposed civil partnership had not been given. The problems would be where some fundamental breach had been made.
The civil partnership will also be void if certain formal requirements are not complied with. These are the failure to provide the required notice, the civil partnership document not being duly issued or having expired, the place of registration not being the place specified in the notice and the civil partnership document, or a civil partnership registrar not being present at the registration.

GC 53
In addition, the civil partnership of a person under the age of 18 will be void if the civil partnership document was void by reason of its issue having been forbidden by a person whose consent is required for the child to form a civil partnership. So, if your 16 year-old asks, "Can I enter into this partnership?" and you say "No", and then by some strategy they manage to get themselves before the registrar and enter into it, it is void and will not be recognised.
It is important that civil partnerships should be void where there are severe irregularities. An example of that is where one of the civil partners is already registered as a civil partner of another person or is already married. In such a case, it would be wrong to require the other civil partner to apply for an order for dissolution as the civil partnership was never validly in existence. There is a clear difference between a civil partnership that was in existence and subsequently broke down, for which dissolution is appropriate, and a civil partnership that never legally existed.
Removing the provisions for voiding a civil partnership would have very serious repercussions for the whole Bill. It would require a civil partnership, formed in breach of the key eligibility criteria and registration requirements, to be treated as if it were valid. We do not think that that can possibly be right.
Civil partnership is a serious and significant legal relationship. There are some conditions on eligibility and procedure that the state regards as essential to prevent abuse. Where one of those is breached the consequence should be that the civil partnership is void.
7.15 p.m.
I hope that I have said enough to explain why a nullity order provides protection for civil partners and matches the protection available to married people where there are major legal irregularities. To remove the provisions for nullity would significantly and unnecessarily reduce the protection available to civil partners introducing a difference between them and spouses for which we can see no real justification. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will be enlightened a little.
Baroness Wilcox: That was a full and informative reply to the questions which I raised. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for the clarification she has provided on the point, which is most helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Formation of civil partnership by registration]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 10, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "in the presence of a commissioner for oaths as witness and of each other, after the written consent of the civil partnership registrar has been obtained"
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 11 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 and Clause 6 stand part. The purpose of the amendments is to replace the register office ceremony.
At Second Reading I pointed out the many similarities between civil partnership and marriage. If this Bill is not gay marriage, which is what the Government claim, I cannot see any logical reason for the Bill to imitate the civil marriage ceremony. I cannot see why the Government would be attached to this method of formation. Presumably, they cannot object to a different but equally secure mode of registering civil partnerships.
The registration ceremony is one of the obvious ways in which civil partnership imitates civil marriage. The parties must sign the register at the register office in the presence of two witnesses and the registrar. That is identical to civil marriage. Any person sitting outside a register office for a few hours would see heterosexual and homosexual couples coming and going. He would know that they had stood before the registrar with their witnesses; he would know that they had all signed the register and he would see them coming out wreathed in smiles. He would conclude, not unreasonably, that the heterosexual and homosexual couples alike were married.
Many married people will be deeply offended that the civil marriage ceremony is to be adopted in the formation of civil partnerships. I have had a large postbag to that effect. Many people feel that marriage is marriage and civil partnerships are civil partnerships and ne'er the twain should be mixed up. As I said at Second Reading, it is wrong to create a parody of marriage for homosexuals, particularly as the Government maintain that this civil partnership is not a marriage.
There is an additional argument. I have argued, along with others, that civil partnership should be open to a much wider range of people. I dealt with this in my first group of amendments. In order to open up civil partnership to those in non-sexual relationships or relationships not necessarily of the same sex, we must remove the similarities with marriage. It is obvious that two sisters would feel uncomfortable going through a kind of marriage ceremony in order to get legal recognition for their co-dependent relationship. Two friends would not want to have to stand before a registrar to obtain the benefits contained in the Bill.
My amendments simply replace the register office event in Clause 3. Instead, the couples involved would require formalities comparable to those necessary to obtain an enduring power of attorney. Those formalities would still be adequate to tackle fraud. Written consent would need to be obtained from the registrar in advance. That would provide the opportunity to verify the application.
The parties would then need to sign the civil partnership document and have it witnessed by a commissioner for oaths. That is an exercise with which people who have been involved in legal proceedings may be familiar. The next step would be to post the

GC 55
completed form to the registrar. Only when the couple receive notification that the document is registered is the partnership formed. These are sensible amendments. I hope that the Minister will be willing to give consideration to them. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley: The purpose of these amendments is to alter the role of the civil partnership registrar and the registration service in the formation of civil partnerships.
The amendments are at odds with the approach to civil partnership registration taken by the Bill. They replace the role of civil partnership registrars in the statutory steps of formation with commissioners for oaths, who will merely witness the signature of a document signed by the couple. The role of the civil partnership registrar would be reduced to providing a written consent for a couple to sign a civil partnership document in front of a commissioner for oaths and to countersigning the civil partnership document once the couple and the commissioner for oaths had signed it.
In the Government's view, civil partnership is a legal relationship, which is formed when two people register as civil partners of each other. It is that simple but solemn procedure which brings the civil partnership into being. By taking the step of forming a civil partnership the couple will gain rights and undertake the responsibilities to which we referred in our earlier discussions, which are set out by law and are not chosen by agreement between them. We do not see this relationship as based on a contract. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for the formation of a civil partnership to take place with only a commissioner for oaths as a witness.
The amendments may assume that a civil partnership registrar does little more than witness the signing of the civil partnership document. This is not the case. It is likely that civil partnership registrars will be designated from existing registration staff and they are therefore likely to have considerable experience in dealing with couples at such a significant time in their lives. They will also be in a position to give the signing of the civil partnership document the same degree of solemnity, significance and importance that is associated with other significant life events, such as civil marriage.
In this way, they will contribute to the cultural and social change expected with the introduction of the civil partnership. They will have the knowledge and training to be able to check on the day whether the couple still meet the eligibility requirements for registering as civil partners of each other. And there may be up to 12 months between the giving of notice of a proposed civil partnership and the signing of the civil partnership document. They will have the experience, as registrars, to be able to deal with any issues which may have arisen during that period in relation to eligibility. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
GC 56
In response to the wider clause stand part debate, Clause 6 sets out several provisions relating to the place at which two people may register as civil partners of each other. I use this opportunity to stress that civil partnership is a registration that is a purely secular process. The couple registering as civil partners of each other will have to take the statutory steps set out in the Bill. Their partnership is formed when they sign the civil partnership document in the presence of a civil partnership registrar and witnesses. It is not appropriate to have this secular registration process take place in religious premises, as has been suggested.
For registration of a civil partnership under the standard procedure, the venue chosen by the proposed civil partners must be agreed with the registration authority in which it is located. Once agreed, it must be specified in the notice of civil partnership. If it has not been agreed, the notice will be void.
In that way, the registration authority will maintain full control over the exact place of registration. This will help to ensure that the health and safety of its officers is not threatened by attending potentially dangerous places. The place must also be open to any person wishing to attend the registration, and therefore it must be public. That will enable objections to the proposed civil partnership to be raised by any person wishing to do so. I beg to move that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Higgins: I believe that the noble Baroness is in error in saying that because there are subsequent amendments to Clause 6. It is true that the clause stand part question is grouped with this set of amendments, but I believe that she needs to wait a little before moving that Clause 6 shall stand part.
Baroness Crawley: I apologise for my naivety in moving a debate which we have not yet had. I thought that perhaps Members of the Committee had just given up and wanted to go home. Can I therefore move the amendment?
Baroness O'Cathain: You cannot move anything!
Baroness Crawley: Thank you for telling me.
Lord Tebbit: I hope that the noble Baroness will not feel too upset about what just happened because she may have noticed that earlier today I failed to speak to an amendment that I had tabled and managed to speak to an amendment not then in the grouping. It happens to all of us, particularly in this awful stuffy room on an afternoon like this.
The Minister's speech was quite remarkable. Never did I think that our old friend health and safety would be brought into the Bill. Health and safety is now the reason that there is almost nothing you can do. I think that sooner or later our children will conceive that a little creature—"elf and safety"—comes out of the woods to prohibit things. It was quite the most remarkable reason for putting down my noble friend's amendment that I have ever heard.

GC 57
It seems to me that what she said was eminently sensible. Indeed, as she spoke, it occurred to me that the Bill might have been better if the Government had bundled the provisions for civil marriage into civil partnership and abolished civil marriage because the distinctions between the two have almost completely faded away and people may conclude that there will now be only one genuine article of marriage—that is, one which is properly conducted within a church. That might not be a bad thing. They might just as well have bundled civil marriage into civil partnership and said, "Heave it all in; no difference. It is not a contract or anything like that, just an arrangement for loving couples, so here we go". If the Government are not going to go as far as that—I fancy that they would be slightly embarrassed to do so—they should give careful consideration to the amendment proposed by my noble friend.
Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the Minister, who gave us a little levity. As my noble friend said, the atmosphere in this room is ghastly. I have discovered that there is more than one person with a blinding headache. Although this is "off the record", I hope that for the next session of Grand Committee something can be done about the air in this room. One has only to go out for two seconds to realise just how appalling it is. I have the most terrible headache. However, I thank the noble Baroness, who is full of life—I do not know how; the rest of us are dying on our feet.
The Minister opened her rebuttal of my amendments by saying that they would alter the role of civil partnership. Of course they would. Why else would I table the amendments? She said that they are at odds with the Bill. Of course they are, otherwise I would not have moved them. Then the whole argument rested on the fact that there is a registrar who has a job to do. I shall not bring up the "elf and safety", but the Minister said that the registrar is experienced in all these issues. I draw the attention of the Grand Committee to the fact that the registrar is experienced in the registration of civil marriages, not in the registration of civil partnerships. The problem is that, the closer we get to the nuts and bolts of this in Grand Committee, the more we realise that the two phrases, "civil partnerships" and "civil marriages" are utterly interchangeable.
So, what is wrong with the registrar having to have a new set of rules to deal with civil partnerships along the lines contained in my amendment? The noble Baroness says that it is a legal relationship and therefore it has to have a simple but solemn procedure. Indeed, it is also important that the rights and responsibilities involved in it should be undertaken seriously. That is precisely what happens with an enduring power of attorney, to which I referred.
The Minister said that it is also important—this made me smile— that the witnesses and not just the registrar should be there looking at the signing and the solemnity. as in a civil marriage. That came right from the mouth of the noble Baroness. But do we not realise that many civil marriages have witnesses who are
GC 58
literally taken in from the street? They are asked to, "come and witness our civil marriage". Many celebrities, or so-called celebrities, have done that. I know of two couples who decided that they were going to get married. They did not want their friends to know exactly when they were to be married. They went to the registry office and pulled in two guys from the street as witnesses. I do not think that the witnesses of civil marriages are aware of their solemn duty and responsibility. It is not exactly like godparents at a baptism.
I did not get the point about eligibility; that the eligibility requirements can be checked on the day. I wonder whether they can be. The noble Baroness put in another complication. One could make one's intention known about the civil partnership and have up to 12 months to regularise or formalise the contract. For those reasons, I was not desperately convinced.
I cannot see why the statutory steps that I suggested in the amendment could not be taken as statutory steps for a civil partnership. The Government say that these are the rules. All I am asking with these amendments is: why are they the rules? And are not the rules also in the situation where we are in Grand Committee subject to input from people holding different views who can tease out whether the rules are valid or could be changed and whether it would be better if they were changed and made stronger or whatever. Surely. that is the purpose of debate. I know that I can do nothing else about it, but I shall return to the matter on Report and probably at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 12 to 14 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Wilcox: The Question whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Higgins. This is a simple question. It seeks clarification on the clause in the Bill that deals with the registration and formalities of civil partnerships.
We tabled the question after the point was raised at Second Reading. Although the Bill is large and detailed, it is not very clear on the formalities of a civil partnership. Therefore, will the Minister explain to the Committee exactly what the form is for civil partnerships? When in the process of becoming civil partners may the participants call themselves such? What will be the final act of becoming civil partners? In addition to the signing of a document, what will the registration process involve? I look forward to hearing an outline of how exactly the process will work in practice.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Clause 2 describes the point at which two people are to be regarded as having registered as civil partners to each other. It sets out who is to be present at the registration, who is to sign the civil partnership document and it states the

GC 59
administrative procedure to be completed after the registration. It has an important link back to Clause 1. I can see perplexed looks.
Lord Alli: I just wondered whether we are on Clause 2 stand part.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Yes.
Lord Alli: Are other noble Lords talking to that?
Baroness Wilcox: I am talking to the Question whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill, which stands in my name. We do not want it to stand part because we are trying to question the procedure.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Clause 2 has an important link back to Clause 1, which provides that a civil partnership is formed between two people when they register as civil partners to each other. So, in accordance with Clause 2, the couples are to be regarded as having registered as civil partners once each has signed the civil partnership document at the invitation of, and in the presence of, the civil registration registrar and two witnesses.
GC 60
The civil partnership registrar and the two witnesses must then sign the civil partnership document in the presence of each other and the civil partners. After the signing is complete, the registration authority in whose area the signing takes place must ensure that the civil partnership registration and any other information prescribed by regulations is recorded in the register.
In order to reflect the secular status of the civil partnership, the clause also provides that no religious service is to be used while the civil partnership registrar is officiating at the signing of the civil partnership document. For that reason, Clause 2 complements, and is integral to, the aims of Clause 1. I hope that the noble Baroness does not press her opposition to the clause.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am entirely in your Lordships' hands, but I notice that it is 7.26 p.m. I think this is a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Wednesday at 3.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld): The Committee stands adjourned until Wednesday 12 May at 3.30 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-six minutes past seven o'clock.

  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Visits outside British Isles
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Visits outside British Isles
  Ulster-Scots Agency: Budget 2004
  Ulster-Scots Agency: Budget 2004
  Waterways Ireland
  Waterways Ireland
  Northern Ireland: Railways
  Northern Ireland: Railways
  Joint Combat Aircraft
  Joint Combat Aircraft
  Astute Class Attack Submarines
  Astute Class Attack Submarines
  Billy Bragg
  Billy Bragg
  Asylum and Immigration Cases: Legal Aid
  Asylum and Immigration Cases: Legal Aid
  Conditional Fee Agreements
  Conditional Fee Agreements
  Special Immigration Appeals Commission
  Special Immigration Appeals Commission
  Community Legal Service
  Community Legal Service
  Electoral Roll
  Electoral Roll
  Pension Protection Fund
  Pension Protection Fund
  Department for Work and Pensions: Means-tested Benefits and Staff
  Department for Work and Pensions: Means-tested Benefits and Staff
  Work at Height Regulations: Mountaineering and Similar Activities
  Work at Height Regulations: Mountaineering and Similar Activities
  Internet: Disabled People
  Internet: Disabled People
  Sport: EU Competence
  Sport: EU Competence
  Local Election Rules
  Local Election Rules
  Biological Weapons: US Sales to Iraq
  Biological Weapons: US Sales to Iraq
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Bangladesh
  Bangladesh
  Iraq: Transitional Administrative Law and Human Rights
  Iraq: Transitional Administrative Law and Human Rights
  Iraq: Special Tribunal
  Iraq: Special Tribunal
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  European Court of Human Rights
  European Court of Human Rights
  Cameroon: Human Rights
  Cameroon: Human Rights
  Iran and Iraq: Movements of Armed Groups
  Iran and Iraq: Movements of Armed Groups
  Middle East: Gaza and West Bank Settlements
  Middle East: Gaza and West Bank Settlements
  Clinical Research Funding
  Clinical Research Funding
  Emissions Trading: EU National Allocation Plans
  Emissions Trading: EU National Allocation Plans
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review
  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review
  Angling
  Angling

  Humanitarian Mine Action
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the following Statement.

  Following an internal review by the Department for International Development, I am announcing today a revision to the department's management of its support to Humanitarian Mine Action. The review team consulted a wide range of stakeholders including the United Nations, civil society, mine action organisations and other government departments.

  In 2000 DfID decided to channel the majority of its funds for mine action through the United Nations. The objectives of the review were to assess whether DfID's policy objectives of channelling most of its funds in this way were being met, and to consider DfID's resourcing of mine action and to look at future options.

  The review concluded that the overall policy approach should remain unchanged. The four existing main pillars of support remain valid. These are to: support humanitarian mine action focused on the poorest countries; improve the effectiveness of the international mine action system to mine pollution; develop new technologies to improve mine clearance; and promote the globalisation of the mine ban convention. Additionally DfID's commitment to spend at least £10 million per annum on humanitarian mine action will continue.

  The policy in 2000 established partnership arrangements with the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Geneva Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD). This support has contributed to improved co-ordination in the international system. These partnerships will continue but with revised overall funding levels. UNMAS and UNDP will continue to receive similar levels of funding to assist in strengthening their capacity but will receive less towards country programme activity. Support to UNMAS will primarily be for its co-ordination role rather than its mine clearance operations, except in cases requiring short-term emergency response. In the case of UNICEF, DfID's ongoing three-year partnership for support to mine risk education will continue.

  As a result of these changes, DfID will now consider other funding options including bilateral funding via non-government organisations (NGOs) and commercial companies. NGOs have an important role to play in advocating and implementing mine action. The revised
  WS 2
  policy reflects this by ensuring that more bilateral resources will be available to fund mine clearance by NGOs.

  Within DfID, the Conflict and Humanitarian Affairs Department (CHAD) will continue to be the central point for humanitarian mine action policy. However in view of the increasing mainstreaming of mine action into development programmes, DfID regional desks/offices also have an important role where mine action features in DfID country assistance plans. This creates an additional potential source of funding from within DfID.

  DfID will continue to fund research and technology and the generation of knowledge. The department expects to commit approximately 10 per cent of its mine action funding in this area.

  Anti-structures Munition
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Ministry of Defence has selected two systems offered by Dynamit Nobel and Saab Bofors Dynamics to proceed into a competitive assessment phase for the antistructures 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 lace 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 Analytical Services Agency: Key Targets 2004–05
  Lord Bach
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Key targets have been set for the chief executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA) for the 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

  WS 3
  customers for ongoing work, and project agreements for surveys, modelling and other one-off projects.

  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.

  Defence Transport and Movement Agency: Key Targets 2004–05
  Lord Bach
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Key targets have been set for the chief executive of DMTA for the 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.

  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.