Sitting of 12 May 2004

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

    Ethiopia
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What measures the Government are taking to help the people of Ethiopia to overcome famine and other development problems. [172235]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): The UK is committed to supporting Ethiopia's efforts to reduce poverty and address its continuing problems of food insecurity. Our programme is set to expand significantly in the next few years, rising from some £44 million in the last financial year to some £85 million in 2005–06.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting and informative reply. It is clear that the Department for International Development is making a significant contribution in that regard. He mentioned land security, or the perception of land security. That is a matter that arises in other African countries too. Are there any lessons of wider significance to be learned from what is happening in Ethiopia?
    Mr. Thomas: As my hon. Friend suggests, there have been problems in Ethiopia, not least because of people's perception and memory of previous efforts to redistribute land in that area. Research that we commissioned with the Ethiopian Economic Association has helped to change the attitude of the Government of Ethiopia, who are now supporting a comprehensive system of land certification, which will enable farmers to develop their land, to rent it out, to pass it on to their children and, as a result, to invest in the soil and hence increase the agricultural productivity of the country.
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: The Minister will be aware that in Ethiopia the problem of poverty is far more acute where families are headed by women than where families are headed by men, bad though it is in that case. The situation is worsened by the fact that young girls have to spend almost all their time
    338
    travelling to villages many miles away simply to bring back water. Does the Minister agree, therefore, that education, particularly of young girls, is of paramount importance in Ethiopia?
    Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is right to allude not only to the particular difficulties that women face in Ethiopia, but to the challenges of making water more available to more of the people there. He will be pleased to know that the Government of Ethiopia have started to prioritise small-scale irrigation projects in areas that are most vulnerable to drought. The £30 million worth of budget support that we are putting in to help the Government of Ethiopia should, we hope, help the Government of Ethiopia to increase their capacity to roll out such investment.

    Middle East
    Richard Burden: What progress he is making with the country assistance plan for Palestine. [172236]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): Following extensive consultations with a wide range of partners in the UK, Palestine and Israel, I have now approved the final version of the plan. It will be formally published in early June, and I will make a copy available in the Library as soon as it is printed. A copy will also be available on our website.
    Richard Burden: The draft country assistance plan rightly placed a great deal of emphasis on promoting the peace process in order to achieve development assistance effectively. I welcome the assistance given by the Department and by the international community to the support unit of the Palestinian Negotiation Affairs Department, which plays a vital role in assisting the Palestinians to develop and present their case and to develop a generation of leaders committed to peace. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that there appears to be a fairly concerted lobbying effort by those close to the Israeli embassy—we may even see it today—to get that funding cut, presumably to deny to the stateless Palestinians the capacity to make the kind of articulate and moderate presentation of their case that a powerful state like Israel can fund for itself?
    Hilary Benn: The decision that we took, together with four other donors, to fund the negotiation support unit was taken precisely because it is right and proper that the Palestinian Authority should have access to good advice. It was always explicit in the establishment of the unit that that role would include communicating to the wider world the views of the Palestinian Authority. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of the negotiation support unit, because it has received praise from many quarters, including from the Governments of Israel and of the United States. I agree with my hon. Friend, however, about the importance of moderation in presentation because it is right and proper that that work should be done in the spirit in which the negotiation support unit was established, but it is undoubtedly playing a valuable role in trying to help create the conditions in which the peace process can develop.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Minister detect that the refusal of the United

    339
    Kingdom to condemn in the United Nations the ex-judicial assassination of Palestinian leaders and the Prime Minister's support for the Bush-Sharon initiative has interfered with this country's reputation as an honest broker that can help the Palestinian people? Does the Minister think that the continuation of that approach to the middle east problem and the departure from the traditional attitude will interfere with the country assistance plan and other initiatives?
    Hilary Benn: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's characterisation of the Government's position on the two issues that he has outlined. We have always made it clear, and we continue to make it clear, that all those issues must form part of the final status negotiations between the Palestinians and the Government of Israel. From my position of responsibility, I do not detect that anything has got in the way of the appreciation for UK support by the Palestinian Authority and others in the occupied territories—on the contrary, the UK help is much appreciated. The practical assistance that we are providing is set out in the country assistance plan, copies of which will be available shortly.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: How can my right hon. Friend ensure that funds intended for the development of Palestinian society are not used to support terror, the use of which is intended to stop peace ever being achieved? Does the film, "The Farewell Letter", which is shown repeatedly on Palestinian television, concern him? It extols the virtues of suicide bombing, and ends with a young boy, who, having successfully completed a suicide-bombing mission, falls on the ground and says, "Martyrdom is sweet."
    Hilary Benn: I have not seen that particular film, but suicide bombing has nothing to offer the peace process, and all hon. Members on both sides of the House utterly condemn it. On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, a reform process is occurring within the Palestinian Authority. Indeed—this relates to the previous question—the support that the UK gives is partly directed at that reform process. Real strides have been made, which is why praise has been universal for the efforts of Salam Fayyad, the Minister of Finance in the Palestinian Authority, who has made great strides in bringing order, openness, scrutiny and accountability to the Palestinian Authority's expenditure. We strongly support the continuation of that process, which helps to deal with my hon. Friend's concerns. Every accusation that money has been directed towards terrorism has been investigated, but none of them has been proven.

    Sudan
    Rob Marris: What contribution his Department is making to achieving peace and resolving the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. [172237]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The peace talks in Naivasha seem to be reaching their final stages and I hope that the parties will reach a framework agreement soon. I am gravely
    340
    concerned about the situation in Darfur, western Sudan, where there have been killings, rape and the destruction of villages. More than 1 million people have been displaced, and 130,000 people have fled to Chad to escape the fighting. We must act now to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. The UK has committed more than £16.5 million to humanitarian agencies and is the second largest donor to Darfur, after the United States of America. Yesterday, I met the Sudanese Foreign Minister and impressed on him the urgent need to ensure security for the population and humanitarian access.
    Rob Marris: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The UK Government have made sterling efforts in Sudan, and particularly in Darfur. At the end of this month, the seasonal rains will come to Darfur, which is an area in the west of Sudan that is a similar size to Britain. Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope of increased aid, because those seasonal rains will create delivery difficulties?
    Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is right that the situation is urgent because of the imminent onset of the rains. Last week, I announced an additional £10 million for humanitarian aid, and I pay tribute to my officials, who have been working extremely hard over the past 24 hours to agree further funding. We are providing extra funding to the World Food Programme for emergency food assistance and logistical support. In addition, £1.5 million is going to the World Health Organisation for emergency primary health care and for measles vaccination, and £1.5 million is going to UNICEF for feeding, health care and child protection, particularly for those children who are displaced. It is vital that that assistance gets in, and that non-governmental organisations and other UN agencies access the area to make sure that the aid—the UK contribution is important—gets to the people who need it.
    Mr. John Bercow: What undertakings on the maintenance of the ceasefire, respect for human rights and access for humanitarian aid were sought and received from the Government of Sudan before the British Government accepted the re-election of Sudan as a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights?
    Hilary Benn: I raised the points that the hon. Gentleman mentions in my meeting yesterday with Foreign Minister Ismail. It appears that the ceasefire is holding in part, but not completely. For the Government of Sudan, the first priority is to ensure that they rein in the Janjaweed, who have caused a lot of the suffering that has been taking place. Secondly, they should ensure that African Union monitors are able to get into the area to ensure that the ceasefire is maintained. A reconnaissance team from the African Union is in Darfur as we speak. Thirdly—I raised this point specifically with the Foreign Ministerߞthey should significantly speed up the time that it takes to issue travel visas and travel permits to enable the humanitarian agencies to gain access to Darfur so that they can do their job.
    Mr. Bercow: I am extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for that comprehensive and helpful reply. Given

    341
    that mass murder, rape, pillage and the destruction of crops have already taken place in Darfur; that food, water, medicine and shelter are desperately needed there; and that the UN co-ordinator on humanitarian affairs for Sudan has described the situation as the worst humanitarian and human rights catastrophe in the world, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect to see in place the international monitoring of the ceasefire that is an indispensable prerequisite of the effective distribution of humanitarian aid?
    Hilary Benn: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is: as quickly as possible. The day before yesterday, I spoke to Said Djinnit, the peace and security commissioner of the African Union, who is very exercised about the current situation. It was he who told me that the team is already in place As soon as they can get the support and logistical arrangements that they need, the African Union is ready to deploy the monitors who, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, are needed in order to satisfy the African Union and the international community, including Members of this House, that the ceasefire is being upheld. That is the essential first step towards securing access to all areas of Darfur so that humanitarian aid can get in.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I thank my right hon. Friend for his immense involvement in a very difficult problem. Does he agree that one of the difficulties in respect of Rwanda more than a decade ago was that the necessary amount of intelligence was unavailable to the international community? In the context of what the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) rightly said about the necessity of international involvement and scrutiny, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we have enough intelligence about what is going on, and will he continue to influence the United Nations and its agencies to make their contribution?
    Hilary Benn: In direct answer to my right hon. Friend, no, I am not satisfied that we know the full picture. That is partly because not all parts of Darfur are accessible, hence the importance of the ceasefire being maintained, the monitors getting in, humanitarian aid arriving, and NGOs and other UN bodies being able to access all areas. As we await the report from the UN human rights team that is investigating the situation, we fear that it may be even worse than current indications suggest. That is why not a moment can be lost in ensuring that the world community responds by giving the practical assistance that is required to ensure that these people, who have already suffered a great deal, do not suffer any more.
    Tom Brake: The Secretary of State will be aware that at the end of April a UN team was nearly blocked from going to Darfur; that the Sudanese Government contrived to ensure that a discussion about their human rights abuses did not take place at the UN Human Rights Committee; and that the ceasefire ends in 13 days. Given that the UK Government have decided that a resolution under chapter VII of the United Nations charter, which could ultimately lead to military action, is inappropriate does the Secretary of State agree with the idea proposed by
    342
    the UN that a UN human rights commission should go to Sudan to investigate whether human rights abuses, war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed? If so, what does he think the UK Government can do to assist that process and to ensure that that commission gains access to Darfur?[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State answers, I emphasise that those on the Front Bench have a privilege that they should not abuse. I have the right not to call Front-Bench Members; calling them is a favour that I do them.
    Hilary Benn: In the spirit of your strictures, Mr. Speaker, I refer the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) to my earlier answer about the human rights team from the United Nations that is currently investigating. We look forward to its report, which will help to answer his question. The most important contribution that can be made is maintaining the ceasefire. At least there is a ceasefire agreement; we now need to ensure that it is enforced. The greatest contribution to that is getting the monitors in, because the world can then be told whether it is holding.

    Commission for Africa
    Mr. Huw Edwards: When he next plans to meet Sir Bob Geldof to discuss poverty relief in Africa. [172238]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): The next scheduled meeting I have with Sir Bob Geldof will be the second meeting of the Commission for Africa planned for the autumn this year.
    I would like to express my thanks to Sir Bob Geldof for his tireless dedication to Africa over the past 20 years, and for his persistence in focusing our attention on Africa.
    Mr. Edwards: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in acknowledging the dogged determination that Sir Bob Geldof has shown and his impatience with the world's rich countries. While he cites the figures of 6,000 people a day dying of AIDS in Africa and only one in 400 having access to anti-retroviral drugs, what assurance can my right hon. Friend give that, when the G8 countries meet next year, the needs of Africa will be at the centre of the discussions?
    Hilary Benn: The G8 countries will have the report of the Commission for Africa before them when they meet next year. It is partly intended to ensure that the world continues to pay attention to the condition of that continent. If we, as a world community, do not tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which affects sub-Saharan Africa more than anywhere else, the prospects for development are bleak. Last year, just under 2.5 million Africans died of AIDS. Increased resources and the falling price of anti-retrovirals mean that we have the opportunity to do more to treat people in Africa. As well as providing the resources, the international community must ensure that our money, effort and enthusiasm are deployed to support the developing country

    343
    Governments rather than add to their burdens. The more we can pool our money, the greater effect it can have.
    Mr. Robert Key: In seeking to relieve debt in Africa, especially in communities where there is an interface between Islam and Christianity, is there any evidence to show that the damaged reputation of the United States of America and the United Kingdom in Iraq is making it harder to act to relieve debt?
    Hilary Benn: No, there is no such evidence because the obstacle to further relief of debt in Africa for those countries that have not yet been able to access the heavily indebted poor countries scheme is the fact that they have been emerging from conflict or that they do not qualify for the debt relief programme. So far, 23 countries have reached decision point. I am anxious that the other countries should be able to access the scheme. When they have done that, the second task is to ensure that they leave the scheme with a sustainable amount of debt. In that respect, I am sure that the recent decision to award topping up to Niger and Ethiopia will be widely welcomed.

  HIV/AIDS
  Christine Russell: What recent representations he has received on the need to tackle HIV/AIDS globally. [172239]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): Following the Government's call for action on HIV/AIDS, we are developing a new UK strategy for our response to help tackle the epidemic. We are conducting a wide-ranging consultation with stakeholders, including civil society, the private sector and developing country Governments. We aim to publish the strategy later this year.
  Christine Russell: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of a recent World Health Organisation report that calls on the rich nations of the world to do more to help the poorer countries, especially those in sub-Saharan Africa, where AIDS is such a problem. Does he share my anxiety that, if we do not do more, we will find it difficult to reach the millennium goals for the reduction of maternal and infant mortality? I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his commitment to put AIDS high on the agenda when Britain takes over the presidency of the European Union and the G8 next year.
  Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend is right to say that HIV/AIDS is reversing many of the development gains of the past 20 years. It will continue to hamper progress towards those millennium development goals. She is right to say that we in the UK and the international community have to do much more to tackle the HIV/AIDS epidemic, not least because I believe that the worst is yet to come. Estimates suggest that there will be some 25 million orphans and vulnerable children in
  344
  Africa alone by 2010. That is one reason for prioritising HIV/AIDS for the extra £320 million that we are committing to Africa by the end of 2005–06.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: The Minister's answer is welcome, but, as always, it focuses heavily on money. The Government would do well to look at the example of Uganda, which has achieved a truly terrific reduction in the incidence of HIV, saving tens or even hundreds of thousands of lives. Its ABC programme involves abstinence, being faithful to one's partner, and the use of condoms. May I urge the Minister to look at best practice as the best way of saving lives?
  Mr. Thomas: As I said a moment ago, we are consulting a whole range of organisations about the best practice that we should deploy as a response to HIV/AIDS. He is absolutely right to say that Uganda has set a great example. The single most important factor in tackling the epidemic in-country is to have strong political leadership on the issue, and President Museveni has set a great example to other countries in Africa in that regard. The example of stronger, more high profile political leadership is the key requirement if we are to tackle HIV/AIDS properly.

  HIV/AIDS

    Democratic Republic of the Congo
    Mr. David Chaytor: If he will make a statement on the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [172241]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn): Conflict resolution in Africa is a key priority for the UK Government. We continue to be actively engaged with our African, EU and UN partners in promoting the peace process in the great lakes region, and in supporting the transitional national Government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which was installed in June last year—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are important matters before the House. Hon. Members should be quiet.
    Hilary Benn: This is a major step forward for peace and stability. We also continue to work for improved relations between DRC and its neighbours, which is critical to peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    Mr. Chaytor: In the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, more than 3 million people were killed and almost 3.5 million people were displaced. This is a conflict in which cannibalism and rape were used as weapons of war. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the incidence of HIV/AIDS as a result of the conflict, and what steps is he taking to deal with this problem in the DRC?
    Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is right to characterise what has happened in the DRC in that way. It is for that reason that it has been described as Africa's hidden first world war. HIV/AIDS is a problem, and part of the programme that we are undertaking involves work on dealing with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. However, the

    345
    single biggest challenge that the DRC faces is for the transitional Government to establish in the minds of the people the idea of a state, and the idea that there might be something called government that could have something to offer to the people of a country that has never had a Government. Now is therefore the moment for the international community to come in and support the transitional Government, and that is why the UK's aid programme in the DRC is increasing substantially.
    Mr. John Redwood: It so often appears that Africa is the forgotten continent when it comes to the international community's response. Will the Secretary of State use the good offices of the British Government to get the UN to take the problems of Africa in general, and the Congo in particular, far more seriously, and to put some energy into resolving conflicts and establishing the good governance for which that continent is crying out?
    Hilary Benn: I do not think that there is a shortage of energy, effort or interest in that regard. Indeed, the most important development that has taken place in recent years has involved the energy, effort and interest shown by the countries of Africa themselves through the African Union and the New Partnership for Africa's Development. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the work that Said Djinnit, the peace and security commissioner, is now undertaking on the peace and security protocol, at the force that is in Burundi, at the work that has been done to put troops into Liberia, and at the effort being made to deploy monitors in Darfur, he will see that they are all signs of the steps that need to be taken. They also demonstrate that Africa is now acting to help itself, which is something that the whole House will welcome.

    Kaliningrad
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What recent discussions he has had with EU partners on programmes to support the development of civil society in Kaliningrad. [172242]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas): I have not been involved in any recent discussions with EU partners on programmes specifically to support the development of civil society in Kaliningrad. However, the Department is funding work on HIV prevention in Kaliningrad through our work on HIV/AIDS harm reduction in many regions across Russia. The work is being carried out by the Open Health Institute, a Russian non-governmental organisation, which is channelling funding through civil society organisations in the region.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that the accession this month of the Baltic states to the EU throws into sharp relief the particular problematic issues with regard to Kaliningrad. I am grateful for the work that is being done, but may I urge my hon. Friend to press for a stronger profile within the EU on issues in Kaliningrad, particularly social inclusion, fighting organised crime and HIV/AIDS, bearing in mind that these are issues in
    346
    which the EU now has a self-interest as well as a humanitarian interest in relation to Kaliningrad and Russia?
    Mr. Thomas: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the EU is taking these issues extremely seriously. Some €25 million of the national programme of technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States funding for Russia has been earmarked to support the economic and social development of Kaliningrad.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [172220] Mr. David Heath: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Before I list my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in expressing our condolences to the families and friends of those who have been killed and injured following the explosion yesterday at the Stockline Plastics factory in Glasgow. This tragedy took place in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Ann McKechin), but I know that it will affect yours, too, Mr. Speaker. I also pay tribute to our emergency services, as they continue in their efforts to search for survivors. I understand that Scotland's First Minister, Jack McConnell, will be visiting the site today.
    In respect of my engagements, this morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Heath: The whole House will join the Prime Minister in his earlier comments.
    Over recent days, substantial harm has been done to Britain's reputation, and our troops in Iraq have been put at greater risk. Are we really to believe that such an able and experienced diplomat as Sir Jeremy Greenstock could have been aware of a report from the International Committee of the Red Cross detailing systematic humiliation and abuse of detainees by our coalition partners, yet not ask to see it, fail to recognise its significance, and not bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister or any other Minister? Did no one feel that it was appropriate to make any representations whatever to the United States Administration about what was being done by coalition forces in our name?
    The Prime Minister: In respect of the circumstances in which the report came to Sir Jeremy Greenstock's office, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary stated those circumstances clearly yesterday. In respect of the abuses, however, let me point out—I will do so in greater detail later—to the hon. Gentleman and others, that in respect of the Red Cross report, the incidents of abuse in respect of British troops were already being

    347
    investigated. When dealing with this issue, it is important to realise that in respect of British troops, I know of no evidence of systematic abuse of detainees.
    Mrs. Helen Liddell: You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that 10 years ago today my constituency lost a much-admired Member of Parliament, and this nation lost a great leader. John Smith was a decent man committed to social justice. Does the Prime Minister recall that a few months before John's death, he laid out his priorities for a Labour Government? Those were the restoration and improvement of the national health service, the fight against poverty here and in the developing world, and his commitment to completing the unfinished business of devolution. Does he agree with me that the achievements of his Government are part of John Smith's legacy, and that in his memory we must go on and achieve even more for social justice?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend's comments about John Smith will be agreed and accepted, certainly on the Labour Benches, and probably on both sides of the House. I like to think that the record on jobs and the reduction of unemployment particularly, and of course the introduction of a minimum wage, are two things of which he would have been immensely proud.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Following yesterday's dreadful explosion in Glasgow, I join the Prime Minister in expressing the Conservative party's deep sympathy with those who were injured and with the families of those who lost their lives. I also join him in paying tribute to the work that the emergency services have done and, indeed, are doing as we speak.
    As for Iraq, everyone has been horrified by the appalling murder of Mr. Berg. It reinforces the need for coalition forces to succeed in their difficult task in that country.
    The Red Cross report on the treatment of detainees in Iraq was given to the British Government in February. When did the Prime Minister first see it?
    The Prime Minister: I first saw it on Monday. I did not know of the allegations in the report at the time. As I explained a moment ago, in so far as they concerned British troops those allegations were already being dealt with. The report was not passed to Ministers in February.
    Mr. Howard: The Red Cross report was presented at a meeting attended by representatives of the Prime Minister's special envoy to Iraq on 26 February. London was informed of that meeting the next day. The report contained the most devastating allegations of mistreatment of detainees in Iraq. The report and the allegations in it have led to the greatest crisis in Iraq since the war ended, and have added immeasurably to the dangers and difficulties faced by coalition forces—including British troops—in carrying out their duties. Can the Prime Minister explain why he did not see the report for three months?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me make it clear—as I have on many occasions over the past few days—that we
    348
    condemn, completely and unequivocally, any abuse of Iraqi detainees or prisoners by anyone—any part of the coalition. In respect of British troops, let me now set out the position clearly.
    According to the Red Cross report, there were three instances of abuse—or allegations of abuse—in respect of British troops and those in detention. One concerned the death in custody of Mr. Mousa, which was already being investigated. The second concerned the hooding of prisoners, a practice that had already been stopped by February. The last concerned the theft of a car, and the issue was not pursued.
    As for civilians killed or injured, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made clear, 33 cases have been investigated. Twenty-one of those investigations are complete, and 12 are ongoing. In 15 of the 21 cases it was found that there was no case to answer. In respect of six there were recommendations, and the Military Police will announce shortly what will happen about those six. Amnesty International has passed eight cases to us, seven of which are already known to us. The one that is not known to us is being investigated.
    Let me make something absolutely clear—and I will come to American troops in a moment: there is no evidence whatever either of systematic abuse or of Ministers or anyone else refusing to act on allegations of abuse in respect of detainees in British custody. On the contrary, the only evidence that has been presented consists of photographs that are almost certainly fake.
    Before I come to American troops, let me say this. I believe that we should be proud of the part that British troops have played in Iraq, that they should be proud of themselves, and that this country can be proud of them.
    In respect of the other allegations, it is not correct that Ministers or I were aware of those allegations in respect of American troops The ICRC report was not passed to us, as has already been made clear. In any event, however, I think it fair to point out that in January—a month before the report—Major-General Taguba was tasked by the Americans to look into claims of abuse, particularly at Abu Ghraib prison, for a period of time. Investigations were already proceeding, and 17 United States soldiers had already been suspended. Indeed, the first American soldiers were charged with abuse back in May 2003.
    I simply say to the House that any abuse by any coalition forces is completely unacceptable. What is not true is that allegations were made and nothing happened in respect of them.
    Mr. Howard: Of course, we are all immensely proud of what British troops are doing in Iraq, but the Prime Minister has failed to give any explanation for why he did not see this crucial report, which was presented to his special envoy to Iraq, for nearly three months. I am afraid that the country will conclude that there is no sensible explanation for that fact.
    Iraq is by far the most sensitive and difficult challenge facing the country. People want to know that their Government have a grip on what they are doing and on what is going on. A devastating Red Cross report is sent to the Government in February. The Armed Forces Minister says that he has never seen it. The Defence Secretary says that he would not have

    349
    expected to see it. The Foreign Secretary says that he should have seen it but he did not, and the Prime Minister, to whose special envoy the report was given, says that he knew nothing about it. How can the people of this country have confidence in this Prime Minister and his Government?
    The Prime Minister: First of all, the reason I did not raise the issues in this report is that I did not see it. The explanation for not seeing it has already been given. It is that, in respect of the issues concerning Britain and detainees in British custody, these issues had already been dealt with and we were expecting—indeed, we have received—a further Red Cross report about people in British custody. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman attempts to extract the maximum political mischief—[Interruption]—absolutely: let no one be in any doubt of that at all—I would just point out this to him. The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is this. It is not that, in a democracy, bad things do not happen. It is that, when they do happen, action is taken. Action has been taken in respect of each of these allegations in respect of British troops, and I think now is the time to support the work that our troops are doing.
    Roger Casale: My right hon. Friend will be aware, with the publication of today's unemployment figures, that 409,000 more people are in work in London now than were in work there in 1997. May I remind him that many thousands work in the arts and culture sector? Will he continue to increase significantly this Government's investment in the arts both in London and across the country? Will he give particular attention to involving and engaging young people in the arts and to providing training opportunities for them in the arts, so that that cultural regeneration can be a spur to the economic renewal of Britain?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right, of course, that the arts make a huge contribution to London, and let us not forget either London's bid for the Olympic games in 2012. London, as a capital city, offers us a great advantage because of its emphasis on arts and creativity and, indeed, we are increasing investment in the arts.
    My hon. Friend is right in saying that employment is at a record high. Today's figures show that 1.95 million more people are in work today than were in work seven years ago. That is an extra job crated for every two minutes that we have been in government. That stands in sharp contrast to the record of the Conservative party, which took unemployment to over 3 million.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I add my sympathy to the families of all those who have been either injured or killed in the terrible accident in Glasgow, and pay tribute to the fire and other emergency service personnel for their continuing work. We hope that they are yet able to rescue more people from that dreadful rubble.
    I return to the report of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Can the Prime Minister confirm, as it itself has confirmed, that the report was the culmination
    350
    of a series of reports detailing alleged abuse of prisoners that dated back to April 2003? So, over this entire period, what action was taken about those reports?
    The Prime Minister: It is correct, as the Red Cross points out, that these reports are the culmination of a series of discussions that it had with the detaining authority. Of course, the report was passed to the provisional authority in respect of detention, and we got a copy of the report. Already we have been in discussion with the Red Cross. The reason why I have detailed all the instances where allegations have been made and investigations then made is to show that on each occasion on which allegations have been made or issues raised, we have acted. Indeed, on the allegation in the Red Cross report in respect of the practice of hooding prisoners, which is sometimes necessary for security reasons but should not be done for purposes of interrogation, that practice was stopped. It was stopped before we ever received the Red Cross report. I think that it is important to realise that on each occasion on which the Red Cross has raised issues, we have dealt with them.
    May I also draw the House's attention to the fact that the Red Cross, which we would be pleased to have return at any point in time at which it wished to check our detention facilities—indeed, we would be pleased for it to have a permanent presence at our facilities should it wish that—has recently written to us, during the past few weeks, to say that it believes that the conditions of internment now in the facilities run by the British are "fairly good" and that it was generally satisfied to see that most of the recommendations submitted during its previous visit had been taken into consideration? We are in a process of dialogue with the Red Cross all the time. All that I would say is that on each occasion on which allegations have been made, they have been properly answered.
    Mr. Kennedy: But the Prime Minister will of course recognise the huge and mounting public concern in this country about the increasingly grotesque reports that have been coming out of Iraq. That being the case, can the Prime Minister confirm that any further deployment of British forces there would take place only at the request of the British commanders on the ground, and that that would be only for the purposes of enabling them to fulfil more effectively the role that they are currently undertaking?
    The Prime Minister: The question of whether troops are needed in Iraq is something, as I have explained before, that we keep under constant review, as we should. The question is what is in the interests of the progress in Iraq being sustained, maintained and seen through to its conclusion. I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that yes, I agree that the events of the past few days have of course been immensely damaging. All that I am doing is pointing out that it is not true to say that nothing has been done when these allegations have been made. I also think that it is right to say, on behalf of all the troops there, that the vast majority of them are doing a superb job in helping people in Iraq.
    Rosemary McKenna: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the very

    351
    unhappy lives led by the children of drug-addicted parents—many tens of thousands of them across the UK. Urgent action is needed to address the complex issues that surround the children of drug-addicted parents. Will he undertake an inquiry, involving all the relevant agencies including the devolved Administrations, into how we can deal with that problem, with the children as the priority?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Part of the purpose of programmes such as Sure Start, and the work that is being done in local communities and children's centres, is precisely to help the children of parents who are drug abusers. I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that as a result, far more concerted action has been taken in respect of those children. We talk about those issues with the devolved Administrations, who have executive responsibility for them. The new proposals that we are taking forward now on drug abuse, and on drug abuse in the criminal justice system, will also help to reduce the number of drug abusers, and ensure that we are tackling what I accept is an important and serious question.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Government have backed down from their intention to oust the jurisdiction of the courts in asylum cases, and have instead adopted a statutory review procedure, as earlier advocated by the Conservatives and utterly rubbished by the Home Secretary. Is the Prime Minister pleased or regretful about that?
    The Prime Minister: I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what I think. It would have been better had we been able to proceed with the original proposals, but it was obvious that we could not get a majority for them in the House of Lords because the Conservatives, among others, were opposing those measures. But I have to tell him that the measures that we are taking on asylum are reducing the numbers. I only wish that we got the same support in reality from the Conservatives as they try to pretend they are giving by their rhetoric.
    Mr. Mike Hall: The figures released today show that unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 50 per cent. since 1997, with only 1,321 people now registered as unemployed. It is quite clear that Weaver Vale is benefiting from a very well run economy, but if we are to have continuing economic growth and regeneration, the north-west needs major investment in its transport infrastructure. In particular, we need a new crossing across the River Mersey in the borough of Halton. Will my right hon. Friend please look into this proposal and so make sure that we enjoy economic growth and continuing low unemployment for many years to come?
    The Prime Minister: I understand that proposals for a new Mersey crossing are currently being considered; my hon. Friend will understand that I would not want to pre-empt any decision that might be made. He is absolutely right, however, to say that unemployment is at what is a record low for many decades, both on Merseyside and elsewhere. Incidentally, one reason why we have been able to reduce unemployment is of course the new deal programme for the unemployed, which has helped literally hundreds of thousands of people into
    352
    work. That is why I find it so regrettable that the Conservative party is committed to scrapping the new deal.
    Mr. Michael Howard: The Prime Minister is aware of the widespread support from all parts of the House for compensating the 60,000 people who have lost significant pension benefits as a result of the collapse of their schemes. It seems that it will take a prime ministerial decision to compensate them. He has given hints that he will act. Will he now do so?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what I said earlier, which is that we continue to examine what the full consequences would be of any compensation package. Obviously, we have to make allowances for what is actually affordable in this situation, but I do understand the plight of people who have joined occupational pension schemes, and who had no option but to join those schemes as a condition of their employment. That is why I hope that we will be in a position very shortly to announce some results.
    Mr. Howard: The trouble is that time is running out.[Interruption.] No—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. You might have to leave the Chamber, Mr. King, if you keep shouting like that. I have said this to you before. Such shouting is unfair to the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Howard: This is actually not a party political point. There is support from all quarters of the House for this measure. I know how difficult it is—[Interruption.] If the Prime Minister will listen. I know how difficult it is to agree to compensation retrospectively, and it is important not to set too many precedents. I understand all that, but on this issue, a majority of Members of this House have signed Commons motions calling for compensation.
    Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House that this issue was being actively considered, and that he hoped the Government would come forward with a solution. Two weeks ago, he said that he hoped to come back to the House as soon as possible. The Pensions Bill has just completed seven weeks in Committee, and despite ample opportunity, the Government have tabled no proposals to tackle the problem. The Bill is due back in the House next week. Will he now undertake to table practical proposals to deal with this problem before then?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I have nothing to add to what I said earlier, which is that I will announce shortly what we are able to do for people. I have to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I somehow find it worse when he is being reasonable than when he is being his normal self. I am sure that he will want to acknowledge, in this spirit of reasonable exchange between us, that the pension protection fund legislation is the first time that a Government have introduced pension protections for people. I am aware that he is saying that he wishes that we could go even further and make this retrospective as well as prospective. That is precisely what we are looking at, and as I said, I shall

    353
    come back on this issue as soon as possible. But I know that he will want to acknowledge that this Government have introduced what is ground-breaking legislation.
    Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister is right: this Government have introduced legislation—to deal with a problem that has arisen under this Government.[Interruption.] The 60,000 people who are losing their pension entitlement, about which I am asking this question, are not losing it under a Conservative Government. It was not a Conservative Chancellor who imposed £5 billion a year taxes on pensions. The problem has arisen under the present Government. Hon. Members of all parties on both sides of the Houseߞa clear majority—want action taken to deal with this problem. Why will the Prime Minister not give an undertaking that it will be dealt with by the legislation of which he is so proud?
    The Prime Minister: First, I definitely prefer the right hon. and learned Gentleman like that. It is far more true to his character. As I said, we shall shortly announce what we are able to do. Since we are talking about records on pensions, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman forgotten the 9 million people who lost pension rights under the last Conservative Government? Perhaps he has also forgotten the pension mis-selling scandal and the fact that his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has said that there will be a real-terms cash freeze in all budgets, including the budget with responsibility for pensions.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: When we last invaded Mesopotamia in 1914, it took us 44 years to get out, during which time we made many mistakes—not least the configuration of the state that we left behind. At least we were responsible for our mistakes and for the timing and conditions by which we left. To what degree do we retain any independent responsibility to arrange for the timing by which we leave?
    The Prime Minister: Let me say to my hon. Friend that now may be the moment to go back to first principles. It is surely better that Iraq is no longer governed by Saddam Hussein. Let us all agree on that for a start. If the action to remove Saddam had not been taken, he would still be in power. I have to accept responsibility for the position that the country and I are in today, because I am the Prime Minister who brought it about. I will defend that position. Those who have opposed the conflict must also accept that if we had listened to their opposition, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.
    My hon. Friend should not listen to what I, the Americans or anyone else says, but to Iraqi voices. Those Iraqi voices will tell my hon. Friend and other hon. Members two things: one, that they are delighted that they have been liberated from Saddam Hussein; and, two, that they want the coalition forces to leave Iraq as soon as possible. That is precisely what we are discussing now. We have a security strategy, which is to develop the Iraqi-isation of the security forces in Iraq—
    354
    the police, civil defence and army. We also have a political process, which is to be sanctioned and undertaken by the United Nations. That is our strategy and we will not leave until the job is properly done and until we have made sure that the wish of the Iraqis for a sovereign, stable and democratic Iraq is delivered.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: On behalf of the people of Belfast, I sympathise with our Glaswegian friends who have suffered in yesterday's tragedy. I also agree with the Prime Minister that we should support the Army, because it is important not to give them a job to do and then stab them in the back. The Prime Minister referred to Saddam, and I believe that the dastardly murder of Mr. Berg shows the other side of terrorism that we have experienced in Northern Ireland. We have seen it elsewhere. Can we have a commitment from the Government that they will not leave the Iraqis to suffer from any such body in the future and that they will not yield again to terrorist demands in Northern Ireland?
    The Prime Minister: I completely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is worth pointing out—it was implicit in his question—that there are circumstances in which British troops are risking their lives day in, day out. If the House will allow me, I would like to quote what Iraqis themselves have said about British troops. For example, the Iraqi Foreign Minister said:
    "We … expressed our gratitude … to the British forces for the job they are doing. We are very proud of them, and the British people also should be very proud of them."
    The mayor of Basra, speaking yesterday, said:
    "In fact we have not registered a single case of human-rights violations at prison or in terms of actions by the British forces".
    I hope that people understand that that is not our view, but the view of ordinary Iraqis whom British forces are helping.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: In my constituency, the creation of more than 1,000 new manufacturing jobs has been announced in the past few weeks. That builds on the work of the action team for jobs, on the new deal and on the roll-out of Jobcentre Plus. What response would my right hon. Friend give to those—especially those on the Opposition Benches—who say that such initiatives to help people to get back into work are a waste of time and money?
    The Prime Minister: We can see how Opposition Members respond—they are all walking out of the Chamber. It is absolutely extraordinary. The fact is that almost 2 million jobs have been created since this Government came to power. That is one job for every two minutes for which we have been in government. Unemployment is lower than it has been for 30 years, and hundreds of thousands of people—including young people in particular—who were consigned to the scrap heap under the Conservatives have been given the chance to have a decent life and proper living standards, and the ability to raise their families in some sort of dignity. That is the difference between a Labour Government and a Tory one.

Points of Order
12.31 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will know that last evening the House debated Government business until about 7.20 pm. Thereafter, the House began an open-ended debate on a House of Commons issue, on a free vote. Before 10 pm, with hon. Members still wishing to speak, a Government Whip moved a closure motion. The occupant of the Chair, as he was entitled to, chose to accept that motion, and I have no quarrel with that. The motion then put to the House was, "That the Question be now put". That motion was carried by a considerable majority, but the main Question was not then put to the House. A decision on it was deferred until today, although it should properly have been voted on last night. As a result, only 3 per cent. of Members of the House of Commons were present to hear the debate, for which the main Question will be voted on, on paper, today. Mr. Speaker, can you rule that, in future, if a closure motion is moved, the vote on the main Question must be taken forthwith?
Mr. Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to today's Order Paper? It shows that, again, we will probably be debating business of the House after 7 o'clock, and that a motion concerning deferred Divisions is down for debate. I seek your guidance on this matter: if we are discussing the business of the House, is the deferred Division procedure appropriate? All hon. Members should be able to have their say about the business of the House.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will let me answer the first point raised by the hon. Member
356
for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), as otherwise I might forget what it was. In a sense, the hon. Gentleman made a very valid point, but the Question that was put yesterday was whether the House should vote on the matter under consideration. That matter was subject to the deferred Division procedure. However, the rules are flexible, and that flexibility can be achieved by means of discussion through the usual channels. It is not for me to decide such matters, as I am guided by the House. In future, the usual channels can request that a Division on a motion should not be deferred, but taken there and then. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is more likely that those who have heard the case made in the debate on a House matter will be able to vote when a Division is held immediately.
That brings me to the point raised by the shadow Leader of the House. He is part of the usual channels. I am not, so I place on him some of the burden in respect of these matters in future.
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that we are all very grateful for that advice, and I hope that it has been heard and taken to heart. Can you also confirm that in the event that an amendment is selected to a motion that would otherwise be subject to a deferred Division, the motion must then be voted on in the proper way, immediately following the debate? Members may wish to be conscious of that further procedural possibility, as I am sure you are.
Mr. Speaker: One can always depend on a Glasgow man to know procedure. The right hon. Gentleman is right, but when I consider amendments—as I considered the amendments he tabled last night—I do not take into consideration whether they are attached to a motion subject to a deferred Division. Therefore, that thought would not cross my mind one way or the other.

Interest Rates (Limits on Charges)
12.35 pm
Adam Price: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to impose limits on the interest rate and associated charges which I may be charged by those providing loans and other forms of credit.
My Bill seeks to tackle what has been described as the silent sickness of spiralling indebtedness which is afflicting more and more people in our society, particularly the poorest and the most vulnerable. There can be no doubt that mounting personal debt is causing severe problems for an increasing number of families. The Bank of England published figures for March that showed that once repayments were taken into account, outstanding debt on credit cards, loans and overdrafts rose by £1.68 billion in a single month. So it should come as no surprise that, increasingly, many people are getting into severe difficulties, sometimes with tragic consequences.
According to Citizens Advice, inquiries from people seeking debt counselling have risen by 44 per cent. over the past six years. Some 6.4 million people suffer from emotional and physical trauma caused by debt, according to latest data from Debt Free Direct. Almost 500,000 people have developed a drinking problem and some 250,000 have turned to gambling as a perceived solution to their ongoing financial difficulties. More than 1 million people with debt problems have seen relationships with their partners end in separation or divorce. Even the Financial Services Authority has admitted that almost 7 million people are already struggling to meet monthly repayments.
There are many different dimensions to the growing problem of debt. One is the easy availability of credit; unsolicited credit card offers and even cheque books are pushed through people's letterboxes daily. We remember the infamous case of Monty the shih tzu, from Stockport, who was recently offered a gold card with a credit limit of £10,000 by the Royal Bank of Scotland. There is also the lack of transparency in credit contracts and the difficulty in comparing annual percentage rates. The Treasury Committee covered the issue extensively in its recent report.
If we are to understand the problem of escalating debt that faces many people, we must consider a much more fundamental issue, which my Bill seeks to address: the cost of credit. Consumers, especially those on low incomes, pay a substantially higher price for credit than is warranted by the costs involved or the associated lending risks. In layman's terms, credit card companies and others are ripping people off, and destroying lives in the process.
The House does not have to take my word for that. We have it on the good authority of Mr. Matthew Barrett, the group chief executive of Barclays bank, who said in evidence to the Treasury Committee that he would not borrow on credit cards because it was too expensive. When it comes to gilt-edged admissions of corporate irresponsibility, that is up there with Gerald Ratner. The ironic aspect of Mr. Barrett's comments is that he probably can afford the repayments. It is the poorer households that are hit the hardest, because they owe the most relative to their income and pay the most for the privilege.
358
According to Debt on Your Doorstep, more than 3 million people on very low incomes have to borrow money at interest rates of between 150 and 200 per cent. per annum. A recent study by the Office of Fair Trading found that some store cards carried a charge of as much as 32 per cent., and similar rates are charged on unauthorised overdrafts. It was recently revealed in The Guardian that there have been trials in Scotland of a new Visa card, the Vanquis, which charges an APR of 64.9 per cent.—more than 16 times the Bank of England base rate. To be fair, the Department of Trade and Industry has published a White Paper, which contained some good ideas for cracking down on loan sharks and better protection against unfair credit deals, and the OFT has made a study of store cards.
The one thing that the Government have so far shied away from—the reason for my Bill—is the introduction of a maximum interest rate that lenders can charge. Since the introduction of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the UK has had no statutory ceiling for interest rates. There was a 48 per cent. per annum limit but, unfortunately, the Act abolished it. Currently, the only protection under the Act for consumers who have got into difficulty is that lenders cannot charge "extortionate" interest rates. That is of little assistance to people who cannot afford to go to court and when there is no legal definition of "extortionate". A case in 1995 suggested that rates of 44 per cent. were bordering on extortionate but, in 30 years, consumers have won only 10 cases under the Act.
There are statutory caps in most northern European countries and in north America. In Austria, the cap is set at 20 per cent. per annum; it is 7 per cent. in Belgium and Finland, 9 per cent. in Greece and 15 per cent. in Switzerland. There are also caps in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany and many US states.
One argument advanced against a cap is that it might restrict the amount of credit for low-income households, driving them into the arms of unlicensed lenders. However, although the UK has by far the highest exclusion rate in northern Europe for financial services for people on low incomes, we have the weakest standards of consumer protection. Low-income households have better access to credit in countries where there is a cap.
Clearly, for a cap to be successful, it must allow a realistic rate for the lender but one that is low enough to benefit the consumer. It has been suggested that the cap could be expressed as the Bank of England base rate plus x per cent. where x is set at a level that covers the risk posed to firms. Provided that issuers make an adequate rate of return under the cap, they will continue to offer credit, because the cap would be set at a rate higher than the cost of offering the credit. In that scenario, customers will benefit. They will continue to obtain credit, and they will get it at a lower and fairer price.
It has been suggested that there could be attempts to evade the cap by raising fees and other charges. However, my Bill would not merely cap interest rates; it would also cover fees and charges in a single calculation of the cost of credit. Furthermore, it would introduce a cap on interest on arrears, which affects so many people who have got into difficulty, and on collection charges in the event of default.

359
Above all, my Bill would ease the burden of debt for those least able to bear it, and for that reason I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Adam Price, Tony Lloyd, Harry Cohen, Mr. Huw Edwards, Mr. Frank Field, Sue Doughty, Alan Simpson, David Taylor, Mr. Roger Williams, Annabelle Ewing, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Sir Teddy Taylor.

INTEREST RATES (LIMITS ON CHARGES)
Adam Price accordingly presented a Bill to impose limits on the interest rate and associated charges which may be charged by those providing loans and other forms of credit: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 June, and to be printed [Bill 107].
Orders of the Day

  Age-Related Payments Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.45 pm
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill will put in place the promise in the Budget to pay all eligible households with someone aged 70 or over an extra £100 this year. Of course, this measure has already been subject to some debate following the Chancellor's Budget speech. When combined with winter fuel payments, it will mean that households with someone over 70 will get up to £300 later this year and households with someone over 80 will receive £400.
  The payment will be neither taxable nor income tested. It will not affect the other benefits that a pensioner may receive. For example, it will not reduce the amount of council tax benefit, housing benefit or pension credit. In particular, by making this one-off payment, we are recognising the impact of recent council tax increases on the fixed incomes of older pensioners. It will also help with their other living expenses.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Can the Minister explain how the Bill will help pensioner households where someone over 70 now lives if, come September, that person has died, leaving a widow under 70 in that household? Will that household still qualify for the £100 payment, which is clearly what the Chancellor implied in his statement; or is the letter of the Bill, which suggests that that household will not get £100, the truth?
  Malcolm Wicks: The payment will go to those who meet the requirements during the qualifying week. Of course, there will be exceptions—the hon. Gentleman mentions one—but I hope that he will listen and understand that the payment will be a great benefit to a number of vulnerable, elderly households in this country.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?
  Malcolm Wicks: I will give way in a moment.
  We are aware of the concern felt by many people, especially those on low incomes, about council tax increases. On 5 February, Parliament approved the local government finance settlement for the 2004–05 financial year. The settlement provides a general grant increase of 5.5 per cent. and an overall increase of 7.3 per cent. Since taking office, we have increased funding to councils by 30 per cent. in real terms. That contrasts with a 7 per cent. real-terms cut during the last four years of the previous Government—which perhaps will now be explained.
  Mr. McLoughlin:I would love to explain that, but Mr. Speaker might rule me out of order if I did so. Will the Minister tell us why the Bill refers only to 2004? Are the Government thinking of getting rid of the council tax?
  Malcolm Wicks: We are legislating for this year only. Of course, such things are of real concern, as I was arguing, to those who face high council tax increases.[Interruption]. As I am being provoked, perhaps I can say something about the average council tax increases per dwelling in 2004–05. In Labour councils, they are likely to be £870; in Liberal Democrat councils, £971; and in Conservative councils, £1,072.
  Sir Paul Beresford: Will the Minister give way?
  Malcolm Wicks: I will give way, because perhaps a word of explanation, or even apology, is coming up.
  Sir Paul Beresford: If there is to be an apology, it must come from the Government—the shifting of the grant explains the biased way in which the grant has been applied to many local authorities. The Minister may be interested to hear that the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday met a number of people, including from the "Is It Fair?" campaign and pensioners groups They blame the Government for the council tax rise.
  Malcolm Wicks: I always take seriously the interventions of the hon. Gentleman, who used to be a fellow Croydon MP before the electorate decided otherwise. In the south-east, there have been more generous grant increases than in other parts of the country, which should have benefited many Conservative authorities.
  By making this one-off payment, we are recognising the concerns that I have discussed, including the way in which local authorities controlled by different parties have increased council tax. We are encouraged that this year's average increase of 5.9 per cent. is less than half the increase last year and is the lowest in almost a decade. We made it clear that we would use our powers to cap excessive increases in council tax in 2004–05, and that strong message has already had an effect—councils have set lower council tax increases this year than would otherwise have been the case.
  Mr. Michael Weir: Given that the Minister is making a powerful case about the purpose of the payment to help with excessive council tax bills, should the Government not look, at an alternative to council tax instead of trying to buy off pensioners for one year only?
  Malcolm Wicks: Some increases remain excessive, so we are using our powers to cap. The Government are reluctant to cap, but we cannot stand back and allow excessive council tax increases to take place year after year. Help with council tax is, of course, already available to pensioners and other people in the form of council tax benefit. We expect nearly 2 million pensioner households to benefit from increases in their council tax benefit or to become newly entitled to it as a result of the introduction of pension credit.
  Andrew Bennett: While the proposals in the Bill are welcome, is my hon. Friend not concerned that almost 50 per cent. of pensioner
  362
  households are not claiming the council tax benefit to which they are entitled? What is his Department doing to ensure 100 per cent. take-up of that benefit?
  Malcolm Wicks: I know that my hon. Friend was not prompted by anyone to ask that question, but it leads into what I was going to say. We are extremely keen to ensure that all pensioners entitled to help with their council tax bills claim the benefit, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), launched a campaign on 1 March 2004 to help support local authorities to encourage everyone who may be entitled to help with their council tax to claim the benefit. We have issued a new poster and flyer, and have sent mailing packs to local authorities, our own local offices and advisers, as well as to local branches of Help the Aged, Age Concern, Citizens Advice and the National Pensioners Convention across Great Britain. We will follow that up with press advertising over a three-week period in regional and some national titles.
  In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), I concede that for too long council tax benefit has been one of the more obscure and less understood benefits. We are now taking significant steps to publicise it because, as with all income-tested benefits, we want to drive up take-up.
  Mr. Weir: Would the Minister urge the Pension Service to advise pensioners about council tax benefit when they apply for tax credit, as that does not always happen at present? It would be helpful if pensioners could have a one-stop shop offering advice on all those benefits.
  Malcolm Wicks: I agree that in general we need to move towards the notion of one-stop shops. The Pension Service is now sending out forms for council tax benefit along with news about the pension credit, so we are taking action. We need to take more steps, but I am particularly proud of the local services of the Pension Service, which have been welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. They are very much the human face of the Pension Service and are collaborating with various organisations on the Bill and other measures.
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I appreciate that he wants to make progress. When did he first become aware that the payment required primary legislation?
  Malcolm Wicks: That is a favourite question at the moment. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with as much precision as I can. Our early thinking was that legislation would not be necessary, but lawyers—
  Mr. Eric Forth: Not good enough.
  Malcolm Wicks: I am being heckled by a well known heckler, but some of us want to have a grown-up debate. I am trying to answer the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), so perhaps the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would listen along

  363
  with his Front-Bench spokesman. After legal advice, we realised that in fact we needed primary legislation, which is why we introduced the Bill.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: We have always had civilised dialogue with the Minister in the past, so could he tell the House the extra cost of having to legislate? Is a figure available for the cost of legal advice, the deployment of civil service resources, printing, time taken and so on?
  Malcolm Wicks: I do not think that there is a figure to hand. We may receive an explanation from the hon. Member for Eastbourne, the Conservative spokesman, but I am not sure why the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) is puzzled. We obviously operate on a legal footing. If the payments could have been made through regulations, we would have taken that route. The legal advice, however, was that we needed primary legislation. It is the purpose of Parliament to debate primary legislation, which is why we are here today.
  Several hon.Members rose
  Malcolm Wicks: I need to make progress soon, but first I shall give way to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), the Liberal Democrat spokesman.
  Mr. Steve Webb: To return to the point about timing, one has a slight sense that the decision was made rather late in day. The Minister said he would write to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), but can he tell us when the Department for Work and Pensions became aware of the Chancellor's intention to make the payment?
  Malcolm Wicks: I said that I would do my best to let the hon. Member for Eastbourne know exactly when we realised that primary legislation was necessary, but I am not in a position to write up in one long letter any modest diaries that I may have kept as a Minister. I suspect that it would not be a bestseller, and would be a step too far.
  We believe that it is particularly important to target pensioners over 70, as most people in that age group have long since stopped working and are on fixed incomes, so are disproportionately affected by council tax increases, which often take up a larger portion of their income compared with younger households. The evidence supports that conclusion, and our own experience as Members of Parliament is that the very elderly tend to be more financially disadvantaged than people in their 60s. We shall take steps to ensure that the administration of the payments runs smoothly, which is why they will be administered through the tried and tested winter fuel payments system.
  The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, who asked about costs, will be interested to know that the age-related payment will be included with the winter fuel payment, which is currently made to more than 11 million people. That will also keep administrative costs to a minimum—not more, we estimate, than £6.8
  364
  million. The entitlement and payment rules are set out in the Bill. To keep the process simple and transparent, there will be no need to make a claim in the vast majority of cases. People over 70 should get their payment automatically if they have received a winter fuel payment before and their circumstances have not changed, or if they claimed a winter fuel payment this year. We will do all that we can to ensure that the very small number of people who need to make a claim are made aware of the payment and are given the opportunity to receive it.
  Although we intend to make the payment for one year only, the Bill provides a regulation-making power so that, if circumstances warrant it, future payments may be made to people over 60 in specified groups. It stipulates that any such regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and will therefore be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny as well as scrutiny and investigation by the Social Security Advisory Committee.
  Mr. David Wilshire: The Minister said that the payments were for this year only. In the almost certain event that the Government make a further mess of local government finance and force even greater increases in council tax, will he return to the House next year to increase the £100 as compensation?
  Malcolm Wicks: I do not accept that Tory hypothesis at all, so it would be ludicrous to try to answer a question more in the realm of social science fiction than fact.
  Let me remind the House of the Government's record on pensioner issues. It is this Government who have made sure that no pensioner need live on less than £105 a week for a single pensioner and £160 for a couple. When we came to office in 1997 the amounts were just £75.80 for a single pensioner and £115.15 for a couple. I am sure hon. Members will want to reflect on that contrasting record in their own speeches.
  Mr. Bellingham: I accept what the Minister says, but is he aware that the majority of pensioners in constituencies such as mine are worried about the extent of means-testing that is going on? I appreciate that the payments under discussion will not be means-tested, which is a plus point. How many pensioners are now means-tested? What is the total figure, and what was the figure five years ago?
  Malcolm Wicks: I had intended to deal with our record on pension credit, albeit briefly, to provide some context. As a result of pension credit and the other measures we have introduced since 1997, the poorest third of pensioners are, on average, £1,750 a year, which is more than £33 a week, better off than they were in 1997. The disproportionate increase for the poorest is because of targeting. Does the hon. Gentleman think it wrong that we are giving more money to the poorest third?
  As I said recently at oral questions, I do not think that any of us, as MPs, would want to go up to elderly people in our constituency who have benefited from pension credit and tell them they are victims of some terrible means-testing. Indeed, an application for pension credit

  365
  is usually made over the telephone and the form is filled in by an expert, rather than by the elderly person. There is a whole new approach to the notion of income-testing.
  David Winnick: As regards targeting, or means-testing, is it not a fact that before we came to office, and before there was any winter fuel allowance, the only help that pensioners got was the cold weather payments, and it had to be freezing for seven consecutive days, no less, before the allowance was paid, and they had to be on income support to receive even the miserly £7 or £8 a week? Compare that with what we have done in office.
  Malcolm Wicks: There is a further comparison to be made between the former Administration and our Administration in respect of VAT on fuel. On a theme that is dear to my hon. Friend's heart and mine, as he knows, the energy efficiency programmes are also important.
  Through pension credit the Government are for the first time rewarding those who have saved and who so often just missed out in the past under the old minimum income guarantee system. Despite the constant knocking by those on the Opposition Benches, pension credit is working well. It is already helping 2.4 million pensioner households—nearly 3 million individuals—across our country. And we must not forget that it is this Government who introduced the winter fuel payment and increased those payments from £20 in 1997 to £200 today, with an extra £100 for those over 80. Also, it is this Government who give free TV licences to the over-75s.
  We will be spending about £l0 billion extra on pensioners this year as a result of the measures introduced since 1997—£10 billion. This includes about £5 billion that is being spent on the poorest third of pensioners—targeting, again, the very people who need help the most. That is almost £6 billion more than if the basic state pension had been linked to earnings since 1998 and nothing else had happened.
  Around 80 per cent. of recently retired women pensioners do not have a full state pension because of broken national insurance records—something often forgotten by those on various sides who are campaigning to restore the earnings link. We are supporting women particularly through pension credit. More than half—54 per cent.—of those eligible are single women, and two thirds of those who benefit overall from the new credit are women.
  The measure before the House today will benefit a large number of elderly people. About 5 million households will receive the payment at a cost of around £500 million. We are again able to give extra help to our eldest pensioners. The Bill represents yet another step in our mission to tackle poverty in old age. Alongside many other measures, it recognises the contribution that our elders have made to our country.
  1.5 pm
  Mr. Nigel Waterson: We had a relatively short speech from the Minister commending the virtues of the Bill and it is a relatively short Bill, but one that says much about where the Government find themselves at this point in the electoral cycle. Make no
  366
  mistake: the Bill is a panic measure in the face of the Government's failure on local government finance and in the face of campaigning by people like 83-year-old Devon pensioner, Elizabeth Winkfield, who memorably said that she would rather go to prison than pay her increased council tax.
  The Bill is a straightforward electoral bribe. Furthermore, it is based on a misapprehension about the way the payment could be paid. It dawned on the Government only late in the day that they needed primary legislation to put through the payment. I will hear in correspondence, apparently, when the Minister became aware that that would be necessary. I cannot help feeling that it was one of those days when civil servants brought unpalatable news to the Minister and that he might have remembered it. I suspect that there might have been the odd expletive, but we will find out in due course.
  Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman meant that as a joke, but I do not use expletives and I talk to my officials as sensibly as I am sure he would.
  Mr. Waterson: I am happy to accept that, bloodless and restrained as ever, the Minister does not use expletives. Perhaps he contented himself with saying, "Oh dear."
  Mr. Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that there probably were expletives among the Government party managers? They must have been furious that the Treasury had made a mistake. The Chancellor introduced his Budget and made a great announcement, then all of a sudden we are dealing with primary legislation. Surely that shows staggering incompetence on the part of the Government.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is right. There was certainly some incompetence, but it is obvious that the Bill is a panic measure. We do not yet know, because the Minister is being so reticent, when he heard for the first time about the £100 payment.[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) says from a sedentary position, I have a shrewd suspicion that the Minister learned about it at the same time as everybody else, during the Budget statement. Most of all, the Bill is a panic measure that seeks to tackle, in a clumsy way that I shall describe in more detail, a problem created by the Government.
  Before I remind the House of the Government's record on local government finance in detail, may I say how disappointed I am that someone with the Minister's academic credentials should still be trotting out the old canard about how to compare like with like in respect of council tax? We have all heard the arguments before but, for the sake of repetition, I remind hon. Members that the House of Commons Library, no less, says:
  "to compare year-on-year increases council taxes are expressed in terms of the average Band D council tax for a 2-adult dwelling."
  In The Sunday Times, Mr. Peter Kellner memorably wrote:
  "Homes in Labour areas tended to fall into lower council tax bands and this was why average council tax was lower … The proper way to judge the figures was to compare like with like—say, Band D figures, council by council".

  367
  He went on to state that Labour's claim
  "is as misleading as it ever was … On this issue, Labour is wrong and Tories are right".
  Mr. Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that Labour areas often get a lot more grant from a Labour Government than Conservative councils? For example, Sedgefield council gets eight times more grant than East Dorset district council.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is right. One of the great unfairnesses faced by those of us who represent constituencies in the south, and particularly in the south-east, is the decision, which was clearly political, to switch resources from our areas to the north and other parts of the country.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): Did the hon. Gentleman examine the figures before asserting that Labour councils get larger grants than Conservative councils and that more funds go to councils in the north than those in the south? Is he aware that the 5.9 per cent. average grant increase for Labour councils was slightly lower than the 6.1 per cent. increase for Tory councils? Councils in the three northern regions received slightly lower grant increases than those in the south-east and London. Is he aware of the facts, or is he trotting out the mantra?
  Mr. Waterson: The Under-Secretary speaks for the Government, but perhaps he should speak for Kent.
  Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend will know that, although the Under-Secretary's point was helpful, he was discussing this year's increase on last year's deficit. Having taken away £30 million year on year from Somerset and £39 million year on year from Surrey, the Government gave those areas a tiny little increase compared with that for the north in the previous year.
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend speaks with his usual authority on such matters, and some of my hon. Friends and I recently met a Minister from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to raise that unfairness. Without wishing to bore the House with details from East Sussex, the Government recognise that the first attempt to give grants from central Government resulted in inequities, so they came up with a second tranche of funding. The only problem is that the entire population of East Sussex received the princely sum of £5,000 as a result of that exercise, which piled incompetence on top of incompetence.
  The figures are clear: since the Government came to power, council tax bills for the average band D home have increased by 70 per cent. A typical household now pays almost £500 extra a year under this Government. One third of the increase in the basic state pension for the typical pensioner has been taken up by higher council tax, which is a point that relates to this Bill.
  In his introduction, the Minister rightly touched on council tax benefit, which, as we all know, is traditionally the means-tested benefit with the lowest
  368
  take-up. Government figures produced in February show that the position is getting worse, because the take-up of council tax benefit is between 66 and 72 per cent. by case load. Older pensioners are less likely to claim the benefit, which makes the situation worse, and take-up is a particular problem with older pensioners who are owner-occupiers. Low take-up affects the poorest pensioners most severely.
  We welcomed the attempts led by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) to boost take-up. Although they were welcome, they did not alter the fact that the figures are getting worse, not better. Perhaps the storm of protest, particularly among pensioners in the south of England, was not surprising. I have already referred to 83-year-old Elizabeth Winkfield from Devon, who refused to pay the full 17.9 per cent. increase in her council tax bill—she said that she would rather go to jail than pay more than an inflation-based increase.
  It was no surprise, except possibly to the Minister, when the Chancellor set out his understanding of the difficulties faced by older pensioners on fixed incomes. He said:
  "The evidence shows that their council tax bills take a higher share of their income than the rest of the population."—[Official Report, 17 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 336.]
  Welcome to the real world. The Government clearly took a political decision to make the £100 payment, which is a nice round figure, although it is difficult to see where it came from. It bears no relation to the different levels of council tax up and down the country or individual pensioners' means, because it was plucked out of the air. All the evidence points to a panic measure included in the Budget at the last minute, possibly without the knowledge of DWP Ministers and certainly without the knowledge of DWP officials.
  When the Budget statement was drafted, the assumption that clearly underlay the decision to make the payment was that the money could simply and easily be added to the winter fuel payments by an amendment to the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payments Regulations 2000. As the Minister says, the problem was that the Government's legal advice stated that that was not possible and that the Government must introduce primary legislation. When the Chancellor made his statement, issued the accompanying press notices and released the Red Book, no one had properly addressed how those payments were to be coupled with the winter fuel payments and the precise mechanism had yet to be examined—a panic measure, if ever there was one.
  In a written answer, the Minister stated:
  "We are looking at the most cost-effective and efficient way to deliver payments. It is intended that a single one-off payment is made in 2004–05."—[official Report, 31 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1490.]
  That leaves a question mark, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that it has occurred to you, as well as to me. The Minister used the phrase "one-off" again in his speech this afternoon, but the Bill seeks powers to make payments to the over-60s, as opposed to the over-70s, on various terms.
  I must press the Minister further and I shall return to the question whether the payment is a one-off or whether the Government simply intend to make similar

  369
  payments year on year. It is a harsh fact of political life that once one gives a payment for cold weather or TV licences, for example, pensioners, not unreasonably, become attached to it, and it becomes politically difficult to take it away.[Interruption.]
  Perhaps I can quell the hilarity on the Government Benches by examining the reaction of pensioners and pensioners' organisations to the Bill and to the £100 payment. The under-70s are not terribly impressed. Why should a 69-year-old not receive the payment? What is the logic behind that? As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) says, if the husband in a retired couple sadly passes away before the qualifying date and the widow is slightly under 70, why should she not get the payment?
  On the face of it, the measure involves an element of discrimination. We know that the Government are wedded to dealing with discrimination: they signed up to the European convention on human rights, article 14 of which makes it clear that discrimination should not occur on a range of different grounds. However, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions feels able to make a standard statement on the Bill that, in his view, the provisions are compatible with convention rights.
  For once, the explanatory notes to the Bill are interesting:
  "The setting of age 70 for entitlement is justified on the grounds that members of this age group are less likely to be in work, have less money and have fixed incomes."
  There is, of course, some truth to that statement, but one could say the same about the over-65s or even the over-60s—many more people now take early retirement. It is not clear why only the over-70s should be included.
  Mr. Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that another cause for concern among younger pensioner households is that the Government have deprived them of their married couples allowance, which is still payable to older married couples?
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend is right. That is yet another peculiarity about the odd division between the over-70s and the under-70s.
  Another issue, which certainly puzzles pensioners in my constituency, is that the payment is wholly unrelated to council tax rises in different areas. A third puzzle is that it bears no relation at all to tax or benefits, as it is completely independent of the tax and benefits systems. The ultimate example of that—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—is that a pensioner who is on full council tax benefit will still get the £100.
  Perhaps the issue that has caused most controversy among pensioners and their organisations is the eight-month delay in receiving the money. Again, that may be a function of the panic in which the promise was put in the Budget, but the reality is that pensioners will have received their council tax demands eight months earlier than the payment that was made at Christmas, at the same time as the winter fuel payment. Will the Minister explain why, if it is not possible without primary legislation to link the payment to the winter fuel payment, it still has to be done at the same time and with the same qualifying week? There may be a good, practical reason for that, but if the Government hope to garner some electoral benefit from the payment, would
  370
  it not have made more sense for it to drop on to people's doormats at about the time that they are wondering whom to vote for on 10 June?
  Another interesting feature of the announcement was the chorus of disapproval from pensioners' organisations. Mr. Neil Duncan-Jordan, a spokesman for the National Pensioners Convention—the Minister and I are to have the pleasure of addressing its parliament next week, so I hope that he remembers to put the telephone directory down his trousers beforehand—said:
  "It is completely wrong to make an announcement like this and not have the details in place. It leads us to believe that the Chancellor's statement was made simply to gain publicity."
  Heaven forfend. I am sure that such thoughts never cross the mind of this Government and these Ministers. He went on: "One-off payments"—to use the Minister's phrase—
  "such as this are not the answer to pensioner hardship. They are often seen by the public as just cynical attempts to grab votes."
  Is not that the likely reaction of the average pensioner?
  Mr. Mervyn Kohler of Help the Aged said:
  "there would be no need for gifts like this if the Government was to review its fixation with means-testing"—
  a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). Mr. Kohler continued:
  "For many older people, this means months of going without in order to pay this year's bill."
  Mr. Rodney Bickerstaffe, who is not yet a member of the Conservative party, but is president of the National Pensioners Convention, said:
  "The best way to tackle the problem is through a bigger basic state pension … the Chancellor's announcement … fails to offer a long-term solution to the problems faced, by those under 70, of rising bills and falling incomes … with the Chancellor's decision not to restore the link with earnings in favour of expanding the Pension Credit, millions of existing and future pensioners will continue to rely on means-tested benefits."
  Frankly, I could not have put it better.
  Malcolm Wicks: Given that the Opposition declined to give a Second Reading to the Pensions Bill, which will establish the very important pension protection fund, is it not time for the hon. Gentleman to say whether he will support this Bill?
  Mr. Waterson: That is the traditional purpose of making a speech on Second Reading. If the Minister can contain his enthusiasm, I shall of course come to that.
  Gordon Lishman, director general of Age Concern, said:
  "it's a disgrace that the state pension is so inadequate people have to rely on one-off payments to cover daily living costs."
  Lest it be said that I am being unfair in focusing entirely on the Government and the Minister, whom I know to be well intentioned, let me turn for a moment to the Liberal Democrats, who have turned hypocrisy into an art form or an Olympic event. Up and down the country, including in my constituency, they are running a campaign to abolish the council tax. That is rather like the serial killer who leaves a note at the home of his last victim saying, "Please stop me before I do it again."

  371
  My own council, Eastbourne, is a good example: it has increased council tax by 45 per cent. over the past two years. With the Liberal Democrats running the show at the town hall, no one could devise a system of local government finance that did not involve extremely high payments being made, often by the poorest in society. The highest rise anywhere this year—28 per cent.—was imposed by Shepway council. There are no prizes for guessing who runs Shepway—it is of course the Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Pond: Can the hon. Gentleman remind the House of the name of the MP for the constituency that covers Shepway?
  Mr. John Bercow: I am sure that my hon. Friend has anticipated that point, which is somewhat irrelevant.
  Mr. Waterson: I welcome my hon. Friend to our deliberations—he brings a new lustre to this parliamentary occasion.
  The Under-Secretary presses me to say that the local MP is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Leader of the official Opposition. It might also interest the Under-Secretary to know that the other day there was a council by-election in Shepway in which a formerly Liberal Democrat ward was won by the Conservatives with a swing of 31 per cent.[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, appropriately, the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) says that it was all about toilets. Indeed it was—the Liberal Democrat council wanted to shut every single public lavatory in the entire area.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. Hon. Members may find this fascinating, but I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would return to the subject before the House.
  Mr. Waterson: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My main point is that the Liberal Democrats often present their idea of a local income tax as a simpler and fairer alternative to council tax, but it is neither of those things.
  Mr. Webb: We can anticipate what is coming, because we have heard it all before, but what is the hon. Gentleman's solution to the unfairness of the council tax?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would appreciate it if hon. Members did not go too far down that road.
  Mr. Waterson: One solution is not to elect Liberal Democrat councils.
  The problem with the idea of a local income tax is that it does not address the real causes of the crisis in local government finance for which the Bill is designed to be a fig leaf: first, the fiddled funding from Whitehall and, secondly, spendthrift Liberal Democrat and Labour councils.
  Malcolm Wicks: Bring back the poll tax.
  Mr. Waterson: The Liberal Democrats' local income tax would involve a tax, on adjusted figures, of 3.8 per cent. on all income between £4,745 and £100,000 a year. That would produce a basic rate of income tax of almost 26 per cent. and a higher rate of almost 44 per cent. The reality is that, at that 3.8 per cent. level, an average couple in England would end up paying an extra £630 a year—an increase of 65 per cent. Furthermore, such a tax would lead to large discrepancies in income taxation between different parts of the country, be a major burden on employers and distort the jobs market. I am sure that the Liberal Democrats are carefully examining those issues, but the central flaw, as they have said themselves, is that, as with any system of local government finance, there remains the issue of equalisation—how to deal with the differences between poorer and richer areas—and the related problems of gearing.
  Andrew Bennett: In some places, there are considerable seasonal employment fluctuations while others can suddenly suffer large numbers of redundancies. Equalisation has to happen not just annually, but as the year progresses.
  Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. That is only one of many practical problems that should be tackled but does not appear to have been considered by those who support a local income tax.
  Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrats support such a policy because, in the areas that will get money, they will tell people that money is coming and in areas where they might expect to do better out of local income tax, they will not mention equalisation? Liberal Democrats always say different things in different places. In my constituency, they recently blamed the Conservative winner of a local council election because he was too young and campaigned on the maturity of their candidate. In a nearby constituency, they said how wonderful it was to have a young candidate. Whatever the case, they will always present it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to repeat myself but the Bill does not deal with such matters. I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) dealt specifically with the measure's contents.
  Mr. Waterson: I shall certainly do that and try to avoid too much party political discussion. In a sense, the Bill is more about council tax and local government finance than pensioners.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is true that the measure deals with how money is found for that purpose but not the detailed ramifications of the various aspects of the way in which council tax or other methods of payment are arrived at.
  Mr. Waterson: I thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I may answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) briefly

  373
  before moving on, he is right about the detail. The briefing note that sadly fell into the wrong hands when the Liberal Democrats launched local income tax stated:
  "We might get asked about the rate of local income tax we expect we would levy. We don't want to be drawn extensively into this."
  How wise.
  Clearly, a system that was different from the council tax and based on local income tax would have winners and losers, especially pensioners, who would pay more under the Bill if they had savings, worked hard and had a decent income. Many pensioners would pay more. It is easy to propose glib alternatives. In the Brent, East by-election, we were promised a £100 refund on council tax but that pledge appears to have been abandoned. In The Guardian, the leader of the Liberal Democrats
  "insisted that he had not broken his promise, although he admitted the pledge would not now be met "
  I am not sure what that means.
  Let me press the Minister on some specific questions. Are we considering a one-off payment or not? He appeared to make it clear in his opening speech that it was a one-off payment to pensioners who are over 70. Yet clause 7 grants the power to make regulations
  "providing for the making of payments … to persons who have attained the age of 60 years."
  It is not unreasonable to press Ministers about the circumstances in which they envisage using those powers. Will the payment depend on opinion polls? Will it be made only to people in marginal seats? Will it apply to swing voters? Perhaps it will be made only to women. There would be much sense in making the payments to older women because the latest findings show that that group in the electorate is going off the Government faster than any other. We need to be told why clause 7 is included in the measure when the payment is described as a one-off.
  In correspondence with my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), the Minister made it clear that the payment is only for 2004–05. My hon. Friend and I accept that at face value. However, that makes the presence of clause 7 even more puzzling. It seems clear that Ministers intend to use it in future and it is important to know the circumstances in which that might happen.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government are clear in their mind about their use of clause 7 and, moreover, believe that there is no ground for ambiguity on the matter, it would help to have a draft copy of the regulations before the Bill proceeds any further?
  Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a telling point, as one would expect. However, after spending seven weeks serving on the Committee that considered the Pensions Bill, in which many important aspects are left to regulation, and not catching even a glimpse of a draft regulation, I do not hold out much hope.
  Andrew Bennett: In the unlikely event of a future Conservative Government, would they make such payments?
  Mr. Waterson: With respect, it is not right to ask me to make such a commitment. I am trying to ask the current Government about their intentions, which appear very murky.
  I want to ask about the qualifying date. According to my reading of the measure, a person in the household would have to be over 70 on the qualifying date in September to qualify. Why not make that a little more flexible? My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) mentioned the problem of a 70-year-old in the household who dies in the relevant period. Could not we provide that someone had to be 70 on the qualifying date in September, when the amount was to be paid in December or at sometime in the council tax year? That would be simpler and might be fairer.
  Why in only this instance do the Government accept the logic of giving help to all pensioners in the same way? On more important matters, they pin their hopes on ever more means-testing. Are they perhaps beginning to appreciate the wisdom of the Conservative policy of restoring the link with average earnings?
  I have now reached the part of my speech that the Minister was so keen to hear. Of course, the official Opposition will not stand in the way of older pensioners receiving their £100. Good for them. If there is a vote on the Bill, I shall invite my hon. Friends to support it. However, it is a blatant piece of electioneering. Worse, it has signally failed. It has been revealed to be a panic measure. Its implementation will be bungled because the money will arrive far too late for pensioners in genuine need. Pensioners and pensioners' organisations have seen through the whole exercise. In short, the Government will end up spending up to £500 million with not a single vote to show for it.
  1.39 pm
  Mr. Steve Webb: One almost feels that the Bill need not detain the House at all. We all know what it is about. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) concluded, it provides for a one-off payment of £100 because the Government are panicking about the council tax; there is an election approaching, and there was nothing in the Budget for subsequent years. None of us would begrudge older pensioners £100 because we all acknowledge that many of them need the money, so why do not we accept that and go home? I rather feel, however, that having been given the Floor, I cannot quite leave it at that—tempted though I am.
  The proposed payment clearly has nothing to do with council tax, because it will be paid to people who do not pay council tax, such as those living in households with members under pension age. It will also be paid to people who are already getting a full rebate. So it has nothing to do with council tax, just as the winter fuel payment has nothing to do with winter fuel—it has something to do with the winter, because that is when it is paid, but nothing to do with fuel.
  The reason that the winter fuel payment has "fuel" in its title is that that allows the Government to pay it through the social fund, which meant that its introduction did not require primary legislation. If they could have called this payment a "council tax and fuel payment", they would not have needed primary legislation to introduce it, because as long as it has

  375
  something to do with fuel, they can deliver it through the social fund. I am not sure whether millions of pensioners realise that they are getting social fund payments at the moment, but I shall draw a veil over that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) has pointed out to me that some of the council tax money paid by pensioners is used to heat council buildings, so perhaps the Government could have used that loophole to bring this payment within the social fund.
  This is a bizarre situation. Under the Bill, £500 million—give or take—has been tossed away in the last minutes of a Budget speech. One of the strange things about the Bill is this business about the ability to pay other payments of this kind at any point in the future, as set out in clause 7. I asked a question about the circumstances in which the Government might want to do that, and I received a reply on 30 April, in which the Minister for Pensions referred to the affirmative procedure. So we will get a vote on the proposal to spend £500 million, or whatever, which will be wonderful, but we shall be voting on something unamendable.
  The Bill therefore paves the way for proposals for payments—if they were to go to all pensioners, they could easily add up to billions of pounds—to go through after two 90-minute debates. Moreover, the Government will have some influence, shall we say, on the membership of the said Committee through the usual channels. Huge sums of taxpayers' money could therefore be spent with no opportunity to amend the proposals in any respect. That seems an extraordinary power to give to the Government through the Bill. At least we shall have some semblance of a debate today, and we shall have at least a day in Committee, which will give us some chance to look at how that £500 million is to be spent. But the fact that the Bill gives the Government the power to sling a few hundred million more in the direction of pensioners whenever they feel like it seems very odd and rather unacceptable.
  Andrew Bennett: How does this proposal differ from the uprating orders that we have each year?
  Mr. Webb: The uprating orders have traditionally been debated on the Floor of the House, often taking a whole day of parliamentary time rather than 90 minutes in an upstairs Committee Room. Indeed, on the occasions when we have felt that an uprating order was unacceptable—for example, the one that related to the 75p pension rise that the Government do not mention very often—we have voted it down, in an attempt to make the Government bring in a better one. A far better way of scrutinising these matters would be to present them in an amendable form, and for the Government to be required to come to the House with something that could be scrutinised not only in principle but in detail. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that a commitment to spend £500 million next time round, given without virtually any examination, is an acceptable example of the way in which the House scrutinises the Government, but I certainly do not.
  Mr. Weir: Is not another difference between this proposal and the uprating orders the fact that the orders
  376
  deal with existing benefits? We know what those benefits are, whereas clause 7 of the Bill could conceivably be used to introduce any sort of payment.
  Mr. Webb: I was about to make that excellent point. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. Every year, we use the uprating orders to roll on an existing system that we understand well, but the Bill is about something completely new. It will introduce a new set of rules, which is why it requires even more proper scrutiny than the annual uprating process.
  If we are concerned—as we are—about the burden of council tax on people on low or modest fixed incomes, we must ask ourselves whether this Bill presents the right strategy to deal with that issue. There are better ways to approach the problem, namely, to provide people with a decent pension. It seems undignified for pensioners to have to hang on every word of the Chancellor's speech, having remembered to switch it on five minutes before the end, which is when they get given the cash—the goodies that the Chancellor had to spare because an election was coming up. Is not that an undignified way to treat pensioners? Should they not know at the start of each financial year what money they will have coming in, and should not that money be adequate to meet bills of this sort so that they do not need such one-off special payments? I have similar feelings about other ad hoc payments that the Government have introduced.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman has just accused the Government of offering an election bribe, which this proposal clearly is. If my memory is correct, in the last by-election that the Liberal Democrats fought, they put a "cheque" for £100 on the bottom of their leaflets, offering voters that amount off their council tax. They have now abolished that proposal. Was that not an election bribe that they subsequently decided was a bad idea?
  Mr. Webb: We are proposing to abolish the council tax. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the leader of the party has over-performed, as he does so often, by proposing not only to cut £100 from people's council tax but to abolish the whole thing. If I am accused of breaking a promise to the electors to cut £100 of their council tax, when we are replacing that with a policy to scrap £1,000 of their council tax. I stand condemned.
  Mr. Wilshire: Can we be absolutely clear about this? Is the hon. Gentleman pledging that his party, should we have the misfortune to see it form a Government, would scrap the council tax and replace it with a local income tax? If he will give us that pledge, my constituents would then understand why the average male in my constituency would end up with a bill of £700 a year more than he pays at the moment. They would be delighted to hear confirmation of that.
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman should not believe his central office briefings. He should know that by now. In answer to the first part of his intervention: yes, our pledge is unequivocally and absolutely to replace the unfair council tax with a fair local income tax of the kind used in many European countries, which will not reassure the hon. Gentleman. Such taxes are also used in many American states, however, which perhaps will reassure him.

  377
  In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the local income tax will replace the council tax, but we envisage one tax rise, on those earning more than £100,000 a year. Part of the proceeds of that tax rise—£1.7 billion, to be precise—will be used to ease the burden of the transition from council tax to local income tax. The amount raised under our local income tax will actually be less than that raised under the council tax. Given that it will raise less money, the notion that the average family could be hundreds of pounds worse off does not make sense. The average outcome must be a gain, because we shall be raising less money overall. In fact, because the tax will be charged according to the ability to pay, the vast majority of pensioners, for example, will benefit from our proposal.
  That is precisely the focus of the Bill. That is what it is trying to do, in a very inadequate way. We believe, however, that a system in which pensioners who do not pay national income tax would not pay council tax either would be fairer than giving everyone £100 across the board, as that will fail to discriminate between those who pay no council tax and those who are well able to afford to do so.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am sure that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that his plans included some extra tax to ease the transition, so he is not actually denying that my constituents will face another £700 a year in tax. What he is saying is that he has a wheeze to put that off for a little while in the hope that people will forget about it, vote for his party, and subsequently pay the extra £700. Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) is now being seduced off the straight and narrow, but I would be grateful if he would avoid being seduced.
  Mr. Webb: I shall not find that too difficult in the present context, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman's question has been placed on record, I shall simply say that a tax that raises less money—namely the replacement local income tax—could not possibly create an average loss, let alone one on the scale that he envisages. In fact, there will be average gains under our proposals.
  Andrew Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Webb: Yes, although I recognise your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Andrew Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman's proposals would bring in less money, does that mean that councils would have to cut services, particularly services to the elderly? Or would income tax have to go up to meet the shortfall?
  Mr. Webb: For the benefit of the record, if the hon. Gentleman had been listening a few moments ago, he would have heard me point out that, of the £5 billion or so that our proposal for a 50p income tax rate will raise, £1.7 billion will go towards easing the transition between council tax and local income tax. That would mean that councils would get the same amount of money. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman,
  378
  as a socialist—if I dare use that term—would favour higher taxation for those earning more than £100,000 a year.
  Mr. Nigel Jones: To keep strictly in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say that I welcome the £100 proposal? Will my hon. Friend confirm, however, that under the local income tax, 74 per cent. of my constituents in Cheltenham would be better off?
  Mr. Webb: I am sure that my hon. Friend has read a more reliable briefing on that subject than the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), and I am sure that he is correct.
  The focus of our debate is pensioners. The Bill is about doing something because the council tax hits pensioners, but the proposal to pay everyone a uniform amount, when some pay no council tax at all and others can afford to pay it, is very poorly targeted.
  Far better than an unfair tax system and a rebates system designed to try to redress that—and because that does not work, another lump sum payment—would be a fair local tax system in the first place. That must be the key. The problem at the moment is, first, that we have an unfair and rapidly increasing local tax bill, and secondly, a hopelessly ineffective rebates system—if it worked, pensioners would not feel the pain of the council tax. Because 1 million or more pensioners are missing out on the rebates and are paying the full council tax, the Government's policy has had political consequences. A sticking plaster of £100 to remedy the fact that the rebates fail to address an unfair council tax system is a crazy solution. The House should be aware that the bureaucracy to run a rebates system, which is one way of trying to make council tax fairer, and to levy council tax, costs £600 million. That money should be going on pensions and pensioners. That is another reason why there are better strategies to adopt than that in the Bill.
  The alternative strategy, as well as making the local tax system fairer, offers a better system of support for pensioners. Clearly, one of the reasons why many pensioners over 70, who are the subject of the Bill, are so poor is that they do not get the means-tested benefits to which they are entitled. The Government's view is that with one more heave, another publicity campaign and another leaflet, all will be well with the world. The Minister knows, however, that for years to come a structural feature of the Government's mass means-testing strategy is that vast numbers of older people will simply not get the money to which they are entitled. The Government will then recognise that as a political problem, and will have to find a system that people do take up. I accept that winter fuel payments are generally taken up, with men aged between 60 and 64 as the main exception. The Government must use a system that they know works to get money to people, because the other systems, such as mass means-testing, do not work. The Government have an unfair local tax system and a rebates system that does not work, so they have had to patch it up. On top of that, they provide an inadequate pension and conduct means-testing to deal with that inadequacy, and because that does not work, they need another sticking plaster.
  Malcolm Wicks: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he accept that one of the problems

  379
  with putting all the money into the national insurance pension is that many vulnerable people, particularly elderly women, do not have full national insurance contributions records, and would not therefore benefit? How does his critique of the £100 payment for the over-70s—I am not sure whether he is criticising winter fuel payments—relate to his party's policy of age-relating the basic pension in favour of the older elderly?
  Mr. Webb: The Minister makes two good and perfectly fair points. That is why we believe that when we try to improve the pension, we should do it on a citizenship basis. It may not be feasible to do that for all pensioners in one go, but the starting point needs to be that a citizen, particularly an older citizen, qualifies for a pension, and recognition of the fact that because many older people have inadequate contribution records because of caring responsibilities and because, as women, they have spent a lot of time out of the labour market, they have suffered. For as long as the Government insist on using the contributory basis to go forward with pensions policy, the groups that he has highlighted will continue to suffer. That is why our citizenship proposal will benefit older pensioners and women in particular. He is right to highlight that group. I am grateful for that, and I am glad about his concern for that group. We will address that group's problems with our policies, and it is time that the Government did so too.
  On the issue of how best to support our pensioners, clearly, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned restoring the earnings link, which we will discuss at greater length next week on the Pensions Bill. If we are concerned about the effect of council tax on pensioners, increasing a woefully inadequate pension by a few percentage points above inflation is not the way to do it. In part, that is precisely because of the reasons that he gave—many poorer pensioners do not get full pension, so they will get less from the restoration of the earnings link—but it is also because the pension is so inadequate.
  To raise a few issues to which we might return in Committee, I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the eligible date for this payment. When dealing with winter fuel payments, some of the recipients are not yet state pensioners, so there might be an argument that more time is needed to include them in the system, although I have some doubts about even that. A more credible argument is that given that we are not paying pensions to some of those people, but they are 60, they qualify for winter fuel payments, and because those people must be identified, a time lag is needed between the day on which they qualify and the day on which we pay the money, although I think that that argument is overdone.
  That argument does not apply to the over-70s, however, as they are all in the system already, and I presume that practically all of them will already be getting winter fuel payments. Therefore, why do we need a qualifying date in the third week in September to pay them the money by Christmas? To coin a phrase, we know where they live and who they are. Given our desire to support older pensioners, why do we have to say that someone who is 70 in October cannot have a payment to help them with their council tax in December—when they will be 70 and two months—because they were not
  380
  70 in September. Given that they are already in the system, and the Department knows their date of birth—even its crumbling computers will know that, as it will be paying their winter fuel payments—there seems no reason for that early entitlement date. Changing it would not cost the Government huge sums of money. A set of pensioners will feel aggrieved that they do not qualify for the payment, even though they are 70 in December, because they were not that qualifying age three months earlier in September, even though the Department knew all about them—[Interruption.] I am happy to give way if the Minister wants to challenge that.
  Mr. Pond: I am rather puzzled, because wherever one sets the point of qualification, some people will be on the wrong side of the line. I am afraid that that is inevitable.
  Mr. Webb: With respect, that is not the point. My point is that there is a three-month gap between the date on which someone becomes eligible and the date on which they get the money. Why must it be three months? Because those people are already in the system, November could be the eligible date, for example, which would allow more people who are 70 at the time of payment to get the money, which is surely what we want.
  Mr. Waterson: I am following the hon. Gentleman's point, not least because it mirrors to an extent one that I made. Can he see—because I cannot—any practical objection to making the payment to anyone who becomes 70, or is 70, during that council tax year?
  Mr. Webb: I see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. I guess that his suggestion is that perhaps it should be a 70th birthday present of some sort, so that it might be paid at different points throughout the year. I can see the administrative attraction of making all the payments in one week, give or take a little, and of drawing attention to all the publicity at a particular point rather than steadily through the year. There are attractions in bunching the payments. That said, I cannot see why three months are required to work out who is 70.
  Mr. Chope: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) does not address the issue of someone who is 70 now, and who is part of a household in which no one else is over 70, and who dies in August but has already had to pay the council tax bill for this year?
  Mr. Webb: That is a fair point. The honest truth is that we all know that this is nothing to do with the council tax. For as long as the Government want to maintain the fiction that it is, however, the hon. Gentleman has a perfectly fair point. One would sympathise hugely with a household that has already started to pay council tax at the high levels that people must pay, but has never got help because sadly it suffered a bereavement during the year.
  Andrew Bennett: There is a slight flaw in that argument. It is very sad that someone dies, but at the point at which they die, the household will almost certainly get the single person rebate on the council tax.
  Mr. Webb: For several months while that person is still alive, however, the household will pay the full

  381
  council tax at the higher rate that people must pay, yet it will not get anything towards the bill for that period—the discount will only apply for the remainder of the year.
  I always want to save the Government money if I can. In relation to winter fuel payments, I recall that the Government were taken to court—and they lost, if I remember rightly—by British citizens living elsewhere in the EU. I do not know if the Minister has a view on this, and he may want to deal with it in his winding-up speech. As I recall, at first, winter fuel payments were meant to be paid only to UK citizens living in Great Britain. A court case was then held, and I think that I am right that winter fuel payments can now be paid to British citizens living elsewhere in the EU. What I am not clear about is whether this Bill, which tries to restrict payments to people who are reside it in Great Britain during the qualifying week, will be subject to the same legal challenge, because winter fuel payments now have to be paid across the EU. I am not clear as to why these payments will only be paid to Great Britain residents. Clearly, the argument will be that people elsewhere in the EU do not pay the council tax, but the Bill does not mention the council tax, because it is nothing to do with it. I merely wish to save the Government the trouble of a legal challenge.
  As I said at the outset, we know what the Bill is all about. We will not stand in its way, as none of us begrudge £100 for elderly pensioner who certainly need the money. The key point, however, is that once again the Government are producing a sticking plaster to deal with problems elsewhere in the system. We have an unfair local tax system that is not being dealt with satisfactorily through an ineffective rebate system, so we need a sticking plaster. We have an inadequate basic pension which is not being dealt with satisfactorily through an ineffective means-testing system, so we need another sticking plaster. One day, I hope—and I hope that day comes soon—we will have a Government who introduce fair local tax and decent pensions, and we will not need Bills like this.
  2 pm
  Sir Paul Beresford: Before you took the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Minister carefully explained—notwithstanding what the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said—that the Bill was intended to help pensioners with their council tax. He went through the usual performance of explaining that council tax rises had been dramatic over the past couple of years—which they have been—and blaming local authorities. I believe that if the Government examined the real causes of the increases they would see that had they adopted a different approach earlier, we would not need the Bill and we would not need the money for pensioners. Indeed, that might be the case if they adopted a different approach even at this late stage. Pensioners in my area will of course welcome the money. Pensioners aged 70 and above, and those under 70, will be worried by the council tax rise that they face—courtesy, again, of the Government.
  About two years ago, ODPM Ministers explained that the council tax was reasonable. The huge outcry that prompted this panic reaction was generated at that time because people, especially in London and the south-east, were hurt by the tax. I believe that the
  382
  Government are largely responsible for that. The Minister blamed local authorities, and I accept that some are to blame. Many Labour and Liberal councils' running costs are exorbitant compared with those of Conservative councils. The Liberals' idea of a different tax system should be taken with a pinch of salt: in Mole Valley the group led by the Conservatives and Independents raised the council tax by 5 per cent., but the Liberals wanted to raise it by 18 per cent. Nevertheless, I believe that central Government are the main cause of the increases.
  The English council general fund has increased by 72.5 per cent. over the past 10 years. It consists of councils' running costs, and is directly reflected in council tax. One of the main reasons for the increase, in my view, is the Labour Government's paranoia, and their wish to centralise and control. They have introduced best value comprehensive performance assessments, various inspections, including Audit Commission and school inspections, and complex social services procedures. In addition, they have produced target after target. If there is a difficulty with local authority performance in any area, the Government will come up with yet another target—and all that costs money. The cost of inspections, and reactions to inspections, is reflected in council tax—dramatically, because of the gearing effect—and in the position of our pensioners.
  The Government's last thought is for output and whether value for money has been obtained. By abolishing competitive tendering, they have hurt some councils that have tried to save council tax. Many hidden costs—best value and CPAs, for instance—can paralyse council staff for many weeks as they prepare for inspections, and in addition there is the process of the inspections themselves. All that is reflected in the additional cost to pensioners, whom the Bill is intended to help.
  The Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is conducting an inquiry into the costs, and there has been quite a reaction. Some councils' costs are fairly dramatic. A Havering councillor tells me that the Government have imposed extra planning requirements on the council, which cost another £150,000. Performance indicators add another £400,000 and external inspections a further £400,000. Best value reviews mean another £150,000; responding to Government consultations, another £100,000; Government returns, another £200,000; and bidding for grants, another £300,000. All that goes on to council tax, with gearing attached—at a time when the Government have reduced funding for London and the south-east dramatically year on year.
  Yesterday, Somerset county council told the Committee that it had lost £30 million year on year as a result of the change in the funding formula. Surrey had lost £39 million. Those losses, which came at very short notice, prevented the councils from responding with savings to cut costs for all pensioners—indeed, for all local people.
  Andrew Bennett: Somerset did not lose £30 million. The money that it received was not cut. It did not receive extra money that it had hoped to receive.
  Sir Paul Beresford: That is a slightly slanted way of looking at it. Somerset says that if the existing funding formula had continued, it would have received the £30 million. In effect, it lost the money year on year. The hon. Gentleman—who chairs the Select Committee—nods. I am grateful for that.
  Council tax benefits provided part of the solution, but, as the Committee is finding out, take-up is pitiful. When we asked yesterday why that was so, we were told that the forms were too long, complicated and intrusive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) pointed out, this is a panic reaction from the Government—their second panic reaction. The first manifested itself in capping and sudden handouts to selected local authorities.
  The Liberals, who never miss a bandwagon, have jumped on the bandwagon of local income tax. Treasury figures suggest that a married couple in my constituency on average earnings would pay an extra £886 a year if such a tax were imposed. They would not gain from any of the benefits proposed today.
  ODPM Ministers tell us that we have been helped by threats of capping. Some local authorities have, in fact, been capped. Although that is welcome and has generated the right response, it does not deal with councils' main problem—the exorbitant cost of the Government's intrusion on and management of their affairs, and the additional cost of gearing, which lands on the doorsteps of our pensioners and everyone else. Rather than presenting us with this Bill, the Government should do what they should have done long ago. They should get off local authorities' backs, and reduce the costs that have been generated by their interference.
  Malcolm Wicks: I am sorry to interrupt to hon. Gentleman's flow, but I want to apologise to him. When he intervened on me earlier, I reminded the House that we had both been Croydon Members, and implied that he had been thrown out by the electorate. In fact, he was the innocent victim of a boundary change. He must now feel very satisfied about the fact that he did not become a candidate for the new Croydon constituency, which fell to a Labour swing. I wanted to place that correction on the record and apology to a former colleague in Croydon.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I thank the Minister for his apology. An interesting question, which will never be answered, is whether I would have been elected had I stayed in Croydon.
  Here we sit, looking at a little Bill that will give a few people in my constituency and across England £100. That pales into insignificance in comparison with the damage that the Government have done to local authorities and to council tax bills, multiplied by gearing. For most local authorities, an extra £1 in costs means another £4 on council tax. For some, particularly in London, it means another £11.
  It would have been practical for this paranoid Government to get off the back of local authorities and to go back to the approach of the Conservatives in 1992.
  2.9 pm
  Hywel Williams: The Bill applies not only to England but to Wales and Scotland. Obviously, Plaid, Cymru and the Scottish National party welcome this modest payment to older people, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, it does not go far.
  We note with interest that it is a flat-rate payment on the basis of age, using age as a proxy for poverty, as the Government have noted themselves. People over 80 will get a higher payment. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish that the Government would apply that principle to the retirement pension. That would address some of the poverty that is prevalent in my constituency and throughout Wales among older pensioners.
  We note with approval the Minister's argument that the payment is transparent and that the administrative costs will be modest. Would that he and his colleagues applied the same argument to the growth in means-tested benefits, which are opaque, complicated and expensive to operate, as is council tax benefit. As has been said in the debate already, one of the reasons for the low take-up of council tax benefit is its complexity and opacity. This payment in some ways seems to be a sticking plaster—a recognition by the Government that council tax benefit is not working.
  I am pleased to say that some local authorities in Wales have had significantly lower council tax increases than others. The increase in my own local authority, Gwynedd county council, is well below the average. Caerffili and Rhondda Cynon Taf have also had low council tax increases. Happily, council tax payers in those Plaid Cymru-controlled areas will have more disposable income, but this is hardly fair to those council tax payers in Wales still groaning under the weight of council tax increases in Labour and independent-controlled councils.
  Mr. Weir: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the same is true in Scotland, where SNP-controlled councils such as my own in Angus have low council tax, despite the fact that the Liberal and Labour coalition in Edinburgh has distributed funds unfairly? The £100 will make little impact on the many people paying huge council taxes under Labour-controlled councils and indeed independent controlled councils such as Moray, the council tax of which is increasing by almost 10 per cent. this year.
  Hywel Williams: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point—all the more so since there are no elections in Scotland and his comments are untainted by the considerations that have led the Government to bring in this electoral bribe. He is clearly a man principle.
  As far as I can see, there is no direct link between this payment and council tax rises. As has been said, pensioners over 70 will receive the full payment. Pensioners receiving council tax benefits will still qualify. Significantly, the payments will be made with the winter fuel payment. Therefore, it is highly likely that older people will not make a particular link with council tax. They are far more likely to see the payment as linked to their fuel bills. They may see it as being consolidated with the £200 that they already receive. In that respect, questions regarding the fuel payment are especially pertinent.

  385
  I wish to highlight my concern that the new payment will be a single payment—one payment at one point. Many local authorities offer the facility of monthly payments of council tax, often by direct debit. I take advantage of those arrangements and find them extremely convenient. I do not see why older people should not be enabled to take advantage of that convenience and why the payment could not be staged in some way, although it may not be practical to have 10 payments. I presume that the Department for Work and Pensions' computer could facilitate that, although perhaps I am assuming too much in that respect.
  I was approached recently by a constituent, Mrs. Beryl Williams of Nefyn, who asked me a couple of questions that I could not answer, but the Government might like to suggest answers to them. She asked why the payment is for one year only—why it is a one-off—when older people's needs are likely to be the same over a number of years. Clause 7 will allow the Government to make other payments, but that is no reassurance to my constituent, who is trying to think ahead and to plan her income and expenditure. She needs some reassurance.
  Mrs. Williams also asked me why the Department for Work and Pensions will assess qualification for the payment on the basis of residence and age in one relevant week. She asked, and I could not answer her, why there could not be some move towards a rolling assessment, so that people could be paid closer to their birthday. Those sensible questions have occurred to her as a practical consequence of her experience as an older person trying to make ends meet. Those are questions that the Minister might address when he sums up. I am sure that he has a ready answer and I look forward to hearing it.
  2.16 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: May I start by seeking to help the Minister? His ministerial colleague has left, but he got very excited earlier when he was anxious to know whether Opposition Members were going to support the Bill. Let me clear that one up to save the Minister asking me in a moment or two. I make it clear that I welcome the principle behind the Bill, in that the principle, as I understand it, is that the Government are offering pensioners more help. I, and I am sure all other hon. Members, have no difficulty in supporting more help for pensioners, so the principle is fine. It is just that some of the detail is not quite so clever. We need to look at that.
  Not only do I welcome the principle, but I have some pleasure in being here this afternoon. It is pleasing and worth while for a Conservative MP to come along this afternoon to offer support and help to clear up the Labour Government's mess. That is what we are doing: clearing up their mess. It gives me even greater pleasure because it is only Conservatives, with a bit of help from the Liberals and from Plaid Cymru, who are prepared to come to help the Minister out of the hole into which he and his colleagues have got themselves. Not a single Labour Back Bencher has come here to help the Minister to do more for pensioners and to sort out the Government's mess. That must speak volumes.
  Mr. Weir: I would just like to point out that the Scottish National party is also here helping out as best it can. It is noticeable that not one Labour Member from Scotland has spoken in the debate.
  Mr. Wilshire: I grovel to the SNP. I am a great friend of the SNP. I have had connections with it in previous Parliaments. I am desperately sorry—I did not mean to fail to mention it. That intervention helps to underline my point. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that it is not only English Labour Members who appear not to care less about helping pensioners or rescuing the Government, but Scottish Labour Members, and they seem to try to run the Government from time to time. It is a pleasure to be here to see what little bit of help I can give to this discredited Government.
  David Cairns: The pleasure is all ours.
  Mr. Wilshire: I am glad that the pleasure is all the Labour Government's. I hear the Parliamentary Private Secretary singing our praises—the cavalry is coming to his rescue. I promise him that the more mess the Government make, the more willing we will be to pick up the pieces come the next election.
  The Bill is not, as has been said, about council tax; it is about a brown envelope being bunged to pensioners in the hope that the Government can buy a few votes. It is a Government measure that admits that they are not doing enough for pensioners. They have caned pensioners through extra costs, and they now suddenly realise in a moment of panic that they are not doing enough to help, so they come along with a rushed measure that says: let us give pensioners some money and hope it will be all right. That was done in a panic, and not even from generosity and thought. The Government were suddenly confronted with pensioners who were prepared to go to prison because of the Government's crass incompetence in putting up costs for pensioners. Faced with the thought of the bad publicity of pensioners going to prison because of them, the Government panicked and introduced the Bill.
  Not only that; this is not only a panic measure but a blatant attempt to buy votes. Why, one might ask, are the Government having to do that? The opinion polls say it all. The Government are losing support, so they panic and try to buy votes. It will not work.
  There is one other reason behind the Bill, rather than council tax. I have a suspicion that it owes something to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's having seen a wounded Prime Minister and thinking that if he can leap to the Dispatch Box in the middle of a Budget and produce, like a rabbit out of a hat, some money for pensioners, when the moment comes at which the Labour party decides to get rid of its leader, the Chancellor will be seen as the person who can get rabbits out of hats, and will be placed to take over. The reality of what is happening here this afternoon is as I describe it, which probably explains why the Labour Benches are so empty. Labour Members are too embarrassed to come here and be part of this.

  387
  The Government have tried—I suppose we should take them at face value—to pass the measure off as an attempt to help with council tax. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor said:
  "The evidence shows that their council tax bills"—
  referring to the older pensioners
  "take a higher share of their income than the rest of the population. So for this year, for those over 70, on top of the winter fuel payment, we will pay an additional £100 to each household."—[Official Report, 17 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 336.]
  There we have the clear attempt to pass the measure off as an effort to help with council tax. So let us take this Labour Government at their word when they say that it is an attempt to deal with the council tax problem, and look at what the problem really is, and at how bad a mess this Government have made of matters.
  Let us take my constituency, as just one example of hundreds. In 1997, when this Government took over, my constituents in Spelthorne on council tax band D were paying £630.77. By 2003–04, the same people were paying £1,170.65. That is an extra £540, or an increase of 85.6 per cent. I have a large number of elderly people on fixed incomes, like many other hon. Members, and the Government are quite right to say that people on fixed incomes, having been asked to find another £540 over that period with very little extra coming in to help them to pay it, need help. My word, they need help! That is all down to what has happened under this Government.
  That puts the £100 into some sort of context. Having caned those people for an extra £540, the Government want us to believe that it is generous for them to give £100 of it back. That does not strike me as generous at all; it strikes me as quite miserly. Again, it is an attempt to get publicity without actually solving the problem.
  If that is the problem that the Labour Government have asked us here this afternoon to try to sort out for them, let us be clear about its cause, which is not what they want us to believe. I can do no better than refer to the Audit Commission, which is a neutral body. It seeks after facts, and reports accordingly. I quote from a summary of a report that it produced entitled "Council tax increases 2002/03 to 2003/04: Why were they so high?" What was it, according to the Audit Commission, that caused the problem? Point 8 of its summary says:
  "We also looked at the impact of changes to grant on council tax increases. The 8 per cent. national increase in grant for local councils was more than in previous years."
  That is the bit that the Government want us to listen to, but it is point 9 that we need to understand. It says:
  "But grant redistribution, which moved grant from London and the south to the midlands and the north"—
  in other words, from my constituents to Tony's cronies, which is my interjection, not a comment that the Audit Commission would make—
  "led to some councils putting up council tax more than others. We found a clear association between the size of grant increase a council received and their increase in council tax."
  The fiddled funding of Labour is the problem that we are addressing. It is a problem that the Government have caused, and that is why I am more than happy to be here to try to put it right.
  388
  The Government make much play of the fact that the additional help for council tax comes on top of the help that they have been giving through council tax benefit, so I thought that it might be useful to look at the figures for council tax benefit in Spelthorne, to discover the reality of that means of helping. I found that in 1997, there were 4,854 claims for council tax benefit, but by 2003–04 that figure had fallen to 4,189. So much for the great boost given by extra council tax benefit to more people. Fewer of my constituents are getting that help&; no wonder they need a handout of £100 or more.
  Insult is added to injury, because when I asked Spelthorne borough council about council tax benefit, I discovered that the benefit that it hands out is not automatically received in full from the Government. It has to find 2.1 per cent. of the benefit that it hands out, which makes a bill of £80,000 for my council tax payers. Spelthorne borough council also pointed out to me that the cost of administering that wonderful Government scheme last year came to £313,276, but that the administrative grant from the Government for doing their work for them was just £144,762. If we take into account the extra cost of the council tax benefit, we find that, far from benefiting from the council tax benefit scheme, the council tax payers in my constituency have to fund it for themselves. My council tax payers have had an extra burden of £169,000 dumped on them in the so-called name of helping people to pay their council tax. That is a wonderful achievement by the Government. They say that they will help people to pay their bill, but they then come up with a scheme that puts up the bill that has to be paid in the first place. That is madness. It does not help; it makes matters worse. That is another reason why the £100 will not get us very far. The Government push up the bill, give people a little of that back and think that they are being generous.
  Although I support the Bill in principle, I have some key concerns, which I hope that the Government will be willing to address in Committee. The first has been mentioned, but it needs underlining. It is the concept of waiting until after Christmas for a payment. As I am sure the Minister knows, people start paying their annual council tax in April. Council tax is paid in monthly instalments, but for only 10 months, so people finish paying in January, but the Government in their wisdom will not give them any help to make the April-to-January payments until 31 December. Fat lot of good that is. Most of the money will have been paid by then. People first have to pay the extra that they cannot afford, and then in a so-called bit of generosity, they are told that they will be given a little of it back later. That is not helping people; it is simply making a mockery of them.
  Mr. Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that another anomaly that the Government could have addressed through this Bill is the ability to pay only over 10 months? The ability to pay over 12 months would spread the payment burden more evenly.
  Mr. Wilshire: That is absolutely right. I would love to discuss that issue, but I suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would consider it slightly beyond the Bill's terms of reference. I will settle for saying that I completely agree with my hon. Friend and that we will discuss the matter on another occasion.

  389
  I am also concerned that the Government are offering nothing to 65 to 69-year-olds. I readily accept that I and other Members of this House have a significant number of constituents over the age of 70 who are struggling, but the reality is that all of us have constituents over that age who are not struggling. So why are we helping over-70s who need help and over-70s who do not, but ignoring those aged 69 and a half who are in desperate straits—perhaps worse straits than anybody aged over 70? Through that cut-off point the Government are saying to people aged under 70, "Frankly, we don't care about you." My constituents do not want that sort of Government running the country. The Government have to revisit the issue of not helping people under the age of 70 who need help.
  That train of thought leads to another of my key concerns. This entire procedure, which helps the rich and poor alike, is unrelated to the tax and benefit system. The Government do not like my party's future approach to pensions because, in their view, it does not distinguish between the rich and the poor. They are keen to attack our policies, yet they brazenly propose the kind of policy that they keep saying we should not implement: a universal benefit for everybody over the age of 70. These are serious issues that the Minister needs to address in his wind-up.
  So much for my introduction—I now turn to the detail of the Bill. I have a number of queries that I hope the Minister will address. Clause 1, which deals with the "Qualifying individual", bothers me somewhat. According to the Government, a qualifying individual is someone who
  "is ordinarily resident in Great Britain",
  but nowhere in the Bill can I find what "ordinarily resident" means. It cannot mean someone who lives here permanently, because clause 1 also states that a person has to be ordinarily resident for "one day". That does not strike me as a definition of a permanent resident of the United Kingdom. I would like the Minister to reassure us about what "ordinarily resident" means. If it means that one has to be here for just one day in September, I suspect that in September the ferries will be full of coach-loads of people aged over 70, coming to stay for one day in order to get their £100, only to go back where they came from. The Minister needs to reassure the taxpayer that that is not the intention.
  Clause 2 deals with an issue that crops up time and again in the Bill. It states:
  "A qualifying individual shall be entitled to a payment of £100 if at any time in the relevant week—(a) he is single".
  Later, it refers to couples, for which clause 8 provides a definition. The Government have great difficulties with this issue. Clause 8 states that "couple"
  "means a man and a woman who share a household and who are, or who live as, husband and wife".
  If I remember rightly, various Bills passing through this House go out of their way to ensure that, in keeping with the Government's view, we do not make a distinction through the concept of "couple" equalling man and woman. Yet the Bill states that a "couple" must be a man and a woman. What about same-sex couples? Do they not fall within this definition, and if not, why not?
  Similarly, clause 8 refers to those
  "who are, or who live as, husband and wife".
  390
  What does that mean? Are we to have an army of inspectors visiting 70-year-old couples to find out what they are doing? That seems remarkably ridiculous. Moreover, what happens when an elderly brother and sister live together, or an elderly mother lives with her elderly son? Mums live for very long times these days. It is perfectly possible for a mum and a son who are both over 70 to live in the same house, yet they will not be considered a couple, because although they are a man and a woman, they are not living together as husband and wife. The Government have got something terribly wrong here—assuming that they believe in their other legislation. I should be grateful if they sorted that one out for us.
  Mr. Chope: Has my hon. Friend looked at clause 2(1)(b)(i), which refers to a single person's
  "either … not living with another qualifying individual,"
  or otherwise being in receipt of state pension credit? Does he think that the phrase "living with" is relevant to the definition of "couple", which seems to imply something slightly different?
  Mr. Wilshire: If my memory serves me correctly, clause 8 provides no definition of "living with", so that is another thing that the Government ought to clear up.
  There is another issue in respect of couples. Does the term "single" as used in the Bill include a widow or widower? When a spouse dies, one still considers oneself married to them and part of a couple, even though one half of the couple is no longer alive. Will the Bill discriminate against widows and widowers, or does "single" mean something that the dictionary definition does not cover? That issue needs to be sorted out.
  Clause 3 also needs some attention. Subsection (1)(a) refers to situations in which
  "two or more couples live together".
  The Government say that a payment of £100 per household will be made. Where two or more couples live together, and if three or more of the people in question qualify, will that household get £150, £200 or £250, depending on how many qualifying people there are? We need to know the answer to that question. I suspect that there are some problems.
  Clause 3(4) states:
  "Subsection (5) applies to a qualifying individual if … throughout the period of 13 weeks ending with the relevant week his ordinary place of residence was a care home."
  So it is suggested that those who live in a care home will not necessarily qualify. Why a period of only 13 weeks? Council tax is paid over a whole year—in 10 monthly instalments, or in one go—so why are those who are in a care home for only 13 weeks of that 12-month or 10-month period disqualified from getting the help given to those who live in their own home for a year? That is thoroughly inconsistent, and perhaps we could be told something about it.
  I turn to clause 4, which deals with disqualifications. Subsection (1)(b) disqualifies a person who
  "is in custody throughout the relevant week".

  391
  So if, for some reason or other, a 70-year-old is locked up for that week, they are disqualified for an entire year. That cannot be right. I accept that subsection (2) provides a definition of being in custody. It states:
  "a person is in custody if he is detained in custody under a sentence imposed by a court".
  So the Government have at least thought of people on remand, who will not be caught by the provision. What happens if the Court of Appeal quashes the conviction of someone who has been under a sentence for a week or so and has been disqualified? What happens if they were under sentence during the relevant week but are subsequently declared innocent? What provisions do the Government intend to make to deal with that anomaly?
  Mr. Chope: Does my hon. Friend accept that the anomaly goes further than that? Someone could be sentenced to one week's imprisonment in the qualifying week in September, thereby losing the entitlement to £100, while someone sentenced to six months' imprisonment starting in October would receive the full £100.
  Mr. Wilshire: That is absolutely right. The provisions have been ill thought through. Perhaps provoked by the concept of 70-year-olds going to prison, the Government wondered what to do to discourage such people from being sent there. Perhaps they thought that disqualification might induce people who are prepared to martyr themselves to think again. If that is what the Government thought, it goes to show that they do not understand 70-year-olds, most of whom will stick to matters of principle, despite the threat of being penalised by the Government or ending up in prison for a short while.
  Before we vote, the Government must explain clause 5. Under subsection (3)(c)(i), when making a claim, people have to tell the Secretary of State their
  "name, address, date of birth"—
  I have no problem with that because the address could be a park bench and it does not necessarily apply for council tax purposes—
  "and national insurance number (if he has one)".
  I was under the impression—the Minister will put me right if I am wrong—that every British citizen had a national insurance number. If so, the Government have some explaining to do about what led them to include "(if he has one)" in the Bill. Why can we not say that people have to have a national insurance number in order to receive the benefit, which would clear up a few anomalies? That takes us back to coach trips in September: people could come over here to qualify as ordinarily resident for a day; they do not have a national insurance number; they take the money to pay for the coach trip and go back home. The Government must clear up that problem.
  Clause 7 deals with the power to provide for payments. We have been told that this is a one-off measure. We have heard that no provision is being made to continue the benefit in future Budgets, yet the Government are assuming powers to "make regulations"—not to come before the House—to
  392
  continue the benefit. They want not only to continue with the provisions before us, but to assume powers to do anything they like without reference to the House.
  The Government can make regulations to deal with
  "persons in a specified class".
  If they wanted to, they could give more money to all the people who lived in the north or to all those who voted Labour. That is my understanding of a "specified class". They are also able to make provision for "specified circumstances". In other words, the Bill does not necessarily apply to people who are particularly poor; in future years, it could apply—again without any reference to the House—to whatever circumstances the Government like.
  Under clause 7(3) the Government assume powers to make "exceptions" in future years. What comes to mind is that someone who votes Conservative could be deemed an exception and would not receive the benefit. These are draconian and dictatorial powers, short-circuiting Parliament to enable the Government to do whatever they like.
  Malcolm Wicks indicated dissent.
  Mr. Wilshire: The Minister is shaking is head. If he thinks that I am exaggerating, I refer him to clause 7(3)(d), according to which regulations allow the Government to
  "make different provision for different cases or circumstances."
  In other words, the Government want powers not to treat everyone equally, but to treat individuals exactly how they like. Why do they need clause 7? What are they planning; what are they up to? They really must explain.
  Clause 8 deals with the interpretation. As I explained earlier, the Government have got themselves into an awful muddle about couples—men and women, same-sex couples, husbands and wives, people who may or may not be living together. Even though it was not possible to get their mindset round to single-sex couples, somebody somewhere—probably in the basement of the Ministry—considered that polygamy should be mentioned. Under clause 8(2):
  "The provisions of this Act shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to the parties to a polygamous marriage as if they together formed one couple."
  They thought about that, but not other relationships, which I find extraordinary.
  I come to the last part of the Bill that is worthy of mention. Although for the purposes of my brief examination of the Bill's details I have been prepared to accept that there is a council tax link, there patently is not such a link. Payment is to be made to people aged over 70 and it is being passed off as an attempt to help pensioners pay their council tax. That being the case, why clause 10? The clause makes it clear that the Bill applies to England and Wales and Scotland. If the Bill is part of an argument about the council tax, I understand why Northern Ireland is not included, but since it is not about the council tax, why are the Government discriminating against 70-year-olds who live in Northern Ireland? Are they not UK citizens like the rest of us, who pay the same income tax as we do? Why are they picked on and discriminated against in

  393
  respect of a benefit that is paid to everyone else, irrespective of whether they pay the council tax? Again, the Government must explain themselves.
  We should also give some thought to human rights issues, to which the Bill and the explanatory notes refer. Page 5 of those notes deals with the European convention on human rights, and paragraph 31 quite properly refers to the requirements of article 8 and the "right to family life". I have already pointed out problems with the Bill's treatment of same sex-couples, for example, and the Government will no doubt argue that the ECHR makes it clear that such couples are included in such references to family life. A statement is appended to the Bill to the effect that it conforms with human rights legislation, but I would argue that, if we accept the Government's definition of family life in other debates, the Bill in its current form patently does not comply with article 8. The Government should do something about that.
  Paragraph 32 of the explanatory notes refers to the requirements of article 14 on discrimination. It is arguable that people over 70 are less likely to be in work and have less money than people under 70, but I completely reject the argument that over-70s are more likely to have fixed incomes. The Government have offered no evidence to prove it, and my experience of my constituents suggests that people are on fixed incomes from age 60 onwards. I would have; thought therefore that there is a possibility that the Bill fails to comply with the requirement of article 14 not to discriminate. I would be grateful for any clarification.
  To conclude, I am happy to support the Bill. I am pleased that Conservatives are willing to help elderly people. As I said at the outset, it was shameful that no Labour Members were willing to speak. I believe that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) was not present at that time, which is why I made that point. He has since returned and made helpful interventions. I have a great respect for him, but I sometimes wonder whether his help is as welcome to the Government as help from other quarters is to them. I welcome him back to the debate. I am sure that he, like Conservative Members, is trying to do his level best to dig the Labour Government out of their hole.
  I will take the Government at their word and accept that the Bill is an attempt to put right the catastrophe of the council tax, which was caused entirely by them. I also accept that the Bill is a one-off, temporary measure. I take that as an admission that, by this time next year, the Government will have lost the election. All I can say is good riddance.
  2.49 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who brings to the debate a wealth of local government knowledge and experience, as well as an incisive criticism of some of the Bill's important details.
  This is called the Age-Related Payments Bill, but it might better be described as the Election-Related Payments Bill. All those who have spoken so far agree that that is the motivation of a Government who are in severe panic. They realise that sustained increases in council tax and manipulation of the, grant system have
  394
  resulted in council tax poverty for pensioners. I have spoken about that many times in the House, and I have also presented a petition on the matter on behalf of thousands of my constituents who are worried about being forced into council tax poverty by the Government. Obviously, the Bill will mitigate that to a small extent for some of my constituents, but I doubt very much that it will help the Labour party's electoral fortunes in the Christchurch constituency, even though the area has one of the largest populations of households containing one or more people over 70.
  In my constituency, the council tax bill for many households has increased by between £700 and £1,000 since the Government have been in office. When people heard what the Chancellor said in his Budget speech, they asked me why the Government were offering only £100, and only for this year. Although everything and anything is welcome from this tight-fisted and mean Government, my constituents are very worried that what the Chancellor said in the Budget has not been borne out in practice, and is not reflected in the contents of this Bill.
  Referring to older pensioners, the Chancellor said:
  "The evidence shows that their council tax bills take a higher share of their income than the rest of the population. So for this year, for those over 70, on top of the winter fuel payment, we will pay an additional £100 to each household."—[Official Report, 17 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 336.]
  That is not what the Bill delivers. We have discussed already the question of households that contained a person over 70 at the beginning of the financial year but which will not contain a person of that age in the critical week in September. The Government therefore have not delivered on the Chancellor's Budget pledge.
  It is now a commonplace that we must not listen to the Chancellor's speech so much as look at the small print later, and the Bill is another example of that. I can put it in no other way than to say that the Government have misled pensioner households up and down the country. As the Red Book states, at paragraph 5.36:
  "The Government understands the position of older people on fixed incomes facing pressures such as higher council tax bills and thus a reduction in their standard of living. Council tax consumes a greater proportion of the incomes of older pensioners—who have little or no opportunity to increase their incomes—than it does for other households. Alongside Council Tax Benefit the Government believes that it is right to help older pensioner households with their council tax. Pensioner households with someone aged over 70 will therefore receive a £100 payment to help with their council tax bills."
  The Bill does not deliver on the assertion contained in that crucial paragraph.
  Earlier, the Minister talked about people who are vulnerable. What household could be more vulnerable than one in which a person over 70 dies between now and September? Why should that household be put at a disadvantage compared with one in which a person over 70 remains alive during September, and dies instead in October or November? I urge the Government to reconsider that anomaly, which means that people aged 70 at the beginning of the financial year will not qualify unless they survive the course—and all the vagaries of the NHS—until September.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne said, there are many anomalies in the detail of the Bill. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and

  395
  Pensions, the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond), who will wind up the debate, will address some of those anomalies. If he cannot do that today, I trust that he will look at them in Standing Committee.
  The phrase "living with" in clause 2 is ambiguous. It may mean that a household in which, for example, two siblings aged over 70 live together—and in my area it is not unusual for a mother and daughter over that age to be living together—may be entitled to two payments of £100. However, that depends on how "living with" is defined. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will clarify that, for the benefit of the House.
  In an intervention, I referred to the question of people in prison, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne also mentioned it. Why should a person who is in prison for a week forfeit entitlement to the whole of the payment for a whole year, when a person who is in prison during another part of the year will get the full benefit of the payment? That is an absurd anomaly. Do the Government really think that that is a consistent approach? I do not think that it stands up to detailed scrutiny, and it shows that the Bill is very much a rushed measure on the Government's part.
  Why does the Bill offer a solution for one year only? The problem of unaffordable, unfair and unsustainable council tax bills will face us next year too. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor implied that, as a result of the balance of funding review, the Government would produce a legislative fix that would change matters in time for next year. If that is the case, I hope that the Under-Secretary will confirm as much when he responds to the debate. However, most hon. Members who have had anything to do with the fraught subject of local government finance will say that it is totally unrealistic to assume that the Government will be able to come up with a fix in response to the balance of funding review—a fix that would bring substantial relief to hard-pressed pensioners—that will take effect in time for the next financial year, which starts in April 2005.
  My constituents very much resent the fact that their state retirement pension increased this year by 2.8 per cent., when their council tax bills rose by a much greater amount. The Minister earlier seemed proud of the fact that the average council tax bill rise was only 5.9 per cent., but that is double the increase in the state retirement pension. That emphasises that the Government believe that it is perfectly reasonable for pensioner households to dip into savings or cut back on other expenditure so that they can afford their council tax bills.
  In effect, the council tax has become a stealth wealth tax. It bears disproportionately heavily on people who occupy properties that have a significant value and which may have increased in value enormously while they have lived in them. Those people must pay a lot more in council tax, even though they cannot afford it.
  We know that there are problems with council tax benefit. A pensioner with even modest savings is not entitled to that benefit in any event, so the benefit does not meet the needs and concerns of many of my constituents.
  In his earlier remarks, the Minister quoted some rather specious figures, but let us take them at face value anyway. He said that the average council tax bill in a
  396
  Labour area is £870, in a Liberal Democrat area it is £971 and in a Conservative area it is £1,072. That is because, of course, Conservative-controlled councils tend to be—although it is dangerous to generalise too much—in parts of the country where property values are higher.
  Let us consider council tax bills. Why is it that the Bill will give a much higher percentage benefit to somebody living in a Labour council area than to somebody living in a Conservative council area? Obviously, if the bill is £870 in a Labour area and £100 is taken off it, that is a much higher discount than it would be on a bill of more than £1,000. The Minister has played games with percentages and I challenge him to say why it is reasonable that those with smaller bills should receive a disproportionate benefit compared with those who face larger bills.
  My hon. Friends have made the point that the Bill takes no account of the means of the individuals. Why will somebody aged 70 who pays a higher rate of tax be entitled to benefit under the Bill but somebody aged 69 who does not even earn enough money to pay tax at all will not get any benefit?
  Mr. Roger Williams: I agree that the Government proposals are an inadequate mitigation of an unfair council tax, but the hon. Gentleman and his party support the council tax. What would their solution to the problem be?
  Mr. Chope: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not support the council tax as it is at the moment. We are preparing for government, and part of that process involves bringing forward detailed policies. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not be disappointed when my hon. Friends on the Front Bench produce cogent and coherent policies for addressing the problems of the council tax before the general election. However, many of the problems of the council tax at the moment do not stem from the legislation but from the way in which the Government have manipulated the grant system to the detriment of councils in the south in order to favour their friends.
  I gave the example earlier of the Prime Minister's constituency and Sedgefield district council, which receives eight times as much grant as east Dorset district council. Only a Labour Government could think that that was a fair way to distribute grant. If there is no general election before the next grant settlement, we can expect even more distortions in grant distribution.
  The Minister tried to defend the Government by saying that this year the grant has gone up by a larger percentage amount in Conservative-controlled councils. That is a specious use of statistics, because if east Dorset gets only one-eighth of the grant of Sedgefield, even if east Dorset's grant were doubled it would still be only a quarter of that of Sedgefield. To try to equate percentage increases in very low levels of grant with percentage increases in grants that are already much higher is totally misleading.
  I raised earlier some other ways in which the Government could reduce the plight of pensioners in council tax poverty. One way to do so would be to amend the regulations to allow council tax payments to be made in 12 monthly instalments. That would not take

  397
  much effort. Indeed. on one interpretation, the regulations would not even have to be changed and the Government could advise local authorities that they could bill over 12 months rather than 10.
  The Bill has been thrown together at short notice. The Government did not realise that they would have to produce primary legislation on the subject and the Bill smacks of panic. It contains some interesting provisions, but much of the detail is anomalous. The most mischievous part of the Bill is the enormous power in clause 7, which the Minister did not attempt to explain and which refers to the age of 60 years. However, the Government claim that it is important to concentrate extra help only on those aged 70 and over. Why then do the powers in clause 7 refer to those aged 60 and over? If those aged 60 and over are in need—many of us have examples in our constituencies of pensioners of that age who find it difficult to meet their council tax obligations—why are the Government resolutely refusing to help them?
  The extra payment is a gimmick and an attempt to paper over the cracks caused by the Government's manipulation of the grants system. The damage has already been done, and the extra payment will mitigate it only slightly. It certainly will not make people forget the sustained way in which they have been made to suffer by this Government's local finance arrangements. I shall support the Bill because many pensioner households in my constituency will benefit from it, and I would not wish to prevent them from doing so. However, I would prefer it if the substantive issue of the manipulation of the grants system that has caused council tax bills to rise so much in my constituency were addressed by the Government. If the Government have taxpayers' money to put into the funding of local government, they should put it into the local government settlement, instead of messing around with gimmicks.
  3.7 pm
  Mr. George Osborne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who summed up many of the arguments in this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who practically took the Committee stage on the Floor of the House. He gave the Bill the kind of scrutiny that it deserves. It is not a Bill of huge constitutional significance, so it would be unusual to have its Committee on the Floor, but perhaps my hon. Friend, who is an Opposition Whip, will put himself on the Committee where he can explore some of his points in greater detail.
  Mr. Wilshire: As my hon. Friend may remember from his time in the Opposition Whips office, we can also ensure that certain people do not get on Committees.
  Mr. Osborne: I remember that, although I remember spending a lot of time in Committee as a Whip. Indeed, I have spent much time in Committee this year as a Front-Bench spokesman.
  We have had an interesting debate, thanks to my hon. Friends and those who have contributed from the minority parties. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne pointed out, it has also been interesting
  398
  because of what Labour Members did not say. It is extraordinary that there are no Back-Bench Labour Members in the Chamber to take part in this debate. We have two Ministers, a couple of Parliamentary Private Secretaries and a Whip, but no Back Benchers. We have not heard a single speech by a Labour Back Bencher on the Second Reading.
  Let us cast our minds back to the Budget. The extra payment was the great surprise announcement. The Chancellor produced it, as Chancellors do, with a great flourish at the end of the Budget. He said that he had one final announcement and we could hear the collective intake of breath by loyal Labour Members in anticipation of his great surprise. We also remember the waving of Order Papers, as happens every year, when the Chancellor announced his latest wheeze. Where are they now? Why have they not come and told us what a great benefit the Bill will provide for the pensioners aged over 70 whom they represent? They are not here. Perhaps they are embarrassed because they know that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said in his excellent opening speech, this is a panic measure. It is a sticking plaster on the gaping wound of the huge council tax hikes made under the Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, it is not an Age-Related Payments Bill but an election-related payments Bill.
  Normally, it is difficult for the Opposition and those who watch the Government to know what goes on in the bowels of the Government; it is difficult to tell when something is a panic measure—one can only guess. But we know that the Bill was a panic measure from the way that it was introduced. In his opening speech, the Minister for Pensions was coy about when he knew that the Chancellor would be announcing the £100 payment. He said that he would not bore us with his diaries and that we would have to await their publication, but one can imagine the entry for 17 March: "Listening to the Chancellor in the Chamber today, stunned to hear his announcement on council tax payments. Why wasn't I told?"
  David Cairns: Just imagine what it will say for today.
  Mr. Osborne: It will say, "Had to clear up the Chancellor's mess today on the Floor of the House of Commons. Had to introduce a piece of primary legislation which I wasn't expecting."
  One has to feel sorry for the Minister and his departmental colleagues. The decision was taken by the generals in the chateau—the Treasury—and Captain Wicks and Corporal Pond have to go up the line and implement it; they have to jump out of the trenches with primary legislation that they were not expecting to introduce.
  Mr. Bellingham: I am sorry to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend's excellent speech, but does he agree that one of the points that the Minister did not answer was my question about how much extra this primary legislation will cost? What will be the cost of all the legal advice, civil service time, printing, effort and everything

  399
  else? We must be talking about a figure of around £500,000, yet this is the Government who say that they are trying to cut unnecessary expenditure.
  Mr. Osborne: As ever, my hon. Friend makes a good point and is keeping a watchful eye on the interests of the taxpayer. It will be interesting to learn from the Minister how much this fiasco has cost. How much did it cost to draw up this unexpected primary legislation? Even if expletives were not involved, one can imagine that there was a moment of shock when the unfortunate Minister for Pensions was told by his officials, "Excuse us Minister, but the Chancellor seems to have made an announcement and doesn't realise that it requires primary legislation. Shall we call him or will you?" It is clear that the Department for Work and Pensions was left out of the loop.
  Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is all sweetness and light towards the Ministers on the Treasury Bench, but does he agree that some of the blame must go not so much to the Treasury as to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—one of whose Ministers has just
  entered the Chamber—and to the Department of Health, because they are the primary cause of the problem we face?
  Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend is right. The only reason that the Minister for Housing and Planning is in the Chamber is that he hopes to get on to the next piece of parliamentary business, which deals with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Thankfully, however, we still have plenty of time to consider this important Second Reading.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) is right to say that the problems that the measure is designed to address—although I shall argue that it does so very poorly—are, first, rising council tax bills, brought about by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as we must now call it, and, secondly, fixed pensioner incomes, which mean that people cannot pay for rising council tax bills that are several times the rate of inflation. That is the story that has driven the legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and several of my hon. Friends pointed out, council tax bills have risen by 69 per cent. since 1997—equivalent to 3p on the basic rate of income tax. They rose 12.9 per cent. last year and are set to rise 5.9 per cent. this year. In Macclesfield borough council in my constituency, they will rise by 8.4 per cent. this year—[Interruption.]
  The Minister for Housing and Planning says, "Shame." My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and I are leading a delegation—of two—to see his colleague, the Minister for Local and Regional Government, to make the point that Macclesfield borough council, like many other Conservative–run councils, is well managed, does its job effectively and is debt–free, yet it is having to put up council tax by 8.4 per cent.
  The reasons for that rise were set out by Councillor Wesley Fitzgerald, who represents a ward in my constituency and is a member of the cabinet of Macclesfield council. He gives a clue as to the underlying
  400
  causes for the Government's introduction of the measure. I am sure that his comments would be true of many borough and other councils. He says that the rate support grant for this year went up by only 0.94 per cent., even though inflation is 2.5 per cent., which resulted in a gearing effect of 4 per cent. on Macclesfield council's bottom line He says that the council has to pay increases on nationally agreed wage settlements: 70 per cent. of council expenditure is on staff salaries. The community corporate plan will apparently cost the council £80,000 a year. There are targets to be met, such as those set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on waste recycling. Such targets may be a good thing, but they are set nationally and no provision is made to help local councils to meet them.
  Such costs have forced Macclesfield and other councils to increase their council tax by several times the rate of inflation. After listening to the arguments that have been made in the debate, we can all agree that the band D rate is the correct way to measure the impact of council tax rises and council performance. The average council tax on a band D property is £478 more than it was in 1997. Unfortunately, I did not bring a copy of the 1997 Labour manifesto to the debate but I seem to remember that it made an explicit promise to avoid excessive council tax increases. If an increase of 69 per cent. since the publication of that manifesto is not excessive, I am not sure what is.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley lucidly set out some of the pressures on councils. They have also been noted by the Audit Commission, as several hon. Members pointed out. "Council tax increases 2003/04—Why were they so high?" is the title of the Audit Commission pamphlet. Even if Members cannot read the entire document. I recommend the summary, which is only two and a half pages. The Audit Commission, a wholly independent organisation, makes it clear that the main reasons for council tax rises are due to pressures from central Government.
  Sir Paul Beresford: I am no fan of Torbay council, which is renowned as a not especially competent Liberal authority, but it is one of the councils that have been capped. Indeed, not only have the Government capped the council but they have loaded it with 24 comprehensive performance assessments next year, which will cost Torbay about £2.5 million. If gearing is the same—at one for four—that is £10 million extra on the council tax of Torbay residents.
  Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend gives a powerful local illustration of the general problem. I suspect that all Members—even though Labour Members would not admit it—are aware of examples of the red tape and centrally directed targets that are being imposed on their local councils and that have led to huge increases in people's council tax bills. People on fixed incomes or on incomes that are inflation–linked are struggling to pay those huge bills. That includes not only those aged over 70 but anyone whose income is inflation–linked, for example, people working in the public or private sector whose salaries rise only by inflation.
  We heard an interesting exchange about the alternative proposed by the Liberal Democrats and it is fair to say that the hon. Member for Northavon struggled to explain the fairness of an average couple

  401
  paying £630 a year more under his proposal—not the super-rich, as he implied, but the kind of people that the Liberal Democrat leader was referring to when he said on Radio 4's "Today" programme that the middle classes should pay more as well. Those are the people at whom he is directing the proposal.
  The hon. Gentleman also struggled to explain what had happened to the Liberal Democrat promise to take £100 off people's council tax bills. For the greater information of the House, I have one of the leaflets that the Liberal Democrats distributed during the Brent, East by-election, which makes it absolutely clear that, as a first step,
  "Every Council Tax payer in the"
  country
  "would see their bills cut by £100 in the first stage of the Liberal Democrats plans for a fairer tax system."
  So there it is.
  The hon. Gentleman, whom I have some time for, made a better stab at defending the fact that the Liberal Democrats have abandoned his policy than did his party leader—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The umbilical cord connecting what the hon. Gentleman is saying to the terms of the Bill is stretching very thin indeed, and there may be other occasions when it would be more appropriate to develop the argument on which he is now embarked.
  Mr. Osborne: I will, of course, take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not explore alternative ways of alleviating the pressure on council tax payers, although I hope that you will allow me to say that the poor old hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) still has that proposal on her website, so no one has told her that the Liberal Democrats have changed their policy.
  The hon. Member for Northavon made one decent point in his speech: the Bill is not a solution to the problem of high council taxes, however it is billed; nor does it have any direct connection, as he properly pointed out, with council tax—hence its rather anonymous name, the Age-Related Payments Bill, which tells everything about the fact that it is not linked to the problem that it is designed to solve.
  Of course, the second issue that the Chancellor had in mind was the problem of low pensioner incomes and the proportion of those low incomes that is now swallowed up by the council tax. It is interesting to look at the figures. I am not sure whether these figures were quoted by other hon. Members, so it is worth mentioning them now. Since 1997, 40 per cent. of the increase in the basic state pension for a typical single pensioner and a third of the increase in the basic state pension for a typical pensioner couple have been taken up in higher council tax bills. A huge proportion of pensioners' incomes is involved, but the Bill does not tackle the root problems.
  The Minister and other hon. Members mentioned council tax benefit and it is worth reminding ourselves that we have a benefit that is supposed to tackle the problem of people unable to pay their council tax bills. The Government should not need to introduce new primary legislation to provide payments to help people with council tax bills because such a benefit already exists.
  402
  The Government cannot rely on council tax benefit to help poorer pensioners because fewer than two in three of eligible pensioners claim that benefit. It is interesting to note that that represents quite a fall on the figure in 1998, when more than 75 per cent. of eligible pensioners claimed their council tax benefit. I have never seen a Government explanation of that fall. There has been a drop in the take-up of council tax benefit and plenty of evidence suggests that that low take-up is particularly skewed towards the poorest and older pensioners. Instead of trying to tackle the problem with council tax benefit, the Government have introduced this sticking-plaster solution to give all older pensioners a universal payment.
  One should note in passing that it is good that the Government now have enthusiasm for universalism and believe in non-means-tested, universal benefits. Perhaps, when the Pensions Bill is debated on the Floor of the House next week, the Government will make a policy U-turn—they have made lots of U-turns recently—to support an increase in the basic state pension by linking it to earnings.[Interruption.] I am sorry, would the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Henderson) like to intervene?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there has been far too much noise from the Parliamentary Private Secretaries' Bench, which, by tradition, is an area that should be silent.
  Mr. Osborne: In the three years that I have been a Member, I have found that those on that Bench are normally the most vocal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whatever the tradition is.
  The Bill will tackle neither of the twin problems of high council taxes and low pensioner incomes. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said in his opening speech, the Bill has been given a drubbing by various organisations that speak up for pensioners. It is worth reminding the House that the director general of Age Concern said:
  "It is utterly scandalous that the average council tax bill is rising by more than double the increase to the basic state pension. Many pensioners will be dreading their council tax bill dropping through the letter box and the latest £100 payment from the Government will not ease the burden for many."
  Help the Aged said:
  "There would be no need for gifts like this if the Government was to review its fixation with means-testing."
  The National Pensioners Convention said:
  "One-off payments such as this are not the answer to pensioner hardship. They are often seen by the public as just a cynical attempt to grab votes."
  The "Is It Fair" campaign said:
  "Basically what the Government is doing is tinkering with a system that is fundamentally flawed … interestingly we now learn that to make good on their promise, the Government needs to pass a bill through Parliament that could take months. This is no consolation at all to those who cannot afford to pay."
  It is worth mentioning some of the specific questions that hon. Members—mainly my hon. Friends—asked the Government during the debate and reminding the Minister that he should address them when he replies. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne

  403
  asked questions in his introduction and they were reiterated by my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne, for Mole Valley and for Christchurch.
  First, there is the question of why pensioners must wait until after Christmas to receive the payment if it is supposed to help them to pay council tax bills. I thought that that question was very effectively put in the debate. Why must people wait until the beginning of next year, when the bills were sent out in April? Indeed, if pensioners are paying their council tax in 10 monthly instalments, they will have finished paying them just as they get the money that is intended to help them make those payments. There is no logic to that, so perhaps the Minister will address that point.
  Will the Minister justify the exclusion of 65 to 70-year-olds? Obviously, there is a question of cost if £100 is to be paid to all people over 65, but did the Chancellor or the Department consider making a smaller payment to all pensioners? Of course, that could have been an option. Why did the Chancellor make his decision? If the Under-Secretary says that he wanted to target the payment on older pensioners, why does the Bill give the Government power to make future payments to people aged 60 or over? In what circumstances would such payment be justified?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said that people over 70 who die before the qualifying week will lose out. They will lose out in a big way as they will no longer be with us, but their widow or widower will lose out on the payment, thus exposing the absence of a genuine link with the payment of council tax bills. The Minister for Pensions addressed only in passing the question of why the Government are asking Parliament to give them authority to make one-off payments in future. What is the principle or theory behind future one-off payments, if that is not a contradiction in terms? Why do the Government feel that they need power to provide payments for people aged 60 and over?
  When the winter fuel payment was introduced, we were told that it was a one-off payment, but it has since been confirmed every year. Will the one-off council tax payment be repeated next year? I would put a lot of money on that outcome, as it would be only weeks before the general election. However, what about the year after if, God forbid, Labour is re-elected? Will the one-off payments continue on a regular basis and, if so, could they still be described as one-off payments? Will the Under-Secretary explain why in the Bill the Government are taking on themselves the power to make a payment not just this year but in future years and, indeed, for different age ranges?
  As I said when discussing the principle behind the Bill, it is a cynical piece of legislation that does nothing to tackle soaring council tax bills—council tax payers are well aware of that—or the low pensioner incomes that mean that pensioners cannot pay those bills. In time, the Government may move towards our policy of linking the rise in the basic state pension to earnings. We will support the Bill, because any help for pensioners to assist with the payment of council tax bills is worth while, but we must wait for a Conservative Government for a lasting solution to the pensioner income problem and, indeed, the council tax problem.
  3.31 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond): I have experienced a wave of nostalgia in our debate, as in recent weeks I spent many happy hours in Committee with the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) discussing the Pensions Bill. On Second Reading, they voted against that Bill, which will set up the pension protection fund to make sure that people do not find themselves in the circumstances in which many others have already found themselves, a measure lauded by the Leader of the Opposition in Prime Minister's questions this afternoon.
  I therefore expected the Conservatives to vote against the Second Reading of the Age-Related Payments Bill. Indeed, I became increasingly convinced that they would do so when I heard the hon. Member for Eastbourne say that the Bill was blatant electioneering and an election bribe. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions, however, he said that he would vote for the Bill, even though, according to him, it is a panic measure and an election bribe. I bet that on the doorsteps this weekend and over the next few weeks, the Conservatives will tell people that they will continue with the payments after a general election if, indeed, they ever have the opportunity to do so. They have told the House one thing, but will tell their constituents another
  Mr. Waterson: I am sure that it is only battle fatigue after Committee, but the Under-Secretary may wish to correct what he said about my party voting against the Pensions Bill on Second Reading. We voted for a reasoned amendment, which, of course, is the only procedural way of expressing concern about a Bill—those concerns are even deeper now—without voting against the measure in its entirety.
  Mr. Pond: I am even more puzzled. The hon. Gentleman declined to give the Pensions Bill a Second Reading because he had concerns about it. Almost every Opposition Member who has spoken this afternoon has expressed concern about the Age-Related Payments Bill, but they have not declined to give this small Bill a Second Reading. I smell a whiff of opportunism in their approach to the two Bills dealing with pensions.
  The hon. Member for Eastbourne spent much of his speech bemoaning the fact that we are using primary legislation to introduce the measure. I doubt that the 5 million older pensioners who will get the benefit of the extra £100 will say, when that payment arrives, "This is shameful. This had to go through on primary legislation. I'm not accepting this. It should have gone through on regulations." That will be of little interest to the 5 million people who will get real help from the measure.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned our council tax benefit take-up campaign, which I think he welcomes. That measure runs alongside this one to give additional help to older pensioners, many of whom, we know, were hurting as a result of increases in the council tax last year. Through council tax benefit, we have made sure that we put every effort into getting the help to those who are entitled to and need it, and in the Budget the

  405
  Chancellor introduced additional help for those very people. The hon. Member for Eastbourne and other hon. Members are wrong to suggest that take-up of council tax benefit is getting worse. The fact is that more people are entitled to council tax benefit as a result of the changes we made with pension credit. We increased the numbers by almost 2 million. Many of those people still have to get the information necessary to get the benefit that they are entitled to and need.
  Mr. Wilshire: Does the Minister find it curious that somebody who is getting only 50 per cent. of the maximum council tax benefit gets the same £100 as the person who gets the full council tax benefit? By definition, the person who gets the additional council tax benefit is in greater need than the person who gets only 50 per cent., so why does the scheme not address that problem?
  Mr. Pond: As I said a few moments ago, we are seeking to help people in that position in a number of ways. People who are on low incomes for a range of reasons will get help from council tax benefit, whether they are over the age of 70 or below that age, if they are on a low income. We are providing additional help for those over 70 because we feel they have additional need for extra help.
  Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Pond: I will make some progress, if I may. The hon. Gentleman had quite long enough to develop his thoughts. I will give him an opportunity in a few minutes to come in.
  A number of Conservative Members tried to turn the debate into one about council tax rises. That is not what the measure is about, but since they have done that, and since they like the band D comparisons on council tax, I can tell them that for 2004–05 Tory authorities have seen an increase of 5.4 per cent., Labour authorities 4.7 per cent. and Liberal Democrat authorities 6 per cent. I am grateful to the Liberals' local election manifesto 2004 for telling us that
  "Liberal Democrat–controlled authorities over the last 6 years have seen average council tax rises of 6.9 per cent. compared to rises in Labour councils of 6.8 per cent. and Tory-run councils of 8.9 per cent."
  Far be it from me to challenge the Liberal Democrats on any of their arithmetic.
  Sir Paul Beresford: The hon. Gentleman is falling into the same fictitious trap as the Minister for Local and Regional Government did on the radio. He picked out one local council and said that its increase last year was 40 or 45 per cent., but as was pointed out to him, it is the bill on the mat that counts, and the bill in that local council was consistently the lowest in the country. So percentages do not count. What counts is the bill on the mat.
  Mr. Pond: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It is worth him considering what the bill on the mat means for people working in Tory authorities, as against Labour authorities or Liberal Democrat authorities. I can tell him that the bill on the mat in cash terms is a lot
  406
  smaller in Labour authorities than in Tory or Liberal Democrat authorities. If he wants to play the argument that way, he can do so, but he will not win the argument.
  Hywel Williams: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Pond: I shall make a little more progress, if I may.
  A number of hon. Members asked what would happen in future years, under clause 7. It is true that the Bill provides for a one-off payment this year. The Chancellor made that clear. However, if the House approves the measure, we will take additional powers to give us flexibility so that in future years, if the circumstances are appropriate, the Chancellor may decide to give similar help or some other form of help, using the mechanism of the Bill. There is no commitment to do so, but it seems sensible to make sure that we have that flexibility.
  Mr. George Osborne: What are those appropriate circumstances?
  Mr. Pond: The hon. Gentleman must wait until the Chancellor considers those matters, but the circumstances will be fair, prudent and just, which are the principles that drive the Chancellor of the Exchequer in all his considerations.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Eastbourne did not intend this, but he caused great embarrassment this afternoon by quoting a good friend of mine, Rodney Bickerstaffe of the National Pensioners Convention. He sits on the Benches of the party that cut pensioner incomes by £10 billion, and he quoted Rodney Bickerstaffe in support of his argument for spending the money on the basic state pension, which, like the Bill, would result in a universal increase in pensioner incomes. The difference is, of course, that an increase in the basic state pension would not help the poorest pensioners, but this across-the-board payment is not offset against other benefits and will help the poorest pensioners.
  This targeted help for the over-70s, winter fuel payments and free TV licences for over–75s cost around £3 billion a year, and those measures are cost-effective because they help the poorest pensioners as well as the rest. By comparison, the suggested increase in the basic state pension to £105 would cost an extra £10 billion. As with other measures, we concentrate help on those who need it most—older pensioners and those on the lowest incomes. I remind the hon. Member for Eastbourne that the increase in the basic state pension between 1997 and this April was 7 per cent. above inflation, and that it cost about £6 billion a year.
  The hon. Member for Tatton asked why we are not making the payment until after Christmas, but he must brief himself more carefully. The payments will start to come on stream from November, and we hope to make all 5 million payments before the end of the year. That is not an absolute commitment, but it is our objective.
  The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) criticised the £100 payment to ease the burden of council tax because it is across the board. However, the hon. Member for Tatton reminded us that, until recently, Liberal Democrat party policy was to make a payment to everybody, rather than just the over-70s and those

  407
  who are most in need. That policy was quietly dropped after the Brent, East by-election, although the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) is apparently unaware of that change.
  Several Conservative Members suggested that the payment is an election bribe. That prompts the question: why are they going to vote for it? If we were offering an election bribe, we would promise that a Labour Government would continue to make the payments after the next election, but we are not making that promise, because the payment is a one–off. That does not sound like the work of a Government more concerned about the ballot box than the needs of older pensioners.
  Mr. Chope: Does the Minister accept that clause 7 contains a power that will enable him to ensure that only people who voted Labour get paid next time?
  Mr. Pond: I am not going to bother to respond to that.
  The hon. Member for Northavon was rather defeatist as regards ensuring that people who need council tax benefit get that help. I can tell him that we are absolutely determined to ensure that they do get it. I accept that it is means-tested—it always has been. We did not invent council tax benefit any more than we invented council tax. I accept, too, that by increasing the numbers of people who are eligible for that help and get it, we will in the process increase the numbers of people who are on means-tested benefits. However, I do not intend to apologise for the fact that we are ensuring that people get the help that they need and to which they are entitled, especially given that we are today seeking to introduce the £100 universal payment for all pensioners aged over 70.
  Opposition Members seem to find difficult the notion that the Government are determined to get help to pensioners, and the most help to those who need it most, but in different ways—by boosting the basic state pension, by introducing universal payments such as the £100 and the winter fuel payment, and by accepting the need for some income-related benefits. Through those measures, we are spending £10 billion a year more on pensioner incomes than when we first came to office. That compares with the £10 billion cut in pensioner incomes under the last Conservative Government.
  The hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) suggested that this proposal is the result of the Government's policy on council tax. I remind him that his party's policy on council tax is to cut grant to all local authorities by £2.4 billion, which is equivalent to a 10 per cent. increase in band D bills; to cut the grants to poorer councils; and to refuse to use capping powers even against councils such as Shepway, which, as we heard, is in the constituency of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and which increased band D council tax by 28.9 per cent.
  Mr. George Osborne: It is a Liberal Democrat council.
  Mr. Pond: Yes, it is—I should read that into the record, too.
  408
  The hon. Member for Mole Valley suggested that we need to get off the backs of local authorities. I have to tell him, in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, that he is a little out of date with the progress of the Government's discussions. We are determined to work in partnership with local authorities, and that is what we are doing. We are giving them the flexibility to make local decisions according to local needs, but in such a way as to ensure that basic minimum national standards apply. That is the context in which we have increased Government grant by 30 per cent. in real terms. Most local authorities have behaved very responsibly this year in proposing council tax increases that are half what they were last year. In the case of those few authorities that decided to go their own way, we had to consider using our capping powers.
  The hon. Member for Mole Valley prayed in aid the Audit Commission report, which, it was suggested, blamed the Government for high council tax increases. However, the chair of the Audit Commission, James Strachan, has said that there are a number of factors behind the rises and that trying to find single point of blame is not only counter-productive, but not borne out by the evidence. The Government are trying to do whatever we can to ensure that the implications of that are minimised in terms of the effect on the poorest pensioners and those on low incomes generally.
  The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) went through the Bill clause by clause. We thought that perhaps he would speak long enough to qualify for the £100 payment. He made some interesting detailed points, which will be considered in Committee, where I look forward to debating them with him. I am sure that he will want to put himself forward to serve on the Committee. However, I must ask my officials to contact his council because he appears to believe that the local authority meets part of the cost of council tax benefit when the central Government subsidy finances all properly made payments of such benefit. I will happily ensure that he and his local authority are clear about that.
  Mr. Wilshire: Is the Minister saying that, because my council has paid out more than the Government's help, he will send it a cheque to cover the loss that it is reported to have made? Or does he accuse the council of telling me an untruth?
  Mr. Pond: I cannot promise to send the hon. Gentleman a cheque. I shall send him an official if he likes—I am sure that he would be grateful for that.
  I do not know how to respond to the hon. Member for Tatton. Again, he told us everything that was wrong with the Bill but said that he and his colleagues would vote for it. It is difficult to know exactly where one stands with an Opposition who are prepared to say one thing in the Chamber and another on the doorstep.
  The Government are proud that we are giving extra help of £100 to older pensioners through the measure. We believe that they need and deserve that additional help. Those who have listened to our debate will recognise the cynicism and opportunism of Conservative Members, who are prepared to criticise every clause but ultimately do not have the courage to

  409
  vote against the measure. With our other measures, the Bill adds £10 billion to the amount that we spend each year on pensioners. I repeat that we are proud to spend the money—pensioners deserve and need that help. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  AGE-RELATED PAYMENTS BILL (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 Age-Related Payments Bill:
  The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 112.

  Division No. 172]

  [3:52 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

  Borrow,David

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

  Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Allan, Richard

  Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

  Allen, Graham

  Breed, Colin

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Brennan Kevin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Austin, John

  Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Browne, Desmond

  Baird, Vera

  Bryant Chris

  Baker, Norman

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Banks, Tony

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Burgon, Colin

  Barrett, John

  Burnham, Andy

  Battle, John

  Byers, rh, Stephen

  Beard, Nigel

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cairns, David

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

  Benton, Joe(Bootle)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

  Berry, Roger

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE Fife)

  Best, Harold

  Blackman, Liz

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Carmichael, Alistair

  410

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

  Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

  Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

  Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Heath, David

  Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

  Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, lain

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

  Heyes, David

  Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Cox, Tom(Tooting)

  Hope, Phil(Corby)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Crausby, David

  Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Cryer. Ann(Keighley)

  Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

  Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Edward(Kingston)

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

  Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jamieson, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

  Doughty, Sue

  Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

  Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

  Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

  Drew, David(Stroud)

  Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

  Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Edwards, Huw

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan(Feltham)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Ann(Brentford)

  Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

  Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Kemp, Fraser

  Farrelly, Paul

  Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

  Kidney, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Foster, rh Derek

  King, Andy(Rugby)

  Foster, Don(Bath)

  King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Foster, Michael(Worcester)

  Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings& Rye)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lamb, Norman

  Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

  Lammy, David

  George, Andrew(St. Ives)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

  Laws, David(Yeovil)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Gilroy, Linda

  Leslie, Christopher

  Goggins, Paul

  Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

  Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

  Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

  Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

  Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

  Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

  Linton, Martin

  Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

  Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

  Grogan, John

  Love, Andrew

  Hain, rh Peter

  Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

  411

  Luke, lain(Dundee E)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

  Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

  McCafferty, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

  MacDonald, Calum

  McDonnell, John

  Salmond, Alex

  MacDougall, John

  Salter, Martin

  McFall, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheridan, Jim

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

  McWalter, Tony

  Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

  Mann, Jhn(Bassetlaw)

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

  Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

  Soley, Clive

  Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Southworth, Helen

  Speller, rh John

  Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

  Squire, Rachel

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Merron, Gillian

  Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Miliband, David

  Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

  Miller, Andrew

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

  Stoate. Dr. Howard

  Moffatt, Laura

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Mole, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Stunell, Andrew

  Moran, Margaret

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morgan, Julie

  Tami, Mark(Alyn)

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Taylor, David(NW Leics)

  Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

  Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

  Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Teather, Sarah

  Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

  Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

  O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

  Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

  O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

  Thurso, John

  O'Hara, Edward

  Timms, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Touhig, Don(IsIwyn)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Truswell, Paul

  Organ, Diana

  Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

  Owen, Albert

  Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

  Perham, Linda

  Picking, Anne

  Turner, Neil(Wigan)

  Pike, Peter(Burnley)

  Twigg, Derek(Halton)

  Plaskitt, James

  Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

  Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

  Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

  Pound, Stephen

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Claire

  Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

  Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Watts, David

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Webb, Steve(Northavon)

  Purchase, Ken

  Weir, Michael

  Purnell, James

  White, Brian

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

  Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Williams, Betty(Conwy)

  Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

  Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

  Robertson, Angus(Moray)

  Williams, Roger(Brecon)

  Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

  Willis, Phil

  Wills, Michael

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winnick, David

  412

  Wishart, Pete

  Wright David(Telford)

  Wood, Mike(Batley)

  Wright, Tony(Cannock)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wyatt, Derek

  Woolas, Phil

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

  Joan Ryan and Charlotte Atkins

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrev)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Amess, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Baldry, Tony

  Leigh, Edward

  Barker, Gregory

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Bellingham, Henry

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Bercow, John

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Blunt, Crispin

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Boswell, Tim

  Maclean, rh David

  Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brady, Graham

  Maples, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Mates, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Burt, Alistair

  Moss, Malcolm

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Osborne, George(Tatton)

  Cameron, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Campbell, Gregory(E Lond'y)

  Page, Richard

  Cash, William

  Paice, James

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Paterson, Owen

  Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Chope, Christopher

  Conway, Derek

  Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

  Cran, James(Beverley)

  Redwood, rh John

  Curry, rh David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

  Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

  Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

  Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

  Robinson, Mrs Iris(Strangford)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

  Dodds, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

  Ruffley, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Selous, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Shepherd, Richard

  Fallon, Michael

  Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

  Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

  Flight Howard,

  Steen, Anthony

  Forth, rh Eric

  Streeter, Gary

  Francois, Mark

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

  Syms, Robert

  Garnier, Edward

  Taylor, Ian(Esher)

  Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

  Taylor, John(Solihull)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

  Goodman, Paul

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Gray, James(N Wilts)

  Walter, Robert

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Grieve, Dominic

  Watkinson, Angela

  Hague, rh William

  Whittingdale, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Wiggin, Bill

  Hayes, John(S Holland)

  Willetts, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Wilshire, David

  Heathcoat–Amory, rh David

  Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

  Hermon, Lady

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

  Horam, John(Orpington)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Young, rh Sir George

  Jack, rh Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Johnson, Boris(Henley)

  Mr. Hugo Swire and

  Key, Robert(Salisbury)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  AGE-RELATED PAYMENTS BILL (PROGRAMME)
    Committal
    The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.

    Proceedings in Standing Committee
    Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 27th May 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 that day.

    Programming Committee
    6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
    Programming of proceedings
    7. All other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Vernon Coaker]

  AGE-RELATED PAYMENTS BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1) (a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Age-Related Payments Bill it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of expenditure of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of the Act.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
  Question agreed to.

  DEFERRED DIVISION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
  On the motion "Visitor Facilities", the Ayes were 333, the Noes 46, so the motion was agreed to.
  [The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
  Lords message considered [11 May].
  Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
    Clause 1

      REGIONAL SPATIAL STRATEGY
      Lords amendment: No. 3.
      4.7 pm
      The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment to the Bill in lieu of Lords amendment No. 3.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3I and 3J.
      Keith Hill: The last time the Bill was before the House, I said that, given concerns about sub-regional planning and the role of county councils in particular, I was prepared to review the package in a way consistent with our policy, in order to make the arrangements work as well as possible on the ground. Given the unhappy procedural events of the past week I have, I think, gone further than is strictly necessary, but I feel that we owe it to local authorities, developers and all involved in the planning system to secure a closure on the legislation.
      Last time, we discussed the statutory guarantee that at least 60 per cent. of the members of each regional planning body would be members of local authorities. We have previously discussed the mandatory role given to county councils and other authorities with strategic planning expertise in advising the regional planning body, as agreed and, I remind the House, publicly signed up to and welcomed at the time by both the Local Government Association and the county councils network. When introducing the amendments in the other place, my noble Friend Lord Rooker said he hoped the CCN would not thank us for our efforts in relation to them, as he would not be able to take such a letter from it seriously. I have to say that I agree with those sentiments wholeheartedly.
      I look to local government, and to the CCN in particular, to ensure that the arrangements work, and to engage constructively in the process. The Government are serious about putting in place an efficient, effective and speedy system that creates sustainable communities, delivers the houses that our people need and protects the environment. That is why we have brought forward these fundamental reforms through the Bill. That is why we have given local authorities £350 million through the delivery grant for planning purposes.
      Let me put on record now, and put local government on notice, that, if the arrangements that we are agreeing to through these amendments prove unworkable because of a lack of good will from the parties concerned, we will come back and amend the law. We must have effective regional planning.
      I turn to the amendments themselves. I will be brief but it is important that this is put on record. The regional planning body will have a duty to consider

      415
      whether one or more sub-regional frameworks should be included in the regional spatial strategy. The amendment defines those frameworks as
      "different provision in relation to different parts of the region."
      The regional planning body must seek the advice of the counties and other authorities with strategic planning expertise on whether the sub-regional frameworks are desirable. The lead in preparing the draft detailed policies for such a framework must be taken by one or more of those authorities, except when they and the RPB agree that one or more district councils or the RPB itself should do so.
      Matthew Green: Will the Minister confirm that, although there is a duty on the RPB to consult the counties about the desirability of these bodies, the decision on whether there will be any bodies will still lie with the unelected RPB, which can, of course, ignore the advice given to it by county councils?
      Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman seizes the opportunity to make an all too familiar propagandistic point, but the simple answer to the question is yes.
      The regulations to part 1 will need to set out any necessary procedural detail. That may include, for example, clarifying that the sub-regional work would be performed according to a brief set by the RPB. In further recognition of county councils, unitary authorities and national park authorities, we will strengthen their role in the following three ways.
      First, we will amend planning policy statement 11 to provide that the panel will examine major issues of contention between the regional planning body and those authorities relevant to a matter being considered at the examination in public. Secondly, we will amend planning policy statement 12 to make it clear that the county councils' advice should be sought and considered by the district councils in preparing local development documents, and development plan documents in particular, given county councils' service responsibilities and expertise relevant to plan implementation. Thirdly, we will make it clear in PPS12 that district councils, in planning the preparation of local development documents, should have regard to the capacity of the county council and/or national park authority to provide prompt advice.
      We have long recognised the sub-regional dimension to the regional spatial strategy and the role of authorities with strategic planning expertise in developing that dimension. As well as the amendments, we will further strengthen that dimension in two ways. We will amend PPS11 to emphasise that although in some parts of a region local development documents should be capable of being prepared within the context of the generic policies of an RSS, in other areas it will be necessary to have sub-regional frameworks as part of the RSS. That might be, for example, where important development or infrastructure proposals cross local authority boundaries. That will help to guide the RPB in applying the policy as expressed in the amendment. We will also draw attention to the role of the RPB in
      416
      identifying the need for joint local development documents where that will be helpful in implementing the regional planning strategy.
      Further to my reply to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), the RPB takes the decision with regard to the involvement of other authorities but must act reasonably, which includes taking account of the advice that it receives.
      In conclusion, this package of changes, although, I repeat, not strictly necessary, reflects considerable discussion and represents a workable way forward. I commend the changes to the House.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. John Hayes: This is, indeed, a memorable day. It is memorable because the Minister for Housing and Planning is engaged in a substantial climbdown. I do not want to delay unduly the House's proceedings and I do not want to cause him unnecessary suffering, but it is important to put on the record the fact that the change in the Government's approach to this matter is a profound one, which has been forced from them. They have come kicking and screaming to a point at which they now acknowledge that there should be greater competence for sub-regions—in practice, that will usually be counties—in the business of drawing up planning strategies.
      That is a vital change, which has been wrought from the Government by the good work done principally, I have to say, in the other place by peers who have put democracy first. To a lesser degree, I humbly point out that it has been helped by my hon. Friends and me in this House, as we have sought to emulate the strong and persuasive arguments made by peers, both Conservative and Liberal Democrat. The Liberal Democrats have played an important and valuable role, and it would be wrong of me not to mention that. I have enjoyed the close co-operation with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that has brought the Minister to the point at which, contrary to all his earlier suggestions—contrary to his claims that the case that we made on this specific subject was not persuasive—he has finally agreed that it is vital for local people and communities to have a critical role in the development of regional spatial strategies.
      "Regional spatial strategies" is an arcane phrase for major developments that will affect local communities profoundly, alter the character of the local landscape, cityscape, townscape or villagescape, and possibly have long-term effects on the quality of life of countless thousands of people You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you follow these matters assiduously, that the Minister made a bold but entirely unconvincing case for that power being transferred wholesale to the regions. He told us that the regions would be the best level at which people could make their representations. He believed, I think genuinely, that the regions were more in touch with local people than their elected representatives in districts and counties.
      Why the Minister came to that view almost defies understanding, but certainly that was what he put to the House from the Dispatch Box when challenged

      417
      repeatedly by my hon. Friends and me, and by Members from the other parties represented here today—although I have to say, not in great numbers.
      Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman should speak for his own party.
      Mr. Hayes: Well, I reckon that we have a ratio of 5:1, and given that the Liberal Democrats constantly crow in their leaflets that they care more about local democracy than does either of the other two parties, it would be unreasonable for the hon. Gentleman to play that hand too vehemently.
      So the Minister has told us that there has been a change of heart—a turnaround. The truth is that there would have been no such reverse in his position had he not passed the Bill to the Lords—with what he described as a difficulty—in such an inappropriate form that it would have died but for the proper ministrations of that place and his ultimate but reluctant acceptance of its proposals. The truth, as we know from what was said in the other place, is that the Government were forced to make this change.
      When such cock-ups occur—if I might use that term—it is the Minister who must accept responsibility, for the buck stops with him. There is no use in his saying that he was badly advised, or that the cause was his busy schedule. He is a man with many personal interests who has many other fish to fry, but he cannot argue that that is why he was unable to pay sufficient attention to the matter. He is a lateral thinker and a man of wide interests, and it may well be that this important measure slipped down his list of priorities and. escaped his notice. Perhaps he put it in his Sunday afternoon box and was unable to get to it because it was right at the bottom.
      Notwithstanding the allowances that we make because we wish to be kind and generous to the Minister today, he was ultimately responsible for passing the Bill to the Lords in a form that would have killed important Government proposals. He was then obliged to change his position, quickly and fundamentally, on an issue that had been discussed in the other place and here ad infinitum. Indeed, he had previously made absolutely clear his opposition to the case that was properly made by local representatives, county councils, Lords and Commons.
      So the Minister appears before us today rather like a sinner entering heaven. The truth is that we must treat him with generosity. You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that St. Luke tells us that the
      "joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth"
      is a glory to behold. We accept that the Minister is a repenting sinner, and we understand that he has recognised the important case that has been made for local democracy. As he said, it is worth putting on the record just what that means in practice. It means that planning policy statements 11 and 12 will be amended, and that the Bill will include a duty to consult and to seek advice from the sub-regions, which, for the most part, means the counties.
      The Minister made a useful point in answer to an intervention from the hon. Member for Ludlow. He said that in having a statutory duty to take account of such matters, the regions must also act reasonably. If the
      418
      regions ignore that aspect of the legislation, the sub-regions—the counties and districts—and other interested parties might well have a case in law. If the regions simply ignore the Minister's important U-turn, the counties will undoubtedly complain fiercely on behalf of local communities that it was no U-turn at all, and that the Minister was simply paying lip service to local democracy to save his wretched Bill.
      Of course, the problem is that the longer one takes to climb down, the further and harder the climb-down becomes. If, in the spirit that the Minister showed when dealing with other matters, he had listened carefully to the proper concerns of this House and the other place about local democracy, and heard the case that we made about political legitimacy—as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the regions will not be directly elected; they will be remote and only indirectly accountable to local people—we would have welcomed his conversion in a spirit of good will, and with characteristic Tory generosity. However, because the conversion had to be squeezed from a reluctant Minister—it was facilitated by the Government's procedural error, which can be described only as incompetence—our generosity is offered, frankly, in a rather different manner and style and at a rather different time.
      We are still going to be generous and say that the Minister was right in what he said today about the role of sub-regions in the drawing up of strategies and about the need at each stage of the process to involve all those who can speak directly for the people because they are directly elected and accountable to them. He was also right that the amendment improves the Bill. It is still not, I have to say, a great Bill and perhaps not even a good Bill, but it is certainly a better Bill than it would have been if the Minister had not accepted the Lords amendments. It is in that spirit of generosity that we accept the Minister's opening remarks today.
      The Lords have been so insistent on this matter because, not for the first time, they speak for the people when the Government speak simply for themselves. There is a certain irony in the fact that an upper House that has suffered so many slings and arrows from Government Members is making the case to protect the interests of people and local communities in respect of major development decisions; and that, in so doing, the upper House is articulating the argument for democratically elected councils more effectively than Ministers are able or willing to do.
      I welcome the change and would have liked to see more. I am sure that that is what the hon. Member for Ludlow will say, and I look forward to hearing his remarks. He will doubtless say that he would have liked more on the binding nature of inspectors' reports, but I believe that the Minister may move a little further in our direction on that matter too. I know that the Minister has considered the matter carefully and I believe that he may offer further concessions on inspectors' reports. He may not do so today, but he may want to go away and think further about it. The hon. Member for Ludlow may also say that further concessions on regional authorities are necessary. We have debated at length whether regions should exercise powers when they are not directly elected. The important concession that we want is a firm step in the right direction.

      419
      I do not want to abbreviate the argument, so let me provide a couple of examples of how that might work. Sometimes major regional developments and plans—or major infrastructural projects—may affect several counties and spread across a number of districts. They may sometimes go beyond the boundaries of a region. In those circumstances, it is vital that the views of local people—articulated through the districts and counties—be taken into account.
      As the Bill stood before, that would have been almost impossible. It is true that the regions would have taken some notice, I guess, of strongly felt local opinion properly expressed to them, but there was no statutory obligation on the regions to take account of local opinion or advice.
      The Minister said that, in those cases, the amendments to PPS11 mean that sub-regions will be asked to comment on infrastructural changes in major developments that affect their areas. We also heard that amendments to PPS12 mean that the county council, as the provider of a range of services, will be able to make a case about the impact of recommendations from the regional authority in respect of that provision. Those important changes recognise the vital role of counties and show some understanding of local communities' real concerns.
      4.30 pm
      I shall not go on any longer, as other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate. I certainly look forward to what the hon. Member for Ludlow has to say, and I have no doubt that he will want to offer a glowing tribute.
      In conclusion, it is probably worth saying that the Minister is widely regarded as one who genuinely listens to comment from across the House. He is well respected for his willingness and ability to consider criticisms, suggestions and proposals from hon. Members of other parties. When he can, he takes them on board. As was evident only yesterday in connection with the Housing Bill, he has sometimes been able to amend Bills accordingly.
      That is the context in which our criticism of the Minister must be regarded, but we are critical of him—for not doing weeks ago what he has done today, for exercising the House's patience by refusing to accept the arguments that he now endorses, and for being forced into his current position by the inefficiency of his Department. Ultimately—because the Minister has to report upwards—I suppose that he has been forced into this position by the incompetence of the Deputy Prime Minister.
      We will not press the matter because, at last, we agree with the Government and accept what they are saying. In short, we will not press the matter, because we have won.
      Matthew Green: I congratulate the Minister on finally completing a process that has lasted 18 months. The passage of the Bill through the House must be one of the longest in parliamentary history. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney
      420
      Chapman) has left the Chamber—perhaps he could not stomach much of the speech by the hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings (Mr. Hayes)—but he and I are the sole survivors from 18 months ago. Even the Minister involved changed midway through, although that was probably for the better. It has been a long and, at times, tiring process, but the end is in sight.
      The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings claimed that the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendments was a great victory. It is not, and the hon. Gentleman is sadly mistaken if he thinks that it is. I know that he is a romantic, because that is how he describes himself, so I shall put the matter in terms that he can readily understand.
      Two amendments were ping-ponging between the Lords and this House. The Government made a very small amount of movement on one amendment, but the Conservative peers completely caved in on the other. That is not what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings wanted, and I am certain that he would have liked his, colleagues at the other end of the Corridor to keep fighting. However, I shall put the matter in terms that he will understand.
      We have seen Colonel Spelman, Captain Hayes and Lieutenant Syms line up their troops to charge at the massed ranks of Labour Members set to defend centralism and reduce democratic accountability. Captain Hayes shouts "Charge!" and he, the lieutenant and the colonel charge across the field. They get halfway over, only to discover that their troops have not moved. Whatever the hon. Gentleman wanted, the Conservative peers have not followed him. They have let him down badly and the Government off the hook.
      The Government have not only succeeded in persuading the Conservative peers to drop their opposition to the amendment on regional powers, but have pulled the wool over their eyes on the sub-regional groupings. To explain why, I shall quote Lord Rooker. I know that when I quote Lord Rooker, the Minister fears that I shall say "spivs" or something of the sort, but in this instance, he will be happy with what Lord Rooker said. However, it will not be palatable for the Conservatives. Lord Rooker described what the amendment would do:
      "The amendments in lieu make it a duty"—
      gosh, that sounds good—
      "that the regional planning body should consider whether it would be desirable".
      The regional planning body does not have a duty to do something, merely to consider whether something might be desirable. That is not some great victory; it is a smokescreen from the Government. Lord Rooker continued:
      "The amendments require"—
      again, "require" sounds firm, strong and decisive—
      "the regional planning body to seek the advice of the counties and other authorities with strategic planning expertise on the desirability of making such provision." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 May 2004; Vol. 661, c. 162.]
      That is no great victory, but mere flim-flam from the Government to persuade the Conservatives that they have achieved something.
      The Conservatives have let down local councils. They have let down local councillors who have protested at these powers being taken away from county councils

      421
      and unitary and metropolitan authorities, and given to unelected regional planning bodies. When Conservative councillors protest about their party's failure in months to come, I will point out exactly where the blame lies.
      Mr. Hayes: I understand that the hon. Gentleman might have wanted more, but to refuse to accept that the amendments are a step forward is churlish. I do not say that about his behaviour, but because now we have this victory it is important to celebrate it joyfully.
      Matthew Green: It is a step forward, but such a small one. I am just pointing out that no great victory has been won. It is a tiny victory and the hon. Gentleman described it as though it were a U-turn by the Minister to rank with the Prime Minister's U-turn on a referendum on the constitution for Europe. It does not begin to approach that.
      Mr. Hayes: We are speaking not about the kingdom of Blair, but the kingdom of Hill. In that kingdom, the amendments represent a significant U-turn. The hon. Gentleman talks about the duty to decide whether it is desirable to consult sub-regionally. If the regional planning body did not do so, in a case such as Stansted or a similar major development, the courts would not look on it very favourably.
      Matthew Green: It would appear that the hon. Gentleman wants there to be court cases in which county councils challenge regional planning bodies on how reasonable they have been. That is not a very effective approach, and I am sure that the Minister would not want that. Indeed, he has already threatened that if that happens he will come back to the House to remove this minor provision. In reality, of course, we will not have county councils taking regional planning bodies to court. If county councils were to do that, they would find that the Minister whipped their toys away as soon as they started playing with them.
      We need to put the matter into context. Much more could have been gained, although I shall not go over that ground, as we are debating the Lords amendment. We have gained something, but not very much. It is not worth voting either for or against the amendment—it amounts to nothing. I am disappointed that after so much fine talk, and notwithstanding his eloquent debating skills, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings failed to persuade his colleagues in the other place to do their job properly
      As I said in earlier debates, most of the Bill will improve the planning system. Its failure lies in the absence of provision for democratic accountability at regional level, and the amendment fails even to begin to deal with that issue. The Minister probably chuckled into his cocoa last night when he heard the result in the Lords. He was probably delighted, but the Conservatives have been sold a fast one, which, when their councillors throughout the country try to explain it, they will come to regret.
      Keith Hill: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to some of the observations that have been made in our exchanges, especially some of those made by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who speaks on behalf of the Conservative party.
      422
      The hon. Gentleman crowed that this was a memorable day. He accused me of a substantial climbdown. He said that the amendment had been "wrought" from me. He accused me of lack of attention on the matter and speculated that it had fallen down my list of priorities. On the procedural matter, he accused me of incompetence. On that issue, I remind him that Ministers act, as always in such matters, on the advice of the Clerks of the House. The hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. He is also well aware that we acted with due diligence, as was made clear and accepted—I stress that point—in the other place.
      The hon. Gentleman should realise that we are not playing a game. This is not about schoolboy pranks and good or bad losers, but about the Government's commitment to creating a planning system fit for the 21st century and about the obstacles that have been put in the way of that purpose. Thousands of people in this country need homes, yet developers and house builders complain of delays in the planning system that slow down the delivery of those homes. The CBI has told the Government that inefficiencies in the planning system undermine the competitiveness of British industry.
      As a result of those representations the Government have tried to respond to the needs of our people and our economy by reforming the planning system to make it fairer, more flexible and—critically—faster. One of the important ways in which we are speeding up the process is by removing what is, we believe, one unnecessary tier in the system—the counties—to create a streamlined regional, local two-tier system. However, I fear that the amendments that I have reluctantly accepted today could go some way towards undermining the streamlining of the system.
      I remind hon. Members that our elected House has repeatedly voted in favour of the two-tier system and has twice voted against the substance of the amendments, yet Conservative and—notwithstanding the somewhat emollient nature of the speech made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats—Lib Dem peers have exploited the Government's minority position in the House of Lords to foist those changes on us. It is unacceptable that the unelected House should override the repeated wishes of the elected House in that fashion. It is also unacceptable that it should happen with the encouragement of the Opposition parties in this place. On both the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill and the Housing Bill, Conservative and Lib Dem spokesmen have constantly treated us to threats of what their counterparts in the House of Lords would do to those measures.
      The Conservative and the Liberal Democrat parties compete with Labour in the general election, lose fair and square in the democratic electoral process and then collaborate with the unelected House to defeat the purposes of elected Members of Parliament. Frankly, that is a parody of democracy. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings referred to the Lords speaking for the people. What nonsense!
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Hayes: The Minister is right: this is not a game. It is not a game when people are defending local communities from unsuitable development and when

      423
      people are trying to resist power being transferred to unelected regions, remote from where those changes might take place. It does the Minister little credit to use the debate as a vehicle to attack the House of Lords, where both Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers have consistently and steadily defended the interests of those communities and local democracy. The Minister should take this one on the chin, recognise that he has made a mistake and have a little more good grace.
      Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman blusters, not for the first time in these matters. In fact, these matters have been thoroughly dealt with in the House. As his colleague the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) acknowledged in Committee, we have thoroughly ventilated the issues of democratic accountability and responsibility. Again, the repeated wishes of the House have been overridden by the House of Lords.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Minister give way?
      Keith Hill: No, I will not give way.
      Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to make this great show and pretence of bluster about the other place, when the truth is that the Government have never even mustered two thirds of their peers in any of the Divisions in which they have been defeated?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a point of debate, not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair.
      Keith Hill: I am not in the least surprised that the Conservative party—the historic defender of privilege—has behaved in that way with regard to the other place, but I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats, who are, in principle, so committed to elected democracy, have adopted such double standards during the consideration of the Bill. If the Liberal Democrats can offer £100 off everyone's council tax in the Brent, East by-election last September and forget that offer for the June elections, who can be surprised at such double standards?
      I signal again the Government's acceptance of the Lords amendment.
      Lords amendments agreed to.

  Promotion of Volunteering Bill [Money]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  4.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Promotion of Volunteering Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act.
  Before speaking to the money resolution specifically, I should explain that my purpose in moving the resolution is to allow full discussion of the issues raised about the Bill in Committee. I gave such an undertaking on Second Reading, and I want to ensure that the concerns raised by the Bill are fully aired. The moving of the money resolution is essential to that process.
  The Bill, which was introduced by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), is likely to have some expenditure implications for the public purse. The Bill will require the Secretary of State to make provision, by regulation, for training courses about volunteering for members of the judiciary—including, in particular, sport and adventure training, as well as training in the workings of the Bill. It provides that those regulations may prescribe that that training be provided by courses established by Sport England, the Central Council for Physical Recreation, and such other bodies as the Secretary of State may see fit. It also provides for the Lord Chancellor to lay before Parliament an annual report setting out the training courses provided and the number of judges who have attended those courses or any other training on the provisions of the Bill. Training would have to be provided for all members of the judiciary who deal with personal injury cases, including all district judges and circuit judges in the county court, as well as all judges sitting in the High Court Queen's Bench division.
  Training of members of the judiciary is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board, an independent body funded by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The provision of training courses raises a number of cost issues, including administrative costs such as the provision of appropriate accommodation and catering; the cost of lost sitting days caused by the removal of judges from their courts to attend the course, which may also involve the cost of providing a deputy to sit in place of the judge concerned; and miscellaneous travel and subsistence costs incurred by the judges in attending the course. Under the scheme proposed by the Bill, those costs would have to be met either by the Judicial Studies Board or by the prescribed body, and it is likely that any such body would require Government funding for that purpose. Clearly, the cost implications will depend on a number of factors relating to the structure and duration of the training, such as the location and facilities used, and whether or not the training was residential.
  As a broad indication of the possible costs, there are approximately 2,380 members of judiciary who attend JSB civil seminars and could deal with personal injury cases. The provision of dedicated one-day non-residential seminars for all those judges and the provision of deputies to sit in their place would probably

  425
  involve additional costs of about £1 million. Those costs could be reduced if deputies were not provided, but sitting days would be lost and cases delayed.
  We do not anticipate that any significant additional cost will arise from the requirement on the Lord Chancellor to report annually to Parliament. The JSB is already required to publish an annual report to the Lord Chancellor on its activities and to place copies in the Libraries of both Houses. Those annual reports give the number of judges attending courses and the topics covered at each course. There could be a small additional cost if the training was provided by a prescribed body rather than the JSB. I commend the motion to the House.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister for moving the motion, thus allowing further debate on my Bill. As she explained so lucidly, the money resolution arises only from a small part of the Bill that makes provision for judges' training. That training is sorely needed, and the cost will in fact be much smaller than she suggested.
  At a time when obesity and antisocial behaviour are both increasing among young people and, indeed, disfiguring our country, the efforts of volunteers, voluntary bodies and teachers who work in their spare time to provide sport, recreation and adventure training is more important than ever. Much of that work, however, has been undermined by a number of regrettable court judgments in the past few years. Five consecutive surveys have shown that the blame culture and the threat of litigation are the primary barrier to volunteering in sport and adventure training.
  I hope that it is in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to touch on one judgment and a related case to illustrate why more judicial training would produce results more in accordance with common sense. The Royal Yachting Association has provided me with details of the case of Richards v. Wanstall, which was considered in 1995 by the Queen's Bench division of the High Court. A lightweight 25–ft racing yacht was manoeuvring to leave a marina berth in Plymouth when the skipper realised that it had been caught by a gust of wind and might hit an adjacent moored yacht. He therefore asked an experienced crew member to run forward with a fender, but the crew member stumbled. It took the High Court five days to consider something that I first did as a six-year-old—putting a fender out when a wind is blowing. At the end, it ruled in favour of the litigant
  That case must have been considered by the insurance company dealing with a subsequent case that never reached court, because it decided to make a horrendously large settlement.
  Paddle sport relies heavily on volunteers at all levels. At a marathon last year, crews were competing over a 30-mile course in racing kayaks. Part of the race course passed through a narrow half-mile-long cutting. A volunteer marshal was positioned at each end to warn crews entering it that powered craft could present danger of a collision. A powered boat entered the cutting, followed a few minutes later by a kayak crew. The marshal allowed the kayak to enter on the strict understanding that the crew were not to try to overtake the powered craft. They ignored the instruction and
  426
  there was a collision. A case was brought against the volunteer marshal. The insurance company decided, on legal advice, to settle out of court. That has had a devastating effect on future insurance for the event. The volunteer has resigned and will never volunteer again. The issue is not just money.
  Lastly, I shall deal with costs. I was interested to hear the Minister's comments. I should stress that there are any number of voluntary organisations that would be willing to provide a one-day course, or perhaps even a longer course, free. The Girl Guides made that clear from the beginning, and they are the biggest youth movement in the country. This morning I had an e-mail from the Boy Scouts legal adviser, stating that they would be delighted to lay on something similar. There is no reason why we should lose sitting days. If their lordships were willing to give up a weekend for such a course, which it hardly seems unreasonable for them to do, no sitting days need be lost. As much of the activity takes place over a weekend, it would be a convenient time to organise such a course.
  There could be some travel costs, but those would verge on the minimal, only just reaching the threshold where we would need a money resolution at all. I thank the Minister for tabling the motion and I urge the House to support it.
  4.56 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I appreciate the opportunity to support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), and the motion. I accept my hon. Friend's argument that the Minister is generous in her estimate of the cost, and that, acting judiciously, the judiciary may be able to reduce the cost so that it would not be too great a burden on its training budget.
  In the two Committee sittings on the Bill, there was an interesting exploration of the issues, so many of which are directly related to legal judgments and to the consequences of the compensation culture that continues to bedevil the volunteering movement. That includes not only the volunteers who work for charities, but teachers and people who are paid in some areas in order to ensure that kids as well as adults have access to the sort of adventurous lifestyle that I expect most of us in the Chamber were used to when we grew up. I think of some of the things I do now, and I know why my mother said, "Don't do it", but I would hate to think what would happen to us as a country and a culture if we could not provide adventure training and risk-taking ability so that our future generations can learn to assess risk effectively.
  Unfortunately, the compensation culture drives organisations to be careful and volunteers to give up volunteering. With the changes in our lifestyles, there are greater and greater opportunities for people to volunteer, but if we cannot assure them that they will not appear in court, having taken all the professional and training opportunities necessary for them to be effective leaders and trainers, we will have a poorer life. We need to ensure that members of the judiciary have access to the best information so that when then come to make up their minds in compensation cases, they are well qualified—as is the entire legal profession—to assess risk in the context of volunteering.

  427
  I do not intend to cite cases, because other hon. Members are better at it than me—indeed, they are trained to do it. Listening to the debate in Committee, I was conscious that it is important when such cases come to court—the Bill's main purpose is to introduce a statement of inherent risk, so hopefully fewer and fewer cases will come to court—and imperative for the good of the UK and future generations that judges base their decisions on a true and clear view of risk, that they take that view properly into account in reaching a decision, and that that view coincides with common sense. I therefore take great pleasure in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and the Minister.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—we bat together in Kent on so many things—for his persistence with the Bill, which is so important to the glue that makes up our communities. Without volunteering, communities would not exist, and the cost would ultimately return to the state, which we are trying to avoid.
  I shall give one example. A boy broke his neck playing rugby. Whom did his parents sue? It was not the school, the union or the school's union, but the referee—and guess what? The referee lost. What an appalling situation. Referees in not only rugby, but any active sport are worried and nervous about whether they can afford not the time but the risk of a court case.
  The crux of one part of our society depends on volunteering, probably because of the religious side of our nature which goes back hundreds of years. I hope that the House eventually supports the Bill, but for the moment, let us support this money resolution.
  5.2 pm
  Lembit Öpik: I praise the Minister for acting in good faith on the money resolution, which she promised to do at an earlier stage. The sum of £1 million may sound like a lot of money, but it is actually small considering what the country, and indeed the Government, will get from it.
  Training is important to make sure that legal judgments are right. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned the importance of common sense. On several occasions, my father has said to me, "Sense is not common," and I think about what could go wrong if we do not invest in training the judiciary to apply the law correctly.
  I have had a fair number of accidents, most of which were self-inflicted. In 1971, at the age of six, I fell out of a tree and on to a post, causing considerable damage to myself—I did not land on my head, before anyone suggests that. In today's litigious society, I might have attempted to sue my parents.
  In 1998, I nearly died on a hillside in Wales in a paragliding accident. I could have sued the descendents of Owain Glyndwr or myself for reckless use of gravity. Under the regime that the money resolution makes possible, I hope that those who make legal decisions will receive sensible training and that such frivolous and vexatious claims will not be made.
  428>
  I am sure that the relatively small investment that the new regime requires will be repaid to not only the Government, but society as a whole. The Government will benefit because, as the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) said, volunteering saves them a lot of money, and any disincentive to volunteering costs them a lot of money. Moreover, in terms of being a public-spirited country, there is an enormous, advantage in taking away the fear of being sued from individuals who act in good faith for no financial reward, but simply because they think that is a good thing to volunteer.
  In that context, the money resolution is a sensible, proactive effort to ensure that the Bill can work. I hope that the positive spirit in which the Minister approached this small part of the Bill is a promising sign that she will consider positively he intent of the Bill as a whole, which can bring great credit not only to the hon. Member for Canterbury, but to the Government, for finally coming to terms with a situation that has concerned many volunteers for a considerable period.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Andy Reed: I welcome the money resolution and was pleased to see the Minister move it. One of the good aspects of the proceedings in Committee has been the degree of cross-party support for finding a solution to this problem, although not necessarily for all the details along the way. It has been useful to explore ways in which we can make progress.
  In reality, £1 million is not a great deal of money, given that there are 1.5 million volunteers, 26 per cent. of whom are in the sports sector. That £1 million is intended to ensure that those volunteers continue to want to make some contribution, not only now, but in the future, to the 150,000 sports clubs at the grassroots level.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) is right about rugby. I still enjoy playing every Saturday afternoon, and I think that I have a couple more seasons left in me, although my wife probably wishes that I had packed up 10 years ago. The next stage for me is to start to think about coaching or refereeing. Nowadays, every Saturday afternoon before the match the referees have to run through the whole procedure with the front rows and make sure that the packs go down in the proper manner. We know the risks as rugby players, but have to go through that procedure.
  It is a pity that £1 million has not already been spent on training judges, because then we might not be in this ridiculous situation, which was illustrated by the long list of cases that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) brought before us. If that money had been spent 20 years ago, it could have saved us a lot of effort in trying to prevent the compensation culture that has developed.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: There is no need for me to make a speech, because I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have said. Does he agree that although it is all very well to have a money resolution committing us to expenditure on a

  429
  particular piece of legislation, the training of the judiciary, which is highly desirable, is a different matter, because it should be implicit in the passing of that law?
  Mr. Reed: If only that were true. Hon. Members make assumptions about such matters. We sometimes have to wonder whether the judiciary are trained at all when constituents bring to our surgeries cases that make us sit there in utter amazement at the judgment that was made.
  Overall, we need to give confidence back to the sector so that people are willing to volunteer to take part in many of the activities that we wish to see. In the context of the health agenda, volunteers make a significant contribution to fitness and tackling obesity. If we do not make progress through the Bill or through other mechanisms that I hope that the Minister will bring forward, we will do this nation a disservice, and we will all pay in the long run. I support the motion and hope that the rest of the House will do so
  5.8 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I do not welcome this money resolution at all, because the Government are presenting us with the undefined blank cheque to which we have become accustomed. We are being asked to authorise the payment of any administrative expenses incurred without any indication of how much we will be spending. None of us should support it, because if we did we would have shamefacedly to go back to our voters to admit that we had failed to discharge our duty in looking after their interests by voting money the amount of which we are completely unaware.
  However, on this occasion, rather unusually, I shall offer the Under-Secretary faint praise. She—again, unusually but I hope that it will set a precedent—went through the elements of the Bill that would mean a charge to the public finances and, miracle of miracles, gave us her estimate of the amount. That is a genuine breakthrough and we should note the day, date and time that it occurred. Perhaps we should expect Ministers to do that in future so that, even if an amount does not appear in the motion, we could at least refer to their comments in Hansard for some guidance. Perhaps you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues might wish to hold Ministers to that.
  There is, however, a catch, which made me suspicious. I have reason to believe that the Government support the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) less than wholeheartedly. Do not ask me how I know—I simply have reason to believe it. Is it a coincidence that, when the Government support a private Member's Bill, they do not want to suggest how much it might cost? Nothing could wring an estimate of cost out of Ministers in those circumstances. They simply say, "We like the Bill. Trust us. Vote for the money resolution." When the Government are not keen on a measure, they come up with some figures and a cost estimate.
  I do not know whether the Under-Secretary was trying to frighten hon. Members by brandishing the figure of £1 million. Given that, last night, the House voted £5 million to build some absurd new facility on our premises, £1 million almost appears a bagatelle. My
  430
  hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury smiles. He should be able to rest safe in the belief that, having voted £5 million for ourselves, it would be niggardly not to support the resolution for a mere £1 million for the excellent purposes for which the Bill provides in the opinion of so many hon. Members.
  The money resolution is therefore unusual. It is unnecessary to dwell on the matter further, except to say that I have made a note of the Under-Secretary's action. The Government deputy Chief Whip was sitting on the Front Bench a moment ago, and he, too, has made a note of it. The Under-Secretary has therefore either set a shining example to her colleagues or is in deep trouble. She will find out shortly.
  I do not support the wording of the money resolution but I give the Under-Secretary faint praise for her action and I wish my hon. Friend well.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I apologise for my late arrival but I sat through the whole of Second Reading and every minute of our Committee proceedings.
  I welcome the money resolution and especially some training for judges. Judges who resort to their intellectual musings have led us to our current position, which was caused by a combination of the effects of an Act that was passed in 1977 and judges' extension of the concept of liability to people who are trying decently to provide play and other opportunities for children, young people and adults.
  It may be worth reminding judges that all the measure does is to take us back to pre-1977 days for some aspects of activity by restoring to statute the concept of the voluntary assumption of risk. It used to be part of common law but was removed in 1977. Since then, some judges have gone far too far and they need telling about that. It could form part of their training.
  Perhaps the judiciary in general would benefit from a little training so that, when it considers the rights of the individual, every now and then, it might consider the rights of society as a whole and reflect that a decision in favour of one or two individuals could be deleterious to many others, especially children who could be denied access to sport and other activities.
  I hope that that kind of thing will be included in the training for which this £1 million is to be made available. I also hope that one or two of the lessons learned from this could be offered more broadly across the judiciary in a combined effort by Parliament and the judiciary not to extend the law or to encourage people to resort to litigation every time they fall over and bruise their knee. We need to shift things back in the opposite direction. We all need to recognise that, as the judiciary has extended the concepts of liability and negligence in this sphere, we wish to restrict and restrain it in that regard. Such restriction and restraint will benefit most people, although a few who might otherwise successfully have sought compensation will not get any. The answer to them will be "Tough", because everybody else will benefit.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: I, too, rise to support the Bill and am delighted to be a sponsor. What sort of society would we have if we tried

  431
  to make it risk-free? Young, spirited children must always have opportunities and I know from my own experience in the Royal Marines that we recruit entirely from young, spirited individuals who like sports, climbing, diving, parachuting and all the other things that I and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) indulged in. He is unusual for a member of the Parachute Regiment, because he is tall. At the parachute school, we could always tell who was a Royal Marine and who was a parachutist; we were all 6ft tall, and they were all about 5ft 6in. Nevertheless, when we come together, we become a formidable operation.
  If society does not provide socially acceptable means of adventure and training, young individuals will soon find socially unacceptable ways of biding their time. The Bill provides for sound standards and proper training for volunteers. The Government recognise the growing number of grave obstacles to volunteering, including the ever-increasing incidence of litigation and threats of litigation and the huge insurance costs involved. Furthermore, insurance companies frequently refuse to cover certain activities. We must be seen to be behind the millions of volunteers who provide so much for their fellow citizens and for the youth of this country. I am therefore delighted to be a sponsor of the Bill and pleased to pay tribute again to the hon. Member for Canterbury for all that he has done. I wish the resolution well.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Estimates and Appropriation Procedure
  [Relevant document: The Government's Response to the Committee's Report, published in the First Special Report from the Procedure Committee, HC 576.]
  5.18 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the First Report from the Procedure Committee of the current Session, on Estimates and Appropriation Procedure, House of Commons 393.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss motion 8 on Questions on Voting Estimates, &c.
  Mr. Boateng: This report follows the extremely constructive correspondence that I have had with a number of Committee Chairs about the changes to the Supply estimates and appropriation process and I am grateful for the care and attention that Members and Chairs on both sides of the House have paid to this matter. The aim is to improve the reporting of public expenditure information to Parliament and the Procedure Committee and other committees have responded quickly and positively to the Government's proposals.
  The changes include a move from one to two Appropriation Bills each Session, one in March and one in July. The reason for that is primarily to allow departmental resource accounts to be presented to the House earlier than is currently possible. At present, Departments that have winter or spring supplementary estimates do not get full legislative authority for that until the Appropriation Act is authorised in the July after the financial year-end. They cannot therefore present their accounts to the House until after Royal Assent, which is usually in mid-July. A March Appropriation Bill, which will replace the Consolidated Fund Bill currently presented at that time, will ensure that full legislative authority is provided in the same financial year.
  A further change would allow departmental Supply estimates to better reflect reductions in voted limits. Departments are currently allowed to seek increases in resources but not reductions. The current process can therefore lead to an unhelpful presentation of departmental spending plans and the change would allow estimates to better reflect reductions, for example, when responsibility and therefore resources for a particular function have been transferred to another Department as part of a machinery of government reorganisation, or when a Department was using savings from one request for resource within its estimates to finance additional spending in another.
  The second motion amends Standing Order No. 55. This proposed change, which has been recommended by the Procedure Committee, extends the minimum time available to Committees to scrutinise the estimates before formal authorisation from eight to 14 days. It also provides for estimates to better reflect the move to resource-based supply, by including limits on appropriations in aid—the amount of income that departments may retain. Other proposed changes set out in the Procedure Committee's report provide for the

  433
  provision of additional information to the House. The main change is that Departments will be required to provide an estimates memorandum to their Select Committee, explaining how the changes sought in the estimates relate to spending controls and published targets.
  Mr. Alan Williams: May I reiterate to my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Liaison Committee—we have had correspondence—how important it is that the memorandums are as clear and understandable as possible? The Treasury has been dragging its feet at official level. What we want to ensure is that we get maximum time, as he said, but also maximum clarity. To help to focus the attention of the Treasury, may I tell him—with my other hat on as Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission—that I have invited the Comptroller and Auditor General at the end of the first 12 months to produce a review for the House of Commons of the clarity, adequacy and timeliness of the memorandums when the new system is introduced?
  Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the care and attention that he and his Committee have applied to this issue. Before the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee took his place in the Chamber, I thanked all Committee Chairmen for their contribution to the consideration of these matters, which has led to these motions being tabled. I take my right hon. Friend's point about the need for clarity in relation to the memorandums and will ensure that we do everything that we can to live up to the properly high standards that he, his Committee and his fellow Committee Chairmen demand and expect of us.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for what he has said. He will be aware of the correspondence that we have had, which is detailed in the report. As well as the Treasury being aware of what the Liaison Committee wants, I take it as read that he will issue full guidance to Departments on the contents of these new memorandums so that they are clear and useful to the House.
  Mr. Boateng: Certainly, we will take steps, whether through the issue of formal guidance or otherwise, to make sure that all Departments are aware of their responsibilities in relation to this matter and the changes proposed. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend to explain the means by which we have sought to ensure that their properly directed strictures have been met.
  An explanatory memorandum explaining the purpose of the motions in more detail has been made available in the Vote Office. With that, I commend the motions to the House.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: I wish to second support for the two motions and to congratulate the Procedure Committee on its work, which, as I understand it, implements the will of Parliament. Having read through the report, it struck me that any citizen doing so would not have a clue as to
  434
  what it is about. If I may comment on such procedural matters, it would be helpful if there were at least some gloss to describe such effects in a way that citizens could understand.
  Before I conducted my researches, my gut reaction was to ask, "Is there a rat to smell here? Is our stealthy Chancellor involved in some arrangement to slip something past us whose effects might be other than its apparent effects?" Having checked with the National Audit Office and others, I established that my suspicion had been entirely erroneous—or perhaps I have been too bogged down with the Finance Bill, and have missed something.
  This is, I think, an occasion on which the House of Commons has got what it wants. As the Chief Secretary explained, there will now be two Appropriation Acts each year rather than one. The reporting and availability of Government financial information will be improved and the sensible inclusion of negative estimates will make arrangements for the transfer of funds within and between Departments much more transparent. The measures constitute a sensible modernisation of appropriation procedures that have become somewhat outdated in the context of the requirements of ordinary life.
  There will be three key improvements. First, the changes will facilitate speedier completion of departmental accounts —hopefully by the summer recess. They will remove legal constraints that have hitherto prevented Departments from completing their accounts on time. We will take due note of whether they do have that effect. In the past, there have been unnecessary delays in the completion of audited Government accounts. I understand that until now parliamentary approval has been required for supplementary estimates and the fact that it has not been available in time has made Departments legally unable to produce their accounts on time. The second March Bill will make possible approval and thus completion of resource accounts in due time, with no legal restraints.
  Secondly, the new arrangements will improve the way in which estimates are used to facilitate changes in the machinery of government. For example, if the transfer of functions from one Department to another—or, potentially, the consolidation of Departments—occurred after the production of the main estimates, there used to be a very complex and opaque arrangement which allowed accounts to be produced, but legally that was fairly difficult to accomplish. The changes will bring about transparency and remove the legal complexity involved in sorting out the figures.
  Thirdly, the arrangements will deal with instances in which savings in one departmental area are matched by additional spending in another. The new system of negative estimates will permit transfers of resources "plus or minus" within Departments. At present that can only be done by means of what is again a very complex and opaque procedure.
  The changes will increase transparency. The increase in the notice period for Select Committee approval from eight to 14 days is also welcome, but is essentially a formalisation of current practice.

  435
  As the Chief Secretary has already commented, it is clearly necessary that there should be clear and explicit guidance for all Departments. We welcome his confirmation of that. I am pleased that, as I understand it, the Government have confirmed that they will accept two specific recommendations made by the Procedure Committee. First, changes in departmental expenditure limits will continue to be announced via written statements, as well as included in estimate memorandums—the National Audit Office feels, rightly, that that is required and proper. Secondly, the Government agree that there should be a 14-day interval between presentation of the summer supplementary estimates and their approval, as well as a 14-day interval between the spring and winter estimates and their approval.
  We note that Departments will need to make better progress in the presentation of their accounts if the benefits of those technical changes are to be realised. We will look with confident expectation at that being achieved next year.
  5.30 pm
  Sir Robert Smith: I thank the Chief Secretary for setting a precedent by making a timely response to the Committee's recommendations and I hope that other Departments that respond to the Procedure Committee will follow it. That the response was in the required time was much appreciated.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: A rather better precedent is the fact that the Chief Secretary has agreed to all the recommendations of the report. Would not that be a precedent to follow?
  Sir Robert Smith: Given that the report followed a request from the Chief Secretary, the circle was being completed —it would have been rather unusual if he had changed his mind. The report is a welcome step in the right direction. Much of it has already been dealt with by hon. Members, for example, the reasons for the process being brought forward and for the recommendations.
  In their response, the Government took the recommendations on board, although they made some minor caveats about which I want to question them. Recommendation 2 was about publishing annual lists to show the dates on which each resource account is laid before Parliament and published—it is a chance for the Government to demonstrate what they are doing. Their response states:
  "The Government accepts the recommendation to publish annual lists showing the dates on which individual resource accounts are laid before Parliament and published. The Government has no plans at present to amend the statutory deadlines but will keep them under review."
  It would be helpful if the Government showed a willingness to try to improve the speed at which they publish the annual lists, so that scrutiny is timely and effective. If the naming and shaming through publishing the lists does not achieve that, perhaps statutory deadlines may be required.
  436
  The Committee recommended that the 14-day period should take account where possible of recesses and the times when the House is not sitting to do the leg work. The Government have said that they intend to take that into account, although they included the caveat:
  "However, despite best efforts the timing of recess periods such as the half-term break. particularly if announced fairly late or subject to a change of date, may not always make it possible to ensure that a full two weeks of sitting days is included".
  I hope that that is a minor caveat. With modernisation, we were meant to have a regular timetable, so the Government should not be caught out. They have made the commitment that we should know all these things in advance. There was a time at Easter when they would have been caught out, and people would have had to understand, but I hope that people will not rely on that caveat and get too slack in meeting the deadlines.
  The Government say of the 14-day deadline:
  "It is envisaged that this might not be met only in circumstances where departments require authority for spending on new services at a late stage in the process."
  I wonder whether the Government can give some idea how often they think that will happen and assure me that that is meant to be a minimalist caveat. If the process is to work, 14 days is still not a great length of time.
  I welcome the commitment to clear memorandums because that will offer a greater chance that scrutiny will be more effective and more focused. I welcome the Government's approach and hope that they can give some reassurances on the caveats that they have put in their response.
  5.34 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: May I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, who is unavoidably elsewhere? The motions arise out of the first report of the Procedure Committee, although the proposals have also been considered by other Select Committees.
  I am in the fortunate position of rising when everything has already been said, even if not by everyone, so I can be brief. The proposals are directed at improving scrutiny of the Government's expenditure proposals that appear in the estimates. I do not think that we can be expected to nod through 12-figure sums without proper scrutiny, and these are useful changes.
  Having two Appropriation Acts per year instead of one, as previously, will enable the resource accounts—the successors of the appropriation accounts—to be produced earlier. The winter and spring supplementary estimates will be laid at least a fortnight before their approval, which gives a much more realistic time scale to the opportunity for scrutiny, especially if the proofs are made available to the Select Committees in advance of that.
  Resource accounts and estimates do not naturally lend themselves to the scrutiny of ordinary Members of Parliament without some expertise, and in that regard, the new scrutiny unit will assist by explaining matters to Members, and perhaps even pointing them towards useful avenues of inquiry. Each Department will produce an estimates memorandum to its Select

  437
  Committee, which will accompany the estimate. We hope that supplementary estimates will be in a standard format, analysing the changes proposed. The reasons will be set out in the accompanying memorandum.
  I understand that the contents of the memorandums will be a matter for negotiation between Departments and their Select Committees, and Committees will clearly differ over what they expect and require in their own estimate and memorandum. However, I hope that the Chief Secretary will be open to representations for the material that will form the core of those memorandums, and that guidance will be issued to the Departments, as he has already given us to believe. I am sure that the Liaison Committee will pursue that with him.
  Before we get too excited, I quote from the conclusion of the Procedure Committee's report, which says that the change is a "useful" but
  "minor … improvement in the House's procedures".
  5.38 pm
  The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): This debate has been short, positive, useful and more lively than anticipated. I start by thanking the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who has explained to the House that unfortunately, he cannot be here. I should like to put on record our thanks to him, on behalf of the Government and the whole House, and to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is a member of the Committee, for explaining that to us.
  I reiterate the thanks expressed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the four Committees involved in the debate for their swift and positive response to the Treasury's original proposals for change. We owe particular thanks to the Procedure Committee for its helpful report. We could call it sensible accounting, and on the anniversary of the tragic death of our former leader John Smith, sensible accounting is something that we should all support and bear in mind.
  David Taylor: The Minister refers to sensible accounting, and I declare an interest as an accountant.
  In relation to the point made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on Committees nodding through 12-figure sums without the background information needed to know whether that is justifiable, how does the Minister respond to the International Monetary Fund's observation that the private finance initiative commitments that our Government have racked up during the past seven years, which are 12-figure sums in aggregate, should appear on the national balance sheet, rather than being invisible as at present?
  Mr. Woolas: The House spent three and a half hours yesterday debating £5 million, and looks set to spend about 40 minutes today debating how we account for the expenditure of hundreds of billions of pounds. It would not be wise for me to go into that issue in detail, but my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has noted the point that was made.
  438
  For those Members who have never been fully confident about the differences between a Consolidated Fund Bill and an Appropriation Bill, or between Votes on Account and Excess Votes, the Committee's clear exposition of our Supply procedure is very useful. Reference has been made to the memorandum by the Clerk Assistant, which is printed on page 52 of the report. It is particularly helpful and I commend it to Members.
  I shall try to respond briefly to some of the points that were made. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) welcomed the report and I thank him for that. He implied that the use of plain English would be helpful, but I am not sure that the accountancy profession would always support that idea. Like the legal profession, it tries to keep some semblance of its own language for its own benefit. As he acknowledged, a very helpful explanatory memorandum is available and can be referred to. I was rather worried when he said that his instinct told him that he smelled a rat, only to discover that he could not smell one. It is good advice for Governments always to work on the principle that if the Opposition Treasury spokesman cannot smell a rat, there probably is one and he simply cannot smell it. That said, I think we are all in agreement, and I am grateful for that.
  The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) asked three questions, the first of which concerned recommendation 2, speed of publishing and the statutory deadline. We do of course intend to meet the deadline, but in the spirit of sensible accounting my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is keeping the matter under review. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the 14-day period, and I can confirm that the Government and the Committees intend that the period in question be 14 working days. As he pointed out, in the past two years the Government and the Leader of the House have helpfully published a calendar of parliamentary sitting times, but of course, there is the inevitable caveat of flexibility. The intention is that common sense be applied, but half-term might cause problems, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.[Interruption.] I am helpfully informed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that the period is indeed 14 days.
  The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine also asked whether there would be exceptions. I am informed that there is the usual Treasury contingency, in that one has to plan for all eventualities. That is the sensible approach.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I did not choose to wind up the debate for the Opposition, given its narrow nature. Will the guidance given to Departments be made available to Members, so that we can judge whether we think it right?
  Mr. Woolas: I am grateful for that helpful intervention from the shadow Leader of the House, and I appreciate what he says about not winding up the debate. On the guidance—about which the hon. Member for New Forest, West also asked—the Chief Secretary is very sympathetic to the point that is being made. He intends to write to the Chairmen of the Select Committees to clarify the guidance in each

  439
  departmental area. That will be done forthwith. I hope that that deals with the questions asked at this stage of the debate.
  Mr. Leigh: The Minister mentioned the excellent memorandum and referred to the table on page 51. I see from the section on the historical background on page 52 that
  "the systematic use of legislative appropriate dates from the Glorious Revolution."
  If we are to have historical references, could they avoid value judgments?
  Mr. Woolas: Some in the House would argue that all historical references are value judgments. What is important is that supply measures are the property of the House and not the other place. I am sure that every hon. Member would agree with that and long may it be so.
  In conclusion, once again the Government have listened to the advice of Select Committees. We are grateful to them; that is what they are there for. Once again the Government have provided time on the Floor of the House to debate these important issues, and I hope that that will be noted. What we are proposing is a modest and sensible change to our supply procedure. Several Committees have endorsed both motions on the Order Paper and I commend them to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.

  QUESTIONS ON VOTING OF ESTIMATES, &C.
  Ordered,
  That the following be substituted for Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.):
  Questions on voting of estimates, &c.
  '55.—

  (1) On any day to which the provisions of paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) of this order apply the Speaker shall at the moment of interruption put the questions on—

  (a) any outstanding vote relating to numbers for defence services;

  (b) any motion authorising amounts and limits on appropriations in aid, set out in outstanding estimates.

  (2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this order shall apply on a day not later than 6th February, if any of the following total amounts have been put down for consideration:

  (a) votes on account for the coming financial year;

  (b) supplementary and new estimates for the current financial year which have been presented at least fourteen days previously.

  (3)The provisions of paragraph (1) of this order shall apply on a day not later than 18th March, if any of the following numbers or total amounts have been put down for consideration:

  (a) votes relating to numbers for defence services;

  (b) supplementary and new estimates for the current financial year which have been presented at least fourteen days previously;

  (c) excess votes, provided that the Committee of Public Accounts has reported that it sees no objection to the amounts and modifications to limits on appropriations in aid necessary being authorised by excess vote.

  (4)The provisions of paragraph (1) of this order shall apply on a day not later than 5th August in respect of any motion authorising amounts, and limits on appropriations in aid, set out in outstanding estimates.

  (5) At least two days' notice shall be given of the motions which are to be put down for consideration under paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) of this order.

  (6) The provisions of this order shall not apply to any vote of credit or votes for supplementary or additional estimates for war expenditure.'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr George Osborne be discharged from the Committee on Public Accounts and that Mr David Curry be added.—[Mr. Heppell.]

  Exmoor National Park
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Heppell.]
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I am delighted to see the Minister in his place and to know that a west country Member will reply to this debate on Exmoor. I know that he has bicycled over most of the west country, so I am delighted to see him here.
  I regard myself as an extremely fortunate man. Every morning in my Bridgwater constituency, I wake up, pull open the curtains and gaze towards one of the most beautiful places on earth—Exmoor. I am delighted to have a chance to talk about it this evening. Exmoor national park is 50 years old this year, during which time it has positively bloomed.
  Members perhaps spend too much time looking back, but if I may indulge the House I propose to provide a potted history of the national park. Seventy years ago, one could hardly wander across Exmoor. Most of the land was privately owned and most of the owners preferred to keep it that way. By 1930—even then—there was growing political pressure to open up the countryside. New organisations well known to us, such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England and the Youth Hostels Association, were flexing their then not inconsiderable muscles. America had already created its own famous national parks. Yogi Bear was already loose in Yellowstone park, so surely it was time for Britain to do the same.
  In 1931, a Government inquiry recommended a brave new national authority. Eureka—what a splendid idea, and what a crying shame that it took another 23 years to create Exmoor national park. The snail's pace of British democracy is a maddening mystery to us all but, half a century later, there is a great deal to celebrate.
  So, I give three big cheers for the rangers and the expert staff who make Exmoor's conservation their life, and their way of life. I give two medium cheers for the 26 members of the national park authority—someone has to do the job, and it does not make them rich. I also give a muted cheer for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, although I suspect that the Minister was hoping for more. However, there are no cheers at all for some of the crass decision making that mars the good name of what I believe to be the best place on the planet.
  I have no desire to scare the House, but there is said to be a huge, horrible and hairy creature stalking Exmoor. The beast was always thought to be a myth, dreamed up to tell to tourists, but I am not quite so sure now. I think I have seen the beast in action, and I am afraid it is the beast of bureaucracy—a ghastly manifestation of officialdom gone mad.
  If the House will indulge me, I should like to tell a real story of the moor and its wildlife, and of what happens when the beast appears. In this, I am indebted to a journalist called Annalisa Yard. She dug out the story, and her editor at the West Somerset Free Press had what some would say was the courage to print it. It is a story about peaceful creatures and the wild beast of bureaucracy.
  442
  On Exmoor, we have all sorts of creatures—badgers, foxes, the famed red deer, Jacob sheep, alpacas, and Simmental cattle; one can even find the odd llama. There is a family of meerkats, a couple of kookaburras and an equally exotic mara. Not all can claim to be indigenousto Exmoor—it is not their natural breeding ground or habitat, but what the heck? They are not doing anyone any harm, and they should not attract the attention of the Exmoor bureaucrats, but some of them have.
  This is the sort of silly issue that gives the Exmoor national park authority a bad name. The real beast of Exmoor is not a figment of the imagination, or an overweight wild cat—it is the legally empowered bunch of officials with the right to make rules. Those rules would have had the Porlock kookaburras packed off in crates and shipped off the moor for ever, all because they have been designated "non-native".
  I live on the fringe of the moor, but I was born in Scotland; presumably, that makes me non-native too. I shall not even ask where the Minister was born. The sort of language being used is normally associated with radical extremists. One does not expect to hear it from the lips of people whose sole reason for existence, according to the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, is to
  "conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of their area."
  Fortunately, the bureaucratic beast of Exmoor did not get away with it this time, and thanks has to go again to the West Somerset Free Press. Officialdom and its beastly rulebook said, "Kick the kookaburras out!" Exmoor authority members, however, voted for common sense. I wish them more power to their elbow—but how much more power?
  One of the features of every national park, Exmoor included, is that it runs its own planning system. That makes sense in theory. If one wants to preserve the culture of an area, one has to set rigid regulations and leave it to officials, by delegated power, to give the final yea or nay.
  However, officials are only as good as the rules they enforce, and that leads to a number of questions. First, what exactly is the kookaburra rule? Secondly, who approved it? Thirdly, how do we stop this nonsense in future?
  I shall try to give some answers. Let me quote the rule itself:
  "The Kookaburra is not indigenous to Exmoor and does not therefore contribute to the understanding or enjoyment of Exmoor".
  That is a matter of loose interpretation, not of hard fact. The rule forms part of the national parks development plan, so at some stage it must have come before members of the authority. Why did they not notice it?
  How do we stop such nonsense in future? This is where the debate starts. The national park has many of the powers of a local authority and a fair chunk of public money. Exmoor national park does a sterling job and valuable work, very economically. Its annual budget is some £3.5 million, and tourism is booming. It deserves a pat on the back. Its members are dedicated and its aims are high. All that is good.

  443
  The national park's budgets have been cut, however, as the Minister knows. However, one cannot take the national park authority before the ombudsman in a claim of maladministration—I do not propose that in this case—and, like local councillors, its members are not legally liable for things that go wrong. National park authorities answer first to DEFRA and second to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, although, given his identity, it may be hard for them to understand the question. After 50 years, perhaps it is time for a little straightforward accountability.
  Exmoor national park authority has 19 members who are drawn from parish, district and county councils—local people who know Exmoor like the back of their hands, and I can vouch for that. The Secretary of State, however, directly appoints seven others, and they are not locals at all. There is a bloke from Warwickshire and a lady from Wiltshire. I do not expect that they pop into Exmoor national park very often. The Government want to increase the number of such appointees from seven to 10, but surely it is time to insist that Government appointees are local people too.
  Exmoor national park is a wonderful institution that has done a brilliant job over 50 glorious years. It has not done many things wrong, but in the light of some of the beastly bureaucracy it is a wonder that it has managed that.
  5.57 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) on securing the debate and I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, who had an accident earlier this afternoon and had to be taken to hospital. I have taken his place at short notice.
  The hon. Gentleman did not mention—so I must—that the creation of the national parks was one of the triumphs of the 1945 Labour Government. They were a victory for Fabian socialism and the belief that our finest landscapes are a national treasure for all to enjoy. Amid the many changes of the last decades, Exmoor and its fellow national parks have provided constant oases of calm and refreshment. It pleases me, as a Devon Member, to respond to the debate on a national park shared with the hon. Gentleman and his neighbours in Somerset.
  What would have become of Exmoor if it had not been a national park? That is an interesting question, but it is impossible to know. The threats that seemed very real at the time of designation—from intensive agriculture or from large-scale conifer plantations—have happily been avoided, and Exmoor has been conserved for further generations. That conservation work includes caring for the park's 31 native mammal species, 243 bird species, 1,000 flower and grass species and 1,751 insect species. As recently as January, 33 hectares of the famous Tarr Steps woods have been declared a national nature reserve. The park authority has drafted a biodiversity action plan, covering seven habitats and seven species. In short, there have been real and tangible conservation achievements.
  444
  Of course, conservation is only part of what the parks are about. They have a second purpose:
  "promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public".
  In pursuing those purposes, they also have a duty to
  "foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the National Park … and … co-operate with local authorities and public bodies whose functions include the promotion of economic or social development within the area of the National Park".
  Those words show clearly that the national park authorities are neither tourism authorities nor tourism promoters as the tourism industry might understand those roles, but that they need to be aware of the value of appropriate tourism in pursuit both of their recreational purposes and their socio-economic duty. Our national parks are major features of the tourism landscape; for example, when last measured, in 1994, Exmoor was attracting 1.4 million visitor days a year. A new survey is due to begin shortly and I am sure that it will show a significant increase.
  The Visit Exmoor initiative, which is led by the park authority, with West Somerset district council and the tourism industry, will promote and market Exmoor, encourage sustainable tourism and improve the quality of the visitor experience. To take a specific example: the authority's water-powered sawmill at Simonsbath will promote the use of renewable energy as well as promoting tourism and will form part of the authority's sustainable countryside management initiative. It will truly be a multifaceted project.
  The hon. Member for Bridgwater touched on planning, which is a key responsibility of the park authority. The Government are keen to see that the performance of national park authorities is consistent with that of other planning authorities. Key relevant statistics include the fact that, in 2004–05, all the national park authorities, including the Broads authority, are receiving planning delivery grant from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in recognition of their planning performance. Exmoor is receiving £76,353. Between 1997 and 2001, Exmoor received 1,645 planning applications of which 87 per cent. were granted. An analysis of the applications received from businesses on Exmoor in 2003 shows that of the 82 applications made, eight were withdrawn and only five rejected—an approval rate of 93 per cent.
  The hon. Gentleman posed three questions, which he then proceeded to answer himself. Let me offer my answers to his points. First, he asked exactly what exactly was the kookaburra rule. There is no kookaburra rule, nor is there a meerkat rule or a llama rule; rather there are site-specific conditions, as are commonly attached to planning permissions, that address the specific circumstances of a particular site or application.
  In 1983, in the case to which I think the hon. Gentleman was referring, a condition was imposed that no exotic animals could be kept. That condition, we believe, grew out of local concerns about allowing a public attraction to open at the site. Certainly, it is consistent with what we understand to have been the view of the planning authority at the time; namely, that the only way such a development could be justified at the location was if it were an educational facility which

  445
  would relate directly to the national park purpose at that time, of "promoting the … enjoyment" of the park "by the public".
  The hon. Gentleman's second question was, "Who approved the kookaburra rule?" As I have explained, there is no kookaburra rule, so no one approved it. However, the exotic animals condition was imposed by the then planning authority in the planning permission given to the centre in 1983. The line that the planning authority took on exotic animals has since been confirmed on three occasions. The first was in 1994 when, in addressing a request to relax some conditions at the site, the then planning authority confirmed that exotic animals should not be kept there and set a 10-year deadline for their removal.
  The second occasion was in 1999 when a planning inspector came to the same conclusion. Most recently, the Exmoor national park authority has again come to the view that exotic animals should not be kept at the site, but they have extended the deadline for their removal to cover the lifetimes of the existing stock.
  Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked how we could stop all this nonsense in future. It is not for me to second-guess the merits of individual decisions taken by local planning authorities, especially when they date back 20 years, and I am also mindful of the need to avoid any comment that might prejudice a future decision of the park authority or a legal challenge. However, in respect of the whole process, it seems to me important that we have a planning system which, within an appropriate national framework, balances the interests of applicants and objectors and allows for local concerns to be reflected in local decisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that principle.
  The hon. Gentleman touched on how an exotic species is defined, and posed the tantalising question, on which I do not offer a view, of whether a Scotsman on Exmoor might be thought exotic. As for animals and birds, it is self-evidently for the Exmoor national park authority, as the guardian of that planning condition, to specify its definition of exotic that is uses for that purpose. In practice, I understand that the species reported to the planning committee were a llama, two kookaburras, a group of mara, and a group of meerkats with their offspring, and that there have been other
  446
  species in the past. For example, in the report of 1999, the planning inspector also recorded two pairs of wallabies and a pair of rhea.
  One of the hon. Gentleman's conclusions seems to be that the Exmoor national park authority needs more local members. Perhaps it would be helpful if I sketched out briefly how national park authorities are appointed. Their members are drawn from three separate sources to give an appropriate mix of interest and expertise. The largest group consists of the councillors appointed by county, district or unitary authorities in the national park. The smallest group consists of the councillors, or chairmen of parish meetings, chosen by those parish councils with land in the park.
  The third group consists of those members chosen by the Secretary of State. They are selected in full conformity with the Nolan principles, and in making their choices, Ministers try to augment or complement the range of knowledge, skills and expertise that is provided by councillor members. In many cases, the members chosen by the Secretary of State will have a local connection—indeed, that is a desirable trait—but they are primarily chosen to broaden the mix, not simply to replicate the local knowledge that is already strongly represented. In practice, five of the seven serving members on the Exmoor national park authority who were selected by the Secretary of State are based in either Somerset or Devon.
  It is indeed true that the 2002 review of the English national park authorities recommended a rebalancing of the authorities so that Exmoor would in future have 10 seats for county or district councils, rather than 14 at present; five seats for parish councils, the same as at present; and 10 seats for the Secretary of State's choices, as opposed to seven at present, making a total of 25, as opposed to 26 at present. However, that is a proposal for the future and would require primary legislation. The only change that we would like in the short to medium term is a reduction in the overall membership proportionately to 22, and we shall consult on that more modest proposal in the coming months.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Six o'clock.

  Deferred Division

    VISITOR FACILITIES
    Adjourned debate on Question [22 April].
    Motion made, and Question proposed, that this House approves the First Joint Report of the Accommodation and Works Committee and the Administration Committee on Visitor Facilities: Access to Parliament (House of Commons Paper No. 324) and endorses the Committees' proposals for a new reception and security building at the north end of Cromwell Green.—(Mr. Phil Woolas.)
    The House divided: Ayes 333, Noes 46.

    Division No.171]

    AYES

    Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

    Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

    Ainger, Nick

    Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

    Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

    Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Allan, Richard

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Coaker, Vernon

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Coleman, lain

    Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

    Conway, Derek

    Austin, John

    Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

    Bailey, Adrian

    Cooper, Yvette

    Baird, Vera

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Baker, Norman

    Corston, Jean

    Barnes, Harry

    Cotter, Brian

    Barrett, John

    Cran, James(Beverley)

    Beard, Nigel

    Cranston, Ross

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Crausby, David

    Beith, rh A. J.

    Cruddas, Jon

    Benn, rh Hilary

    Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Cummings, John

    Benton, Joe(Bootle)

    Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

    Bercow, John

    Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

    Berry, Roger

    Curry, rh David

    Blackman, Liz

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Blair, rh Tony

    Davey, Edward(Kingston)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

    Borrow, David

    Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

    Boswell, Tim

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Brennan, Kevin

    Doran, Frank

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Doughty, Sue

    Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

    Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

    Browne, Desmond

    Drew, David(Stroud)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Bryant, Chris

    Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

    Burden, Richard

    Edwards, Huw

    Burgon, Colin

    Efford, Clive

    Burnham, Andy

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Burns, Simon

    Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

    Burnside, David

    Evans, Nigel

    Burt, Alistair

    Fabricant, Michael

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

    Caborn, rh Richard

    Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

    Cairns, David

    Cameron, David

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

    Flight, Howard

    Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE Fife)

    Flint, Caroline

    Flook, Adrian

    Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

    Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

    Casale, Roger

    Follett, Barbara

    Cash, William

    Foster, Don(Bath)

    Caton, Martin

    Foster, Michael(Worcester)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

    Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

    Chaytor, David

    Francis, Dr. Hywel

    448

    Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

    Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Gilroy, Linda

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Goggins, Paul

    Linton, Martin

    Gray, James(N Wilts)

    Love, Andrew

    Green, Damian(Ashford)

    Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

    Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

    Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Luke, lain(Dundee E)

    Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

    Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

    Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Grogan, John

    McCafferty, Chris

    Gummer, rh John

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Hague, rh William

    MacDonald, Calum

    Hain, rh Peter

    McDonnell, John

    Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

    McFall, John

    Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Hanson, David

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Harvey, Nick

    Maclean, rh David

    Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    McNulty, Tony

    Hawkins, Nick

    MacShane, Denis

    Heald, Oliver

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

    McWilliam, John

    Heppell, John

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hermon, Lady

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hesford, Stephen

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

    Heyes, David

    Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hill, Keith(Streatham)

    Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Holmes, Paul

    Hope, Phil(Corby)

    Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mates, Michael

    Horam, John(Orpington)

    Merron, Gillian

    Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

    Milburn, rh Alan

    Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Miliband, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

    Hughes, Kevin(Doncastel N)

    Hughes, Simon(Southwark N)

    Mole, Chris

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moran, Margaret

    Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

    Morgan, Julie

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Moss, Malcolm

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Mountford, Kali

    Jack, rh Michael

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

    Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

    Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

    Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

    O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

    Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Keen, Alan(Feltham)

    Olner, Bill

    Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

    Osborne, George(Tatton)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Owen, Albert

    Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross.' Skye & Inverness)

    Perham, Linda

    Picking, Anne

    Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Key, Robert(Salisbury)

    Pike, Peter(Burnley)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Plaskitt, James

    Kidney, David

    Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

    King, Andy(Rugby)

    Portillo, rh Michael

    King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Purchase, Ken

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Purnell, James

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Lamb, Norman

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lansley, Andrew

    Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Laws, David(Yeovil)

    Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Rendel, David

    Leslie, Christopher

    Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

    Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

    449

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

    Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

    Tami, Mark(Alyn)

    Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Ruane, Chris

    Taylor, David(NW Leics)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

    Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

    Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

    Teather, Sarah

    Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

    Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

    Salter, Martin

    Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

    Sawford, Phil

    Timms, Stephen

    Selous, Andrew

    Tipping, Paddy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Truswell, Paul

    Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

    Turner, Dannis(Wolverh'ton SE)

    Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

    Turner, Neil(Wigan)

    Smith, rh Andrew(Oxford E)

    Twigg, Derek(Halton)

    Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

    Twigg, Stephen(Enfield)

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

    Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

    Tyne, Andrew

    Soley, Clive

    Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

    Southworth, Helen

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Spellar, rh John

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Spring, Richard

    Walter, Robert

    Squire, Rachel

    Ward, Claire

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Waterson, Nigel

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

    Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Watts, David

    Webb, Steve(Northavon)

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    White, Brian

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Streeter, Gary

    Wilkinson, John

    Stringer, Graham

    Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Williams, Betty(Conwy)

    450

    Williams, Roger(Brecon)

    Worthington, Tony

    Winnick, David

    Wright David(Telford)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

    Wright, Tony(Cannock)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

    wyatt, Derek

    young, rh Sir George

    Woolas, Phil

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    NOES

    Bellingham, Henry

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Breed, Colin

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Burnett, John

    Norman, Archie

    Butterfill, Sir John

    Öpik, Lembit

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Organ, Diana

    Campbell, Gregory(E Lond'y)

    Paterson, Owen

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Chope, Christopher

    Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

    Redwood, rh John

    Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

    Robertson, Angus(Moray)

    Shepherd, Richard

    Dodds, Nigel

    Skinner, Dennis

    Francois, Mark

    Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

    Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

    Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Syms, Robert

    Hayes, John(S Holland)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Heath, David

    Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

    Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

    Weir, Michael

    Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

    Wiggin, Bill

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

    Leigh, Edward

    Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

    Question accordingly agreed to.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Railways
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
9.30 am
Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the fact that we are debating rail franchises today. I shall try to keep my remarks fairly brief, so that all hon. Members can contribute. The problem with any rail debate is that one has mountains of information, insufficient time to deliver it, and lots of conflicting advice.
This country has about 10,000 miles of railway—about half what it had in the 1960s, before the Beeching cuts. Our railway system receives greater public subsidy now than at any time in the past, yet the service is less efficient, huge profits are being made from it by train operating companies, and there is an unbelievably complicated railways structure. In that respect, I look forward to the Minister's reply to the debate, as he might be able to throw some light on the current structural review and what will come from it.
The Transport Committee recently produced a welcome and informative report on the issues surrounding the structure of the railways and, in particular, franchising. It referred to what the Secretary of State for Transport said about that structure when he launched the rail review. My right hon. Friend said:

"The way in which it was privatised has led to fragmentation, excessive complication and dysfunctionality that have compounded the problems caused by decades of under-investment. Quite simply, there are too many organisations, some with overlapping responsibilities, and it has become increasingly clear that that gets in the way of effective decision making and frequently leads to unnecessary wrangling and disputes. That is no way to run the railways."—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1076.]

I could not agree more.
Twenty-four TOCs and one open-access operator, Hull Trains, operate on our railways, but when one looks at the ownership and operation of the franchises, one sees that quite a small number of organisations run them. The big companies are National Express, First Group, Stagecoach, Arriva, Go-Ahead and Virgin. In the last financial year, the profits made by the companies from running railways in a publicly owned railway system—an activity for which they are very heavily subsidised—amounted to £182 million for National Express, £302 million for First Group, £217 million for Stagecoach, £105 million for Go-Ahead and £122 million for Virgin.
Since 1996, TOCs have received subsidy from the public purse totalling £10 billion. Incredible amounts of money have been poured into the railway system, yet it is being run in a way with which the public are not terribly happy and from which a number of people make huge profits. The Transport Committee considered the
70WH
matter with some care and in some detail, and stated:

"Nearly a third of the franchises were no longer expected to function in the entrepreneurial, risk-taking way that was one of the fundamental justifications for private sector involvement in running train services but simply to function as fee paid agents of the SRA. This indicates the extent of the present malaise."

That is the fundamental problem that we must address.
The railway system was nationalised in 1947 and British Rail put a huge amount of investment into it, including innovative developments such as faster trains and all the rail technology that went with them. There was a strong sense that the railway industry in this country could produce high-quality trains and signalling equipment, and much of that was available for export around the world. However, the Tory Government's obsession with privatisation of the railways after the 1992 general election led to our ending up with an unbelievably inefficient and complicated system in which those who managed to get into the rail industry made huge profits from selling off its assets. Under the present system, the public pay private TOCs that take no risks and are paid even when they are unable to come to an agreement with their staff and industrial action is taken—in other words, the TOCs are paid not to run trains during industrial action. That is an odd state of affairs. There is no incentive for management to establish a decent relationship with the work force.
Many—nearly all—of the franchises on existing lines are due for renewal between now and 2007, so the Minister has important decisions to make. Most of the franchises are privately run, apart from the Connex franchise, which was returned to public ownership because it was so badly run by the private sector. It is curious for a Labour Government to say that a franchise must now return to the private sector: that is nothing but reprivatising something that is better run in the public sector. The public sector has a big role to play and we should consider the possibility of taking over the running of the TOCs when contemplating the situation facing the whole network.
The Secretary of State received a proposal from Transport for London. Everyone accepts that Transport for London has done a good job of coordinating transport policies across London. It has massively improved the bus services and ridership across London, including the operation of East Thames Buses as a public sector company, and it now has control of the London underground, although, unfortunately, it is saddled with the expensive investment proposals that the Treasury has forced upon it. TFL's proposal is to co-ordinate all transport undertakings across London. It makes sense for it to control all rail operations, overground and underground, across the capital. The same is true of regional transport executives elsewhere. Such a change would make for better public involvement in planning and decision making, and would help to overcome problems with the train operating system.
Mr. John Horam: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has brought up the broad issues to be tackled in this debate. Apropos the Mayor of London's request to control the whole overground system in London, how would the hon. Gentleman deal with the fact that most of the trains originate far away—

71WH
as far away as the coast—and travel across Kent and Sussex? How would he overcome that part of a mayoral attempt to grab the railways as well as the underground?
Jeremy Corbyn: I do not think that it is right for hon. Members to talk about a mayoral attempt to grab anything. The Mayor was elected to try to improve services in London, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that he should be congratulated on the good job that he has done over the past four years. Yes, trains run from outside London and the majority of inter-city train journeys begin and end in London. Those services would continue, but Transport for London's proposal would allow for much better coordination at local stations and of interchange facilities. It would avoid the nonsensical situation of a plethora of TOCs fighting for track space in and out of stations such as Euston and Liverpool Street—Kings Cross and other stations are less affected by the multiplicity of operators. The proposal would lead to more efficient running of the railway and more public accountability for London's transport. I hope that the Minister will give us some hope that, when examining the renewal of franchises, he will at least consider publicly run and operated services in certain areas, so that we regain control of the railway.
The current structure of the railways is bizarre beyond belief. We have a Secretary of State answerable to Parliament who has to fight for money from the Treasury for investment in the railway system and railway services. I applaud the Government for the large amounts of money that they are prepared to invest in the railway system. I welcome that; it is incredible and it is to the Government's credit that they have been prepared to invest such sums. Future generations will benefit from that. However, under the present structure, the Secretary of State's accountability to Parliament is somewhat fettered by the fact that the rail regulator seems to have more power than Ministers or Secretaries of State to decide where the money is spent, how it is spent and how much of it is spent. The regulator then passes his views—very regularly, no doubt—to the Strategic Rail Authority, which in turn passes its views to Network Rail, which now owns and operates the track and charges the TOCs for the use of the lines. This country has a parliamentary democracy in which public expenditure is meant to be accounted for to Parliament. That is seriously undermined by the position of the rail regulator and by the amount of money that is poured into TOCs that make huge profits from running a service that they are paid to run in the first place.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: To concentrate for a moment on profit, it is estimated that the companies' collective profit this year will be £170 million, reflecting a profit margin of about 30 per cent. We are simply giving them money.
Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. The profit margin is excessive by any standards. The railways are not a free enterprise system in which companies make profits by taking risks. There are no risks involved, as long as the companies run things moderately efficiently. When a company is given a franchise to run a railway, it knows that it has an
72WH
income from public funds and that all it has to do is run the service to make a profit. There is no risk involved for the company.
Mr. Greg Knight: Surely there is a risk, because if the company behaves incompetently or inefficiently, it loses the franchise.
Jeremy Corbyn: I did state the caveat that the company has to run the railway and clearly there is some risk that it will lose the franchise if it does so badly, but it has to be pretty had for that to happen. We are not being as tough with the companies as we ought to be. I read the rail press avidly and quite regularly and I have heard of companies that lose a franchise because they have run it badly which then pop up somewhere else running a franchise in another area. The company's record seems to be forgotten when the new franchises are handed out.
I hope that the rail review brings a degree of public accountability for this huge public expenditure and that the Minister will reiterate the view that the railway network is publicly owned, so there should be a publicly owned railway system. I hope also that, in the discussion of franchises during the next few months, the Minister will consider very seriously the need for regional operation and simplicity of operation in and out of major stations, and that he will acknowledge that the train operating companies that have made enormous profits over the past few years are simply not an acceptable example of how we should run a railway.
This country spends more money than any other European country on subsidising a largely privately run railway system, yet in return we get a rather worse service than most other European countries. There must be a lesson there. A comparison of our railway network and that of France is not a happy one from the point of view of people who want a really good and efficient railway system in this country. Railways are the most environmentally friendly, the most efficient, and in many cases the most popular form of transport. We have a responsibility to ensure that they are better run and funded in an acceptable way that is good for the public as a whole.
9.44 am
Mr. John Horam: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made a very good attempt to sketch out the broad themes that should be addressed in a general debate about the railways, but he was wrong to concentrate so much on the profitability of particular companies and thereby to denigrate private sector involvement in the railway industry. I believe that a mixed economy for the industry can work perfectly well.
The hon. Gentleman, because he is a London Member of Parliament, will be aware that Connex, a private company, was recently sacked by the Strategic Rail Authority because it was failing to perform. One major reason for that failure was that when it originally set out its stall for the franchise, it underbid for the contract; consequently, the company was losing money year on year. In response, it cut back: for example, it did not paint its stations, and it de-manned some of them. In my constituency, Petts Wood station lost one of only

73WH
two regular members of staff; consequently, there was a lot of vandalism and the station became rundown. That is a tiny example of the way in which the pressure to cut costs resulting from originally underbidding for the franchise caused deterioration in the service and the maintenance of stations.
The SRA decided that Connex could no longer continue and installed its own team to run the railways in south-east London and Kent. Opinions differ on whether there has been an improvement in performance during the intervening six to nine months. I think that there has, but as I discovered when I talked to the managing director of South Eastern Trains recently, the main reason for that is that he gets more money from the Government. He would not tell me exactly how much he gets—perhaps he should have, given that it is a matter of public interest involving public money—but I understand that it is roughly £10 million to £15 million more a year to run the trains in south-east London and Kent. As a result, he can begin to restaff stations, improve trains and enhance performance in a way for which my constituents are grateful.
Despite that, performance is still inadequate. The real issue is no longer whether a company is privately or publicly run. I accept that there was a reprehensible degree of profit-taking after 1997 in particular, but now the issue is how to set subsidy at the right level to give the proper incentive to a company, whether private or public, and its management to perform well. The hon. Member for Islington, North is right in one respect: there are too many chefs trying to cook this particular meal. I agree that it is astonishing that the regulator has so much power. As a democrat, I am amazed that so how much power has been given to a regulator to determine money is spent. The regulator is given a sum of money by the Government and seems to determine how that money is spent, which is wrong. Too many organisations are involved in the industry, and the Government have not helped by setting up some more in the past seven years. The review of the structure of the industry should examine the complexity at the top level of decision making. I believe that the structure at the top should be simplified. The vast amounts of public money involved could be far better spent than they are now.
I agree with one thing that the Mayor of London said recently. He said that the capital is being neglected compared with other parts of the country. We know that vast amounts of subsidy are going into regional railways that are very unprofitable, whereas the main lines into London, which carry tens of thousands of commuters every day and on which London depends, have been relatively starved of capital and revenue. That matter should be addressed.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): The hon. Gentleman and I have known each other for a long time. He has had some experience of Government and he knows that if he were sitting in my seat he would have heard the cries from all over Britain that the great problem with Government spending is that we lavish money on London. That is a fact, and I would be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman's reaction to that. Perhaps he could
74WH
transport himself for a moment, and imagine that he is an MP from Yorkshire, the north-east or Ceredigion. How would he feel about it then?
Mr. Horam: Mentioning the north-east was rather near the knuckle. I might have taken a different view had I still been the MP for Gateshead instead of for Orpington. None the less, if the Minister considers rationally—I am sure that he will, as he is a rational Minister—the capital spending spread over the country as a whole, he will realise that London has received much less spending than is sensible, given the amount of wealth that it contributes. He might take as an example the amount of money that has been spent on renewing the north-west line and compare it with the amount of money that has been spent on London commuter services.
Mr. Simon Thomas: I do not wish to plead Ceredigion's case too strongly at this stage, but what the hon. Gentleman is saying undermines his earlier statement that he believed in a mixed economy for the railways and that such a system was delivering. He is now underlining why the railways should be a publicly run and funded UK national enterprise. We have a problem in that some lines get sufficient investment and some are profitable because of the number of people who use them, but they do not fit into the wider jigsaw because the industry is so fragmented. Surely we should reconsider a UK basis for the railways.
Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake that I traditionally associate with the Labour party. He seems to be saying that an industry that is publicly funded should also be publicly run. I believe that the industry can be run equally well by a public or by a private organisation. However, I do agree that funding should be determined on a UK basis. That is precisely my point. If we were to do that, we would see that London has been underfunded. However, let us get away from the London versus the regions debate—perhaps I have overstressed the issue, and it is obvious that people have different views on it.
Spending money on small improvements that could make a great deal of difference to the performance of the rail companies has been undervalued compared with spending a lot of money on particular lines. For instance, the north-west line, which has taken a huge amount of Government funding, may have been over-financed. There is a need for a better balance across the whole picture. Spending money on small improvements, such as lengthening station platforms so that they can accommodate 10 or 12-car trains, thereby reducing overcrowding on the London commuter lines, might be better than spending huge amounts of Government money on the Pendolino. It is the duty of the Government, not of the regulator, the SRA or private companies, to address that balance. The Government must set the overall pattern of funding.
The Minister will know that my area has seen the sacking of a company and the temporary handing over of railway operations to a public company. It also faces the prospect of the integrated Kent franchise—the new basis on which companies will bid for the Kent area franchise this year. I beg the Government and the Minister to pay some attention to that, as the SRA has

75WH
indicated that it will savagely cut some of the traditional commuter services, for example, by up to two thirds in peak-hour commuter services to some stations in my constituency and by up to a half in other areas. People have built lives, bought homes and taken jobs based on the expectation that a service that has run for 30 or 40 years will continue, even if it is subject to tinkering. I hope that the Minister will not leave such matters to the SRA, which has admitted that it made some mistakes and is reconsidering the situation. but will consider most carefully the pattern of services. He should simplify the overall structure of the industry, and review the amount of subsidy and how it is spent, value for money and, above all, the demand for services from various parts of our country.
9.55 am
Ms Joan Walley: I will be brief, because I know that many hon. Friends wish to take part in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing it. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). We served together on the Environmental Audit Committee. I know that he is very much aware of the environmental benefits that can come from public policy of many kinds, including rail.
The important point about today's debate, which I want the Minister to take away, is that it takes place in the aftermath of the Transport Committee's report. I think that that has a great deal to offer. It should steer and guide the Government towards making sure that, after all this time, we get rail policy right. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman about environmental issues, we are living the extreme effects of Tory privatisation. It is taking a long time to put right what the Tories did. We must find a way to put rail transport back together and to link it with other forms of transport, including bus services.
We in Stoke-on-Trent are fortunate in one sense, in that we are on the west coast main line, which has received an enormous part of the public subsidy that we have heard about for the carrying out of essential rail repairs. I thoroughly welcome that. North Staffordshire MPs had a briefing with Virgin Trains on the new timetable, which is to be introduced in September, with new, half-hourly services to London and the new Pendolino services. There will be huge improvements in the speed and the comfort in which we can travel from Stoke-on-Trent on that west coast main line in both directions and down to London. All that is good, but there is no gain without pain. Upgrading repair works are carrying on as we speak. We will have to put up with that.
The wider context is the Strategic Rail Authority review that is now taking place. That is where the good news ends. I will concentrate on one point, which might seem small, but is hugely important to people in north Staffordshire, for their MPs, for the North Staffordshire Rail Promotion Group and for local authorities. Many of us are old enough—or young enough—to remember the Beeching cuts. We have to face up to the possibility of a new round of Beeching-type cuts by stealth as a
76WH
result of the policies of the Strategic Rail Authority, which is introducing a word that I had not come across before: bustitution.
Some may not know what bustitution is. While essential repair works are being carried out, it is perfectly acceptable for there to be a replacement bus service along the route affected. I accept that and I am happy to go from train to bus when I am making a journey. However, my constituents and I are not prepared to accept the Strategic Rail Authority giving strategic instructions to those responsible for the franchises allowing bus services to replace train services along local passenger routes. I am talking about the route from Stoke-on-Trent to Stafford, although I know that routes in the west midlands are similarly affected.
Replacement bus services will run not only during the period in which essential repairs are being carried out to the rail tracks. The SRA has given franchises to operators for long-distance routes that are, they say, much more important than local routes. As a result, bus substitution services will continue, because—surprise, surprise—the new franchise operator needs the rolling stock that we have on our local train services. In addition, the new franchise operator, as determined by the SRA, does not have the trained drivers to operate the local routes. We are told that we will have bus services, without any consultation with local authorities or Advantage West Midlands, which is doing its best to improve the local economy and to link passenger services to congestion problems at a time when, I am delighted to say, there are huge, much needed roadworks in progress on the A500.
I fear that the SRA is not working regionally. It has no presence in the west midlands, so how does it know the economic, transport and sustainability needs of people in the west midlands, never mind north Staffordshire and my constituency? We have heard about public funds and whether they should be spent by publicly owned companies. Accountability is the real issue that must be addressed in the review. Why is the SRA not accountable for the way in which it runs its services? When the line repairs end and bus services give way to rail services as cab drivers on the franchise through Oxford or elsewhere are trained, I am afraid that there will be low demand for local train services—as was the case with local train stations such as Longport in my constituency and Kidsgrove and Etruria in adjacent constituencies. There is a real danger of depressing the demand for rail travel, because people find the prospect of travelling by bus too much to take.
It is simply not good enough for the SRA to substitute bus for rail without consultation. It should not be allowed to get away with it and it should be made accountable. I am delighted that we have had the debate. I hope that the Minister will talk to the SRA and to north Staffordshire MPs to see how we can integrate our rail services with the transport needs of the north Staffordshire economy.
10.3 am
Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased to take part in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing it. There is a tradition in Westminster Hall that the Member who opens the debate deals with the broad issues and then everyone piles in with their own local, regional or national agendas, and I am not going to break that.

77WH
Although we may differ about the funding of the franchises, consensus has emerged about accountability. There is a lack of accountability in the present system. The Minister has intimated as much in his comments over the past few weeks, and I look forward to his official reply to the debate.
I shall offer a perspective from Wales. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) offered a perspective of the west midlands, but in Wales we do have a Strategic Rail Authority presence. It has a member who is supposed to be the member for Wales, but that person has no accountability and there is no accountability generally between the National Assembly, the UK Government and the Wales and Borders franchise.
From accountability comes integration. From an environmental and a social and economic development point of view, we want to, see integration between services. I detect from the Government that they are starting to wake up to the lack of accountability for the rail system throughout the UK. I would like to see a two-way process in which there is greater regional accountability for rail and passenger needs, so that the English regions and commuter areas can integrate them, and a greater democratic accountability within Wales, in particular, reflecting the greater accountability that we hope Parliament will have for the whole system in the United Kingdom.
My journey to and from Westminster takes me through about half the franchise regions of the United Kingdom. I have a lot of time to think about these services during the five and a half hours I spend on the train. I am regularly bustituted at either the beginning or the end of my journey, depending on whether I am coming or going. Aberystwyth is at the end of the line, and that is where the bustitution often happens; the train service has to start at Machynlleth or Newtown. The hon. Lady is right in saying that bustitution has increased. We used to talk about integration of services. Initially, rail services would end because it was the end of the line, but buses would then link into neighbouring villages and towns. That was the old idea of bus and rail integration. It now seems to be a t other less palatable way forward.
Other hon. Members referred to the Transport Committee report, and it is appropriate for me to concentrate on the Welsh Affairs Committee report on rail services in Wales. It calls for greater accountability for transport services and railways in Wales and for some transfer of power to the National Assembly. I agree that one cannot transfer power from this Parliament if we do not have it in the first place. The first step is for the Minister to get a bit more power over these services and the railways and then to work out how we can do this at a UK level and with the devolved Governments. The National Assembly recently requested that a Transport Bill for Wales be passed to help it to achieve some of its national objectives for passenger integration.
There is also an ongoing review of the devolution arrangements between the National Assembly and Westminster, prompted by the Richard report, which was published a month ago. That report also had something to say about railways. It was fairly neutral
78WH
about whether there should be further devolution of power, but said that it was obviously possible. The Welsh Affairs Committee report accuses the Strategic Rail Authority of failing in its statutory duties towards the National Assembly and towards Wales. The First Minister of Wales, like MPs from Wales, was not informed of the SRA's decision to cut services in Wales. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North mentioned, some backdoor cuts are now happening, such as scrapping the only direct link between the Eurostar service at Waterloo and our national capital in Cardiff. That was cut without any consultation with Welsh MPs, AMs or even the First Minister. There is no attempt at wider consultation.
Although the National Assembly has control over buses and roads in Wales, it has no control over railways at all. A person has been appointed to the SRA—her name escapes me, but she is supposed to be the person from Wales. She is appointed not by the National Assembly but directly by Westminster, and she is not answerable to the National Assembly. The SRA does not have to take direction from the National Assembly about services in Wales, as it does from the Executive in Scotland about services there. The difficulty arises when we try to improve passenger services as a whole in Wales. The National Assembly can do that only by spending more money on roads. That is a rather ridiculous and environmentally unsound way forward. Indeed, the National Assembly has contributed money towards rail services, even though that is not in its remit. Some £2.5 million of the National Assembly's money is going towards rail services at present, yet it has no say about how it is spent. That is crazy.
Let me give an example of which the Minister may be aware: the Dyfi junction in mid-Wales. It is our equivalent of a bottleneck, where two lines come together. A loop is needed to enable hourly passenger services. This is to go from two hours to one hour and is a big step. The National Assembly has come up with the money, but Network Rail does not have the engineers to do the work. We have been waiting for two years, even though the money is available for that service to go ahead.
In a statement to the House, the Secretary of State for Transport said that the Government were considering how

"more decisions on public transport, including rail"—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1076.]

could be devolved to the Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government and the regional level in England. The Welsh Affairs Committee report says specifically that we should consider setting up statutory passenger transport boards or consortiums in Wales. That is what we really want. About 3 per cent. of rail investment ends up in Wales, and as Wales has 5 per cent. of the population, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) should not be looking at Wales to get extra resources for his commuter services in London. No doubt someone will point out that we do not have 5 per cent. of the railways, but that was because of Beeching, and we certainly had it historically.
We need transport passenger boards established and the SRA's powers of guidance and direction for Wales to be given to the National Assembly. The Assembly should also be able to appoint directly to the SRA. It is

79WH
about democratic accountability. However the franchises are run, with private or public companies, strategic democratic accountability is needed.
The Welsh rail network links into England, and it is important to remember that we cannot travel by train from north to south Wales without going through England, via Shrewsbury. However, in giving evidence to the Richard commission, National Assembly Minister Sue Essex said that the Labour Assembly Government do not believe that the problems are insurmountable. We can work with the border regions of England to provide a better service for both the English and Welsh, as many of the journeys are back and forth between the two countries.
It is the same situation in London. It is right that the London Mayor wants to take more of a view on these matters and to integrate the system better. However, that should also take into account the fact that all the journeys start and end in London. We face the same problem in Wales, but it is addressable if we put it into the UK context of national investment and consider how the regions of England and nations of Wales and Scotland can come into that.
The issue is really about statutory consortiums and passenger transport boards. That is the prize that we can win in the Welsh context. So many of our public passenger services are bus-based, and we need to integrate them with the relatively few rail services that we have. To give an example, the National Assembly was the first to give free transport to passengers on buses, but as it had no control of the railways, it could not give pensioners even a discount on the trains. That is a sore point in many of the south Wales valleys. I am sure that the Minister, who represents Pontypridd, will be aware of that.
We have some rail safety concerns about the mid-Wales part of the Cambrian line. I know that the debate is about passenger transport rather than rail safety issues, but I want to put it on record that I have great concerns about the Plas Crug railway crossing in Aberystwyth. Now that we have had this debate, I will take the opportunity to raise them in correspondence with the Department, and I hope that the Minister will be aware that many rail users have specific concerns about rail safety in Aberystwyth.
I hope that the debate will give the Minister strength in tackling the issues and winning back more democratic accountability for the public money that has been invested in the railways.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to say that I will not be able to call all those who want to speak, because the Member who initiated the debate obviously wants an adequate reply from the Minister.
10.14 am
Mr. David Drew: There are four interlocking themes that influence the debate on how the railways are, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) said, lacking accountability. The first theme is the opaqueness of the process and a
80WH
lack of transparency in how the franchise arrangements are undertaken. The second is excessive bureaucracy, with too many organisations fighting over what are good spoils, and causing a great deal of confusion. That links to the third point which is a lack of understanding of what happens to public money, and whether we are getting, to use that dreadful phrase, value for money. Lastly, there is an issue that has not yet been mentioned: the companies' relationship with railway staff. I start with that, as we are all aware of the tragedies and must not underestimate their impact: Ladbroke Grove and Hatfield have had an enormous impact on the rail networks. It is still much safer to travel by rail, but one cannot be unaware of safety concerns.
My hon. Friend the Minister has a difficult job in that respect, because the post-Hatfield experience is one of trying to return to where we were. We are not going forward at present: we are still talking about achieving, by the end of the decade, the level of service that we had before. That is depressing, but I am pleased that this Government are putting money in, and have a view that rail is a service for the future.
Part of the difficulty with the current franchise operation is that those who are bidding have to work out which franchise to apply for. In my part of the world, Wales and West is more likely to go for Wales, and it has been a devil of a job trying to clarify exactly what it intends to do arid who will take on the franchise. It has become so ludicrous that, although First Great Western would be prepared to invest in some of the stations, it will not do so until it is clearly likely to be the successful bidder. There is an interregnum period during which clarity is lacking. Virgin Trains wanted to run through trains from London to Birmingham on the reserve line, but it could not get the slots at Paddington, so it quickly pulled out. That results in customer dissatisfaction. Customers want reliability and accessibility, but the franchise operation is, at best, pretty bloody and far too long, and we are not getting the best out of it.
I want to mention the work force. I welcome the way in which Network Rail has taken back into public ownership—can I use that term?—the responsibility for maintenance. The people who work in the rail industry are—forgive the pun—shunted around, and that does not achieve anything. Sometimes the basic safety case of those working in our railways is insufficient. We want good people in the railways, because safety, reliability and a good service are important.
I have been trying, since I was elected and before, to promote the redoubling of the track between Kemble and Swindon—the Minister will probably despair to hear me say that. We were having good discussions with the Strategic Rail Authority about 18 months or two years ago, but the authority was reorganised and the discussions with local authorities are now in abeyance. The Strategic Rail Authority is not responsible for the franchises, but it should be involved and give guidance. It is not strategic at present: there is an element of power grab. The difficulty is that the privatisation was botched, and we are trying to make good something that is, in many respects, irreparable. I wish my hon. Friend good luck: he is well known for cutting through the bluster and the complete lack of foresight. We need to apply

81WH
public investment correctly, and there is no better time to start than today.
10.19 am
John McDonnell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on initiating the debate at a key time in relation to the discussions on the overall structural review that the Government will have before the summer. I also congratulate the Government on having that review: they now have the courage to address the problems and disasters that resulted from privatisation.
Many hon. Members remember the debate about privatisation. Many of the arguments that were advanced by Labour Back Benchers have proved to be accurate. They are as valid today as they were then: time and time again the private sector's woeful performance in the delivery of train services has been demonstrated. Nowhere is that problem worse than in the south-east. Connex is a good example of how poor the private sector can be. I welcome the fact that, with the setting up of South Eastern Trains, the franchise has effectively been returned to the public sector.
We have seen what happened under the Connex regime. When South Eastern Trains took over, a 20 per cent. shortage of station staff was identified, which meant that Connex had been cutting back on station staff, year in, year out, with the consequent risk not only to the service but to the safety of rail passengers. The Minister will know that since the franchise's return to the public sector, there has been a significant improvement in overall service. The all-day punctuality rate on South Eastern Trains has increased by 9 per cent., which is the highest rate of increase of all 10 London and south-east operators.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister—by appearing in a photocall with the Mayor of London in Brent, East, which we all enjoyed—seems to have given his blessing to a new London rail authority, which would be given control of all London's commuter routes. However, I find it remarkable that five of the 10 passenger services are to be refranchised—reprivatised—over the next five years, which flies in the face of a new London authority being able to co-ordinate an overall system for London's commuter trains. In addition, that move reinforces our concern that South Eastern Trains will itself be privatised and the franchise will return to the private sector. We argue that the removal of the requirement to pay shareholder dividends must ensure that more resources can be provided for investment in the service itself. I sympathise with the comments made by the managing director of South Eastern Trains, Michael Holden, who said:

"Bidding for franchises takes management time and time is the most precious commodity we have. We have been able to declutter the agenda and focus everyone on running the railway better."

Given the failure of the private sector in the past and the improvements that are beginning to emerge now, most of us would be astonished if South Eastern Trains were forced to press ahead with reprivatising the service in its area.
We should also listen to what people in the area are saying. The responses to the recent Strategic Rail Authority consultation showed unanimous support for
82WH
retaining the service in the public sector. Passenger groups, trade unions, the south-eastern region TUC, Mark Watts, MEP, who is Labour's transport spokesperson in the European Parliament, Kent county council Labour group, other local and unitary authority Labour councillors, and the London Transport Users Committee were united against the service cuts proposed by the SRA last month, and in favour of maintaining SET as currently constituted. I draw hon. Members' attention to the Maidstone declaration produced last month by Labour councillors in Kent. It pointed out that democratic accountability of the rail network had been lost as a result of privatisation and that public subsidies and passengers' fares were diverted from service improvements. It argued that the rail service in Kent, Medway and south-east London should remain in public hands. The campaign is popular. MPs for the area will be inundated with postcards from local residents who support the retention of the train service within the public sector.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity of the current rail review to create a framework that stabilises railway provision, ensures adequate resourcing in the long term and maintains management expertise in the public sector. We can then deliver to our constituents the safe, secure and efficient services that they expect.
10.24 am
Mrs. Ann Cryer: In my neck of the woods, GNER does a reasonable job on the east coast main line. My main complaint is about the quality of the toilet facilities on the White Rose trains, which are definitely below par, but I pay tribute to the men and women who operate that line to a fairly high standard. It gets me to work each week and back again at the weekend. It is working reasonably well at the moment.
I wish to discuss briefly industrial relations within the passenger services remit of the rail network and the national situation post-privatisation. Will the Minister consider the plight of the work force, who work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to keep the network running? Is he concerned that open, transparent and accountable industry-wide collective bargaining was shattered by privatisation and that industrial relations have worsened as train companies open up pay differentials of thousands of pounds between employees of the same grade working for different companies and between different grades of employee? The Minister will be aware that that is generating a series of disputes that could have been avoided. How would he feel working alongside Ministers of similar rank and performing similar duties, but working much longer hours, having fewer benefits and receiving less money? I think he would not be terribly pleased about it. Does not he agree that under the current disjointed and chaotic system, industrial relations cannot improve, and that less fragmented industrial relations and national bargaining are in everyone's best interests?
Further to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), most hon. Members present have signed early-day motion 254 on keeping South Eastern Trains in the public domain.
10.27 am
Mr. Paul Marsden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this extremely important debate. What has happened to our railways is a national disgrace, which continues to this day, as huge amounts of public money go into private hands to deliver a service that arguably is worse than it was seven years ago. I pay tribute to the hon. Members who have spoken: every one made a useful contribution, and I hope that the Minister will take their points on board. I agree that the root cause of the problem is the appalling way in which the Conservative Government botched rail privatisation. We are living with their legacy today and paying for it through our taxes. The Minister has the thankless task of trying to sort out the problem, but it is his Government's collective responsibility to do so.
The passenger rail franchises under the remit of the Strategic Rail Authority have unfortunately not done a good job. The 18 train operating companies will receive £1.4 billion in subsidy this year, rising to £1.6 billion next year. The Treasury constantly reminds Departments to be prudent because we do not want to go back to the days of boom and bust, but that huge amount of public money is simply not delivering value for money. The Conservative Government's assertion at the time of privatisation was that costs would decrease, but the opposite has happened. The latest statistics available, for the four years to 2001–02, show that staff costs rose by 28 per cent. I suspect that that is not the result of front-line staff being paid decent wages, but the cost of management who often make the problem worse. Other operating costs over the same period have risen by 22 per cent.
The Transport Committee's seventh report "The Future of the Railway" concluded that

"the industry is not fit for purpose."

It stated:

"The SRA appears utterly incapable of managing significant improvements … It is outrageous that astonishingly large sums of taxpayers' money have been used to prop up palpably failing businesses such as the £58 million in the case of Connex. While we accept that failures in the initial franchise process may have been to blame originally, we cannot understand why action was not taken earlier by the SRA."

The SRA should be accountable to the Minister. Why has he not been able to find a way to stop the apparent abuse of taxpayers' money?
The massive increase in rail journeys is welcome, but that welcome is tempered by the massive increase in car journeys and air travel. In the past 40 years, car journeys have increased fourfold and aviation journeys eightfold, so the fact that the number of rail journeys has increased is no cause for complacency. We must get people out of their cars and into trains, but the trains must be able to deliver a decent service. At the moment, things are not getting better; they are getting worse. Rail fares have increased by an average 20 per cent. since 1997, yet the percentage of trains arriving on time has decreased from 89.7 per cent. in 1997 to 80.8 per cent., according to the latest figures. People are having to pay more and to put up with overcrowding at twice the 1997 levels. To use the cliché, the system is a gravy train for certain companies to make a vast profit at the taxpayer's expense and without due accountability.
84WH
A Pacer train with a life of some 30 years costs about £600,000 to replace, yet it costs £144,000 each year to lease one; it would be possible to buy such a train for the cost of leasing it for four years, if the companies were allowed to do so, but they are not. Instead, that money goes straight into the pockets of certain companies—companies that are owned by the big three banks. I declare an interest: I have accounts with Abbey and one with the Royal Bank of Scotland. I cannot blame them or HSBC for the fact that money is given to them so easily and they make huge profits, which stack up at about £170 million each year. It is money for old rope; we are stuffing gold into their mouths. It is time that that stopped, because the return for those banks is calculated to be about 30 per cent. Even a company such as Tesco makes a profit of only about 5 per cent., so how on earth can the Minister justify the banks and the companies owned by them making such returns?
I have the delight of travelling on Virgin trains from time to time when I return to Shrewsbury. An article in The Mail on Sunday on 8 February stated:

"Under the bizarre rules of rail privatisation, operators such as Sir Richard Branson's Virgin are contractually obliged to pay lease charges to rolling stock companies, regardless of whether the locomotives and carriages are used."

Last year, Virgin paid £55 million to lease new state-of-the-art tilting trains—only they were not used. They sat in the railway sidings because they were not ready, yet Virgin's subsidy from the Government increased from £306 million to £371 million, and it made an operating profit of £26.3 million last year.
The long-suffering British public have to put up with the reality of those poor train services. As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) said, staff on the front line are desperately trying to make the best of a very bad job, and they should be saluted for what they manage to achieve. Some companies are better than others, but with the new generation of franchises, we must find a way to control costs and ensure, for instance, that there is no automatic extension to a rail franchise after three years simply because modest—at times very modest—targets have been met. There must be a fundamental shake-up based on passenger satisfaction as well as safety, reliability and affordability for passengers.
What has happened after seven years of Labour Government is a national scandal. To their credit, the Government have invested money in the national health service, but they must consider why they are wasting money on the railways when they could invest more in hospitals, schools and fighting crime. We could come up with a decent public transport system using only some of the money that we spend now. Following on from the hon. Member for Cetedigion (Mr. Thomas), a fraction of the profits of extra subsidies in other areas could be used, for example, for a direct rail link from London to Shrewsbury, which would be so wildly appreciated that the Government would reap huge kudos. We would finally have a direct rail link to Shropshire, mid-Wales and the heart of Wales line, which many people want. I make that pitch and I hope that the Minister will answer many of the questions posed today. As the Rail Passengers Council has said, the system is a mess at the moment and there is little confidence that the Government are getting it right.
10.36 am
Mr. Greg Knight: A discussion on rail franchises and the future of our railways is timely. I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this debate and thank all those who have taken part. We have heard from eight hon. Members today, and what a sorry tale they have all told.
Last Sunday, we read in our newspapers about Birmingham Moor Street station, which was apparently officially opened last September after 16 years of lying derelict. It is meant to boost the new Bull Ring shopping centre in Birmingham and sounds like good news; the only problem is that despite the £11 million facelift, it was revealed in the press that no passenger trains will pass through the station until 2007. What on earth is going on? When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he can tell us why there is to he such a long wait before Birmingham Moor Street station is used.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman's reference to Birmingham Moor Street station. It was certainly open last time I used it. I got off and on a train at that station and there was no problem—it was not a phantom train. I think that he is referring to the refurbished part of the station, which has not yet been opened for trains to complete their journeys at Moor Street.
Mr. Knight: I have not been to Birmingham Moor Street station so I defer—to some extent—to the hon. Gentleman's greater travel experience. However, the Sunday papers said—[HON. MEMBERS: "They could be wrong"]. Yes, they could be wrong, but for the sake of accuracy I shall put on record what many people read in the Sunday papers. We read:

"Birmingham's Moor Street was officially reopened last September after 16 years of lying derelict…But it will stay empty while signalling work is completed."

That is what it said in the press. Perhaps the Minister could confirm either the press report or what the hon. Member for Islington, North said.
Jeremy Corbyn: Or we could all go there.
Mr. Knight: Or we could all go there after this debate.
I was about to confess that I like the Minister, but I was astonished by his comments last week, again printed in a newspaper. I give him the opportunity to deny that he said that the only way to end Britain's love affair with the car and get people using public transport, including the railways, was

"to tax people out of their cars in the same way as the authorities have tried to tax people off cigarettes".

The headline of that article was, "Tax drivers off the road, says transport chief".
Dr. Howells: I did not say that and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I did not say that. The original interview appeared in the Financial Times. The Daily Mail. for its own reasons—God knows what they are—decided to print something different. If he wants me to send him the transcript—luckily the interview was tape-recorded—he can read it for himself. He should not repeat information that is not correct.
Mr. Knight: I am delighted that we have that on the record, and as I rather like the sound of the Minister's voice, I would like a copy of the transcript. I am pleased to hear that denial, because if he had said that, it would have been a kick in the teeth for poor families and people who live in rural areas who have no option but to use the motor car because there are no rail services.
The year began with the Secretary of State for Transport announcing a fundamental review of the rail industry to remove "unnecessary wrangling and disputes" between the various organisations running the railways. Having rightly ruled out renationalisation, he promised to publish by summer proposals that were designed to ensure a more streamlined structure for the railway system with clearer lines of responsibility and accountability.
The review heralds the fifth change in structure in nearly seven years of Labour Government. They came to power promising immediate benefit, but after seven years, as we have heard from many hon. Members, services in many areas are getting worse. One in five trains run late, and work on many new lines has been scrapped. Despite inflation-busting fare increases, commuters face deteriorating services. I fear that the latest review of rail policy is not about finding a better structure for the railways, but about increasing centralisation and political control. Although that would please the hon. Member for Islington, North, it would not please me or solve the problems. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us the likely date of publication of the Secretary of State's review and about any information contained in it that he is at liberty to put in the public domain today.
Part of the key to a modern, efficient railway system is modern, efficient railway stock, and that needs close attention in the Government's rail review. Encouraging more people to travel by train does not simply involve increasing the costs of motoring; the public have to feel comfortable when they make a train journey, and the problem in many areas has been that travelling by train is not reliable, predictable or comfortable.
As hon. Members will know, in February the National Audit Office published a revealing report that indicated that new rail rolling stock was being delivered late. It also warned that the new carriages being introduced into service are less reliable than the old slam-door vehicles that they were designed to replace. The report provides clear evidence that the railway system is something of a shambles. Not only are trains arriving late at the stations, but new trains are arriving late from the factory. Why should the public have to put up with old, uncomfortable and dirty rolling stock while manufacturers take up to two and a half years to deliver new trains? People will clearly not use the railways if they feel unsafe or uncomfortable.
Passengers are also concerned about punctuality. According to the official figures published in March, after seven years of Labour Government nearly a quarter of all trains, and nearly one in three run by some operators, run late. No wonder more than half of voters think that public transport is bad. The Strategic Rail Authority's answer to the problem of punctuality seems to be to make journey times longer, and Network Rail appears to agree. That is not the way to encourage people to use the train.

87WH
I have the honour to represent a constituency that includes the town of Bridlington, which is one of the country's premier seaside resorts. Passengers who want to travel to Bridlington from Hull and back again have recently been faced with longer rail journey times. I submitted a written question to the Minister, who passed it on to Network Rail. I received a reply from Victoria Pender, the company's group director for government and corporate affairs, on 23 April. In that letter, she admits that there are stretches of rail track on which the speed limit has been reduced primarily or solely to prolong the life of the track. She reveals some of the routes involved, including Wigan to Kirkby, Newcastle to Carlisle, the Barton upon Humber branch, Allington Junction to Boston, and Hull to Bridlington and Same. If the Minister wants people to use the train, why do passengers on some routes face longer journey times, imposed not for safety reasons but because those running the railways are trying to prolong the life of the track? That is not the way forward, and I hope that the Minister will address that matter. If he cannot provide a detailed reply this morning, I hope that he will write to me.
The Government's proposal to spend £26 billion upgrading the rail network is not guaranteed to improve the system. We must see that the money is properly targeted. It is not only the official Opposition who are concerned about the state of British railways; the Transport Committee, which is chaired by a distinguished Labour Member, has also expressed concerns. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said recently:

"The government has had years to address the problems of the railway but has failed to take effective action."

I agree. The Committee's report shows that thus far the Government have let passengers down, performance has got worse and the network is in turmoil. Does the Minister accept the conclusions of the Transport Committee's report? If he does not, perhaps he will tell us with which of the conclusions he disagrees and on which he will take action. Although any organisation needs a period of stability, change must be brought about to the structure of the railways, and it will be interesting to see what the Secretary of State announces later this year.
Unlike some hon. Members who have spoken, I believe that railways need private sector investment. That sector in turn needs the confidence of knowing that the railway network has stability, independent regulation and a simplified structure. Grand Central Railway Company commences passenger services between Newcastle, Manchester and Preston this summer. It has published its vision of providing

"affordable, diverse and improved journey opportunities, and attracting new customers to the rail network."

It says that, unlike many rail franchise operators, it will not seek subsidies from the Government and will operate trains on an entirely commercial basis. Subsidy is necessary for some routes, but I hope that the Government will monitor best practice. It should not be a regional secret; it should be commonplace and encouraged.
The Government cannot escape the fact that they have spent almost eight years promising a better railway system but have failed to come up with the goods.
88WH
Performance is bad, it is getting worse and after almost eight years many people feel that the Government have let them down. I sty to the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) that to blame my party for the structure that was put in place on privatisation 10 years ago will not wash when for seven of those 10 years another party has been in power,. The buck is now with new Labour. So far, it has failed to deliver on our railways.
10.49 am
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing the debate. I enjoyed his contribution very much, and I especially admired the fortitude with which he admitted poring over rail magazines. In the 10 months since I have been in this job, having to pore over them has changed me completely. I can no longer relax on rail journeys—I find myself looking out of the window to see why there is a temporary speed restriction, whether the clutter on the side of the line has been properly secured, which train is going past, and so on. Doing so becomes an obsession and turns people into anoraks.
My hon. Friend raised a lot of important issues. I enjoyed listening to the other interesting contributions to the debate, but I shall try to answer my hon. Friend's points as this is his debate and he needs proper answers. There is no question but that we needed to institute the rail review. I know that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) will have a pop at it and he is quite right to do so—we would do the same if we were in opposition. However, as all hon. Members who spoke made clear, there are many things that are wrong with the structure of the rail industry. We could do a much better job. Hon. Members from all parts of the Chamber expressed unhappiness over how some of the money has been spent in the past 10 years. They want greater clarity and a guarantee that it will be spent better in future.
There is also no question but that there have been some strange management practices in the industry in the past 10 years. One only has to consider, for example, what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) called the north-west railway, but which is in fact the west coast main line. When I took up my post 10 months ago, the cost of that project was about £13 billion. It is now reckoned to be about £7.6 billion. That is mainly because the management of Network Rail and the Strategic Rail Authority have at long last got a grip on expenditure. There is no question but that expenditure on that vast project was out of control.
The hon. Gentleman said that we tend to undervalue what we can do with relatively small amounts of money to improve the railway system for passengers. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North has seen improvements at one of the nation's most important rail-bus interchanges, at Finsbury Park. I have used that station for many years and have seen great improvements there. However, my hon. Friend is right still to be concerned about the relationship between Network Rail and Transport for London, and about

89WH
whether the project will pushed through with the energy and vigour that it requires. I hope that we can help with that.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will my hon. Friend give me an assurance that he will ensure that the rail operators, Network Rail and the SRA actively co-operate with Transport for London to bring the project to fruition? It is a great idea, but needs a bit of push.
Dr. Howells: I certainly undertake to do what I can. My hon. Friend's question—or plea—has prompted a few other questions about what levers the Government have and how we can add value by paying huge amounts of taxpayers' money to promote a better railway. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) asked a similar question.
The industry must be much more accountable. The SRA has lately come to admit that its relationship with the devolved bodies, MPs and the regions could have been much better. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) talked about how some decisions should have been signalled long before they were taken. I am sure that Richard Bowker has taken that point on board. After all, one of the primary functions of the SRA in trying to create a national strategy for the railway industry must be to understand that the industry is made up of thousands of incremental elements and that it is to do with local stations and local services. It has handled that task with a degree of understanding and perspective that was previously missing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North was especially concerned about integration and what should be happening inside London. Despite some of the comments—I share some of the misgivings of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, when he talked about Wales—there are many examples around the country of passenger transport executives that have achieved good co-ordination between railways, tram systems and buses. We can learn a great many lessons from those examples. London, quite naturally, is looking for a degree of control or at least a way forward that involves partnership.
We are talking about how we achieve better integration and how we face passengers better, because that is really what the railways are about. Very often, we become obsessed with questions of structure. As the hon. Member for Orpington reminded us, there is
90WH
almost a macho obsession with how much we spend and with saying, "Look at this great project! Look at that wonderful new fleet of rolling stock!" The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said that it is important that we get new rolling stock, and we are getting it—factories are working flat out to produce new rolling stock—but the process has exposed a great many shortcomings within the network and a great lack of co-ordination, the most absurd example of which was that we started to get new rolling stock in the old southern region, only to find that there was not enough electricity in the system to run the trains, which, unlike the old slam-door trains, have electric doors and air conditioning. I dare say some even have coffee makers. Such trains draw more electricity off the track. To have those wonderful new trains being put into sidings until the billion-pound project to upgrade the power supply has been completed, or phased in, was absurd. Hon. Members are quite right to highlight such examples.
The rail review is a very serious enterprise. We hope to report in July, and we will try to institute a system that will meet some of the demands that have been made in this Chamber for a simpler system of command, with shorter command structures, under which the needs of people will be reflected much more closely in the way in which decisions are reached. I want to ensure that the aspirations of people in London, Wales, Scotland and the regions of England are more clearly reflected in the decisions that are made by the management of the rail network.
South Eastern Trains has been mentioned several times. The facts must be stated: Connex did not have its franchise removed because it was a relatively poor performer; it had it removed because the SRA was very unhappy with the financial governance of the company. The hon. Member for Orpington hinted at that. South Eastern Trains management—Michael Holden is a very
good manager—are doing a pretty good job with a system that is one of the most complex in the United Kingdom, and the integrated Kent franchise, as it will be known, will be an improvement on the existing system. We are sensitive to the aspirations of the people of Kent, who have suffered long from the rail service that has been offered, and we are determined to give them a better service.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North for raising these issues. The debate has given many of us an opportunity to express heartfelt concerns about the current system.

Asthma
11 am
Mr. Bob Laxton: There are several good reasons—one of them is certainly a good reason—why I am pleased that I have secured this debate. First, when I entered the House, I became a member of the all-party asthma group because, along with many other hon. Members, I happen to be an asthmatic, and have been all my life. The second reason was the document published by Asthma UK the other week entitled "Living on a Knife Edge", which presents some useful statistical information about the impact that asthma has on society and the life and well-being of asthma sufferers.
Some of the statistics in the report are pretty dramatic. In this country, about 5.1 million people have asthma and 2.6 million of those suffer from the severe symptoms of asthma. That figure comprises about 2 million adults and about half a million children. The report shows the increase that took place between the 1980s and 1990s in the prevalence of asthma. It increased by 114 per cent. among males and no less than 165 per cent. among females.
In the report, Asthma UK makes the point that one in six of the individuals who suffer from asthma have weekly attacks so bad that they are unable to speak. Fortunately, my asthma is under control. As a Member of Parliament, one can hardly imagine anything worse than suddenly finding one could not speak—although some would argue that too much speaking takes place here, and I am as guilty of that as anyone.
What impact does severe asthma have on individuals? Many people's lives are—I was going to use the word "inconvenienced", but that is inadequate: it is far more severe than that. Despite taking large doses of medication, many people live disjointed and distressed lives as a result of asthma. Many people have it so badly that they are constantly being hospitalised. They are put on ventilators, they suffer from breathlessness, and so on.
Of course, there is no cure for asthma. When I was 18, the original treatment I received from a military doctor was a choice between benzedrine and ephedrine. These were heart stimulants: quite dangerous and powerful drugs that increase one's heart rate and take the pressure off one's chest. They are not nice medications and have some pretty unpleasant side effects. When, at the age of 30, my asthma suddenly became worse, I was very fortunate that in my constituency in Derby lived an individual by the name of Dr. Harry Morrow-Brown. I became very friendly with Harry. He was a consultant at the chest clinic and was—and still is—one of the world's foremost experts on the connection between allergy and asthma.
Harry, who is about 85 now, is still involved in running a charity in Derby: the Midlands Asthma and Allergy Research Association. It carries out pollen counts, so that people know about the effects of pollen and how it can trigger allergies, which can trigger asthma. He undertook a series of tests on me. He established—which was a bit traumatic at that stage of my life—that I was allergic to hops, malt and brewers' yeast. Some of those listening to the debate will know that those are—with the exception of water—all the
92WH
ingredients in beer. Coming from Derby, just down the road from the brewing centre of the world, Burton-on-Trent, and as a moderate consumer of the finest Bass and Marston's Pedigree, which I still drink on occasion, it was dramatic 13r me, because I had to knock off drinking beer for two or three years.
Later, my asthma became more under control. Harry was keen on pushing the use of the preventers—steroid-based inhalers—that the medical profession at the time said would not work and were useless drugs. However, he put me on one and it has made my asthma eminently more tolerable. My asthma is under control. I think that such medication has made a huge change to asthmatics. However, while one can use preventers or relievers, there is no cure.
Let us consider the public perception of asthma. What do people who are not asthmatic think about it? Well, they think that it is a bit of coughing and wheezing, hacking and barking, and that the sufferer will get over it. Many people think that it is associated with childhood. "You have it as a child," they might say, "but don't worry, when you're 18 or 19, you'll grow out of it." The "Living on a Knife Edge" report illustrates the fact that, in some cases, people with severe asthma are embarrassed by it, because some people think that their breathlessness is something to do with obesity—that could not, of course, apply in my case—lack of exercise and being unfit.
The economic and human costs are immense. Each year, 18 million working days are lost. On average, it takes a week to recover from a severe asthma attack. There are 71,000 more hospital admissions for asthma each year. Asthma costs the NHS about £680 million a year. Emergency hospital admissions for asthma cost the NHS about £46 million every year, and 80 per cent. of that expenditure is spent on the 20 per cent. whose asthma is most severe.
Asthma affects people's relationships and family life. The "Living on a Knife Edge" report—I would recommend that anyone who is interested in the subject reads it—graphically illustrates cases of individuals whose family life has been disrupted, including teachers and people in all sorts of professions. Of those severe asthma sufferers that the report details, 44 per cent. feel that their social life is restricted; in particular, they feel unable to go out to pubs and bars because of the smoky atmosphere. A very graphic statistic is that more than 1,400 people die front asthma each year.
Andrew George: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the excellent case that he is making, drawing on his own experience. I am also grateful to the Minister for attending the launch of the Asthma UK report last week on world asthma day. That was much appreciated.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in supporting early-day motion 1082—which draws attention to the fact that 90 per cent. of asthma deaths are preventable—we need to concentrate not on the failure of the individual but on the need to ensure that asthma is properly managed and understood in both the medical profession and the community, to ensure that fewer preventable deaths from asthma occur?
Mr. Laxton: I could not agree more. I was making the point that the public perception of asthma is that it is to do with unfitness or obesity and that sufferers should go out and get some exercise. The hon. Gentleman is spot on; the public perception is distorted. People do not really understand the effects of asthma unless there is someone with asthma in their household.
Equally, many people, including me, have well-managed asthma. My GP, who looks after me extremely well, runs very effective asthma surgeries and clinics, which I regularly attend. However, many people struggle without knowing what medication is available. They do not get regular checks and are not registered with GP practices that undertake surgeries and clinics specifically to deal with asthmatics. The EDM highlights that. I will be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about the issue.
Mr. David Drew: My hon. Friend makes a cogent case. Like him, I am an asthmatic. What he is saying is crucial as we move to a new generation of medicines. Does he agree that the issue is not just which medicines are available but how people use them? The Government must be attuned to the need for services for people who move on to new medicines, to ensure that they get the full benefit of them.
Mr. Laxton: Again, I could not agree more. There are new medicines and new delivery systems for them. Such systems are crucial, particularly for children and elderly people who sometimes find it difficult to get the correct dosage from some devices. There are mechanisms and pieces of kit that enable the correct dosage to be delivered. That is why it is important that some GP practices raise their game to ensure that their patients are aware of what is available to and appropriate for them and that they have regular check-ups.
What have the Government done and what is their position? A report on allergies has been produced by the Department of Health. It states that they are on the rise, that allergy services need improvement and that the record investment in the NHS should help. A great deal of work has been done by the Food Standards Agency to tackle allergies: better labelling, funding of research to investigate the causes of food allergies, and so on. However, I ask whether that is really enough to tackle asthma.
What do the all-party group on asthma and I think the Government should be doing? Respiratory disease is not included in the Government's national strategy for health. The British Lung Foundation has said that it finds that astounding. It believes that because diseases targeted in the national service framework are better funded, respiratory illness is "doubly disadvantaged".
I would like the Government to invest more in asthma care. Most asthma care is provided through primary care, often in dedicated clinics. However, uptake of such services is poor, at around 3 per cent., and few people have a personal asthma plan, which is important in controlling the affliction they live with. It makes a real difference if people with severe asthma see their specialist or GP at least once a year, even though it costs three times as much to treat a patient with stable asthma as opposed to one whose asthma is more difficult to control.
94WH
We should invest more in asthma research. The Government spend some £3 million a year, which only equals the amount spent by the charitable organisation Asthma UK. We must compare the amount that goes into research with the nearly £50 million spent on emergency hospital admissions for asthma. An even starker comparison would be with the £680 million the NHS spends each year to treat asthmatics. We need to understand what causes asthma so that we can develop better strategies to prevent its onset and provide better treatment for those who continue to suffer from it.
Comprehensive services for asthma care do not exist. They must be developed. There are evidence-based guidelines for the care of asthma, but they remain voluntary. The Government must ensure that they give official support to future guidelines.
Finally, there is one thorny issue about which we, as a nation, must make up our minds. The Government and others, including me, are studying New York's experiment with banning smoking to see what the social, economic and financial fallout will be. Closer to home, some of us are looking closely at what is happening in southern Ireland. So, my final point—there is a big question mark after it, and I shall be more than interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it—is whether we should be somewhat more positive about banning smoking in public places.
11.16 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) on securing the debate and, more important, on taking time to work on asthma and on the all-party group. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) on their work on asthma. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for St. Ives, who is the chairman of the all-party group, missed the reception that I attended last week because his train was held up. I guess that that explains why he was here during the previous debate to make clear to Ministers his views about the train service from his constituency.
When people first become Members of Parliament, they are assailed by invitations to join all-party groups. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North, I decided to concentrate on groups that I thought were worthy. Some time later, I discovered that all my friends were jetting around the world because they had joined the all-party Hawaii group or the all-party Philippines group instead. However, he and I will get our reward in heaven, and his constituents will reward him for his work on behalf of the all-party group on asthma and asthmatics throughout the country.
The Government are making good progress in improving treatment and care for people with asthma, and I welcome the opportunity to put our position. I also warmly endorse my hon. Friend's praise for the work of Asthma UK and its recently published report, "Living on a Knife Edge". I am glad that Asthma UK recognises in that report that Health Ministers do, indeed, take asthma seriously.
I should emphasise that the Government recognise how distressing and debilitating asthma can be for individuals, their carers and their families. It is the most

95WH
common chronic disease in the UK and affects all age groups. I assure hon. Members that we share my hon. Friend's concerns about improving the lives of people living with this condition, and we are taking action in five broad areas.
First, the new general medical services contract includes a specific quality indicator for the treatment and care of people with asthma. It builds on the chronic disease management programme in the existing contract. GP practices must keep records and effectively manage and review patients with asthma to qualify for additional quality payments.
Secondly, new guidance on the appointment of GPs with a special interest in respiratory medicine, including asthma, was published in April 2003. It was written in conjunction with a range of experts, including Asthma UK and the British Thoracic Society. GPs with a special interest have a pivotal role as clinical leads within primary care. They provide clinical expertise and leadership in developing integrated local services that best meet patients' needs. GPs with a special interest in asthma and respiratory disease will carry out consultations with patients who are referred by other practitioners for advice on clinical management. That will help patients by reducing the need to wait for referral to a hospital specialist, and it may help avoid the need for admission to hospital.
Thirdly, a national service framework for children is being developed to set standards for the care of children and young people and ensure that they have access to good-quality care. Those new standards will help to ensure better access to care and a smoother progression in the provision of services for children—from the initial contact with the national health service at a GP's surgery or NHS hospital, through to social services support. Our aim is to enable children to have access to modern health and social care services that are designed to meet their needs and that involve them and their carers in choices about their care. Furthermore, we have agreed that asthma, as one of the most common childhood conditions, will be used as a key exemplar illustrating how the standards should be applied to ensure that services are effective and that they meet children's needs.
Fourthly, the national primary care development team is working to improve primary care for patients with respiratory disease, including asthma, as part of the largest health improvement programme in the world. The team supports front-line primary care clinicians and primary care trust managers in developing skills and techniques to bring about significant improvements in the management of chronic disease for their patients.
Already, the highly successful work of the practices involved in the programme has cut waiting times to see a GP by more than 70 per cent. The programme, which initially involved 20 primary care trusts and 100 practices, is currently being rolled out through the 11 NPDT centres to every primary care trust in the country.
Fifthly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced in March his vision for a new deal for people suffering from long-term chronic diseases such as asthma. Under those plans, specialist teams
96WH
across the country will provide advice, care and treatment for chronic disease. We will launch case management demonstration sites within each strategic health authority.
Central to good chronic disease management is an effective partnership between the patient and the care providers, with the aim of maximising self-care—something that is particularly important for people with asthma. The latter will benefit from the expert patients programme that is currently being piloted in primary care trusts around the country. That provides NHS-based training in self-management skills for people with long-term chronic illnesses.
I think that the five key initiatives that I have outlined will help people with asthma, but in his excellent speech my hon. Friend raised a number of points on which he hoped for additional Government action. For example, he was concerned that respiratory disease does not feature in the Government's national strategy for health. As I have already said, the children's national service framework is using asthma as a key exemplar condition. I assure him that although we are not yet committed to a new wave of national service frameworks, we will, if there are to be more of them, consider the case for asthma.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, the cost of treating asthma absorbs substantial NHS resources. He asked for more investment in services for people with the condition. Although we have not made any extra funding available specifically for asthma services—because we are now shifting the balance of power, and we expect primary care trusts to make local decisions about local priorities—the considerable extra resources that we are investing in the NHS will improve services for all patients, including those with asthma and other respiratory diseases.
My hon. Friend also asked for greater investment in research into the condition. As has already been noted, total Government spending on research into asthma was approximately 3.2 million for 2002–03. However, that is not the full picture. In the previous year—I am sorry that I do not have more recent figures—£12.2 million was spent on research into respiratory disorders overall. The Department of Health is running a £1 million research programme on air pollution and health. The Medical Research Council, which prioritises research on the Government's behalf, is always happy to consider good-quality research projects that are suggested to it.
In addition, the Department manages the national health service research and development programme to deliver improvements in medicine and health, which is undertaken in hospitals, general practice and other health care settings. The Department works closely with Asthma UK on the NHS research and development programme on asthma management, which provides funding to individual projects in hospitals and universities across the country and will receive a grant of £5 million over six years.
My hon. Friend also referred to evidence-based guidelines for the care of those with asthma. Primary care trusts are responsible for commissioning comprehensive services to meet the health needs of the populations that they serve. We expect them to commission services in line with evidence-based good

97WH
practice guidelines. The health care standards, which will be published by the Secretary of State for Health in the summer, will require health care organisations to have systems in place to ensure that treatment and care are based on agreed best practice. Services should be based on what appropriately assessed research evidence has shown provides an effective outcome for patients' needs.
My hon. Friend also added his voice to that of Asthma UK in highlighting smoking as a serious public health issue. He did not call for a ban on smoking in public places, but he asked whether I was prepared to go that far. I am not, at present, because we are having a consultation, and it is not right for Ministers to prejudge consultations, but his views and those of Asthma UK will certainly be taken into account. Smoking is a known trigger for asthma. Around 80 per cent. of people with asthma say that other people's tobacco smoke makes their symptoms worse, so we are working to educate parents about the effects of smoking not only on their health but on that of their children, and to help them give up through our successful smoking cessation programmes. "Smoking Kills", the Government's White Paper on tobacco, includes support for the licensed hospitality industry's charter to improve facilities for non-smokers in pubs, bars and restaurants, as well as consultation on an approved code of practice on smoking in the workplace.
The Government have consistently said that smoke-free enclosed workplaces and public places are the ideal, and have encouraged employers and managers of public places to introduce smoke-free policies. Progress is being made, but we want to see more. We are particularly keen to see more progress from the hospitality sector and look forward to the proposals that they will make later this month when representatives will meet Ministers.
I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, and our constituents, especially those with asthma, will be reassured that the Government are committed to improving the treatment and prevention of asthma in the NHS. I recognise that there is still some way to go, but we are making good progress. My hon. Friend has set out an eloquent and important case for why we must concentrate on the issue—not least because I should not like to keep him from his beer for very long. The more we can do, the more we shall try to do: we can do more and we shall do more.
Progress is being made across the board. I am committed to driving that progress, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other hon. Members, the all-party group and Asthma UK to achieve that goal. It is an important subject, and the Government are determined to put effort and drive into ensuring that there are improvements.
11.28 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Postal Deliveries
2 pm
Mr. Andrew Turner: The Royal Mail Group is in a mess; there is little doubt about that. The number of post offices that have been closed and the number of post offices that remain under threat show that our constituents have reason to be greatly concerned. According to the pre-tax profit figures, Royal Mail made a profit of £750 million in 1997–98. However, in 1999 it made a loss of £184 million, in 2001–02 it made a loss of £1.1 billion, and last year it made a loss of £600 million.
It is not only those loss figures that concern our constituents but the recent changes both to the post office network and to delivery arrangements. I do not intend to spend a lot of time on the post office network, because the Minister and I have exchanged views on that on a number of occasions. I simply wanted to put my concern on the record. I know that many hon. Members share that concern. I have received a letter from Jonathan Sheppard, the prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Bassetlaw, who is worried about the threats to the rural network, and the fact that no guarantees are available for its future.
The Government's policy is that the Post Office should move over to a single delivery. A written answer from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, dated 6 May 2004, reads:

"Once the single delivery changes have been made, the target will be for everybody to receive his or her post by lunchtime. Many households will receive their post at the same time as before; others, however, will receive their post later in the morning."—[Official Report, 6 May 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1730W.]

The single delivery is leading to great inconvenience for both my residential and my business constituents. I have been receiving an increasing number of letters recently and I shall quote from a few of them. Mrs. Janet Carr of Ningwood Hill writes:

"I wonder if you are aware just how discontented your constituents … are with the postal services … We are now getting letters at about 1pm, 2:30pm, 3pm even twenty to four (twice). It is outrageous of the P.O. to say that people don't mind what time their post arrives … We do care, we do have urgent matters to deal with—how can we get a letter at 3:40 and get a reply in the post the same day?"

Mrs. Carr has since informed us that most days she does not receive her post until 2.40 pm. Mr. Terry Nigh of Shanklin writes:

"Our own situation is causing us considerable problems at present. Deliveries over the past two or three years have become more and more erratic but it now appears that the Post Office is hell bent on committing commercial suicide."

Miss Claire Goldsmith of Yaverland writes:

"I feel annoyed about the letter received from Royal Mail about two weeks ago re: changes to mail deliveries. I have no recollection of there being a second daily delivery in Yaverland since 1975 when I became a resident here. Now it appears we will have to accept another inconvenience of one delivery (LATE) but costs remain the same."

99WH
Mr. Paul Garbett of Garbetts Accountants in Brading writes:

"Until recently we had a very good delivery service with a delivery between 9am and 10am every morning … I appreciate that public sector entities need to restructure to meet the competitive challenges of the 21st Century … surely this should only be done in a controlled manner which is going to improve service levels rather than demonstrably reduce them as has happened … In addition to the late delivery times we are also experiencing delays in transit of items in the post."

An example of that is a warning letter to a client about unpaid tax, issued on 21 April 2004 and received on 27 April 2004.

"The time of receipt was after 10 am so it gives less than 24 hours before the loam on 28 April deadline given in the letter. To give someone a seven day warning and then take six days to deliver it seems to be worthy of the best despotic practices from more dubious states".

When I received those letters I wrote to Postwatch on 8 March, and received a reply on 19 March, dated 18 March, saying that the matter had been taken up with the Royal Mail Group. On 6 April, Postwatch wrote to me again, saying that it was

"still waiting for the Royal Mail Group to reply"

to its inquiry. I received that letter on 13 April. On 14 April, I received a reply from Royal Mail, which told the customer—that meant me—that I could expect to receive my post between 9.15 and 9.45 am. However, my concern was not only for myself but for my constituents.
Without writing individual letters on behalf of all my constituents, I could not get answers for my constituency. I therefore tabled a parliamentary question:

"To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make electronically accessible the Royal Mail's estimates of delivery times for the Isle of Wight under the single delivery reforms, broken down by postcode."—[Official Report, 30 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1365W.]

It was clear from the letter that the Royal Mail had sent to me that it could plug in a postcode and bring out a delivery time. The Minister said that he would ask the chief executive to reply, but so far the chief executive has not done so.
I did not realise that this was anything more than a local problem until The Southern Daily Echo newspaper in Southampton carried a report on 26 April headed "Get this chaos sorted say MPs." It referred to one MP who had received nearly 60 complaints from disgruntled residents and was

"now gearing up for a head-to-head meeting with under-fire Royal Mail bosses."

Since I do not speak in Sunspeak, the article reports me as being merely

"staggered when the organisation admitted it could not deal speedily with his inquiries—because the Royal Mail's own reply had become stuck in the postal backlog."

I then raised the matter with the Leader of the House—I did not realise that he used to work for the Union of Communication Workers. He told me that

"most union members argued that the second delivery was a protection to ensure that the first delivery arrived on time."—[Official Report, 29 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1018.]

I suspect that the Minister would agree that it seems extravagant to have staff on stand-by just to ensure that
100WH
they get back in time to deliver a second delivery in which only 4 per cent. of post is delivered. I accept that the Post Office may therefore think that it can use its staff more effectively.
However, I fear that the changes that have been made have been for the benefit more of the staff than of the customers. Customers do not like receiving their letters at lunchtime; most prefer to receive them earlier. Most customers do not like misdeliveries either. I have forgotten the figure—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) will have it—but there are something like 14 million—
Michael Fabricant: 14.5 million.
Mr. Turner: Yes, 14.5 million letters are misdelivered every year. The consequence of late and misdelivered letters is that business orders are cancelled, birthday cards do not arrive on time, operations are missed, appointments are not kept, giros are not received, postmen get a lot of unjustified abuse and their morale is therefore, justifiably, low, and frustration is felt by many.
I shall give two examples of misdeliveries. One is from an adventure holiday firm in Gwynedd, which claims that losing vital mail in the post could have cost the company up to £150,000 in potential business. Rhys Davies of Outlook Expeditions in Bethesda claims that a mailshot campaign reached only half the addresses it targeted. He said:

"Following up leads by phone, we discovered that about half our letters had never arrived … Out of 70 letters, 40 to 50 wouldn't turn up, people were sending them out again and they still wouldn't turn up."

Peter Carr, of Postwatch Wales, said:

"Our message to customers is that if Royal Mail do not know about the problem they cannot fix it."

However, the problem is that customers do not know about the problem of undelivered post either, unless they ring up the person who is supposed to have received the letter and ask them whether they have received it. Most of us have better things to do with our time than that.
My second example is from an article in The Sunday Times of 2 May. It concerns patients in Newtownabbey, who missed hospital appointments because people in neighbouring blocks of flats had received each other's mail for more than a year.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the problems is that when constituents complain to us as their representatives, it is hard for them to prove the non-existence of a letter that they thought that they were going to receive? Often, the Post Office asks questions such as: is the constituent sure that the letter was ever sent? Sometimes, trying to pursue these cases is like trying to convince the Post Office that it needs to deliver to a postal address on Mars.
Mr. Turner: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Being able to persuade someone that a letter has been sent and lost in the post requires all one's ingenuity and credibility.

101WH
Postwatch responded in a letter to The Daily Telegraph on 30 April headed, "The postman only rings once, if at all". That letter was about the pilot schemes that have been undertaken. According to Kay Dixon, the chairman of Postwatch Greater London:

"In east London, the only pilot for Greater London, it became clear that there were major problems, ca using disruption and inconvenience to the local community."

I am sure that the Minister, whose constituency is in east London, will be familiar with that, as will my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), the shadow Minister for London. The letter continues:

"Following discussions and representations, Postwatch Greater London received assurances from the Royal Mail that it had learnt from the experience of the pilot schemes."

Kay Dixon goes on to say:

"We are disappointed that, despite more than two years of planning, the Royal Mail's implementation of single deliveries is causing problems for customers."

Stephen Robinson, also writing in The Daily Telegraph, said:

"In our corner of north-west London we have lost not our second delivery, but our first. The post no longer comes at 8.20 am over the first cup of tea, as it used to, but around noon … We have lost the benefits of overnight mail delivery."

On the evening of 30 April, there was a programme on Channel 4 called "Dispatches". It was partly in response to that programme that I raised that question with the Leader of House. Again, I quote:

"On camera, the programme captured letters lying on the floor, untrained staff wandering lost through the streets as they tried to deliver mail, untrained managers, and working practices reminiscent of the 1970s. One worker tells the undercover reporter that he is working too hard, saying 'make it stretch', meaning he should sort letters more slowly. Managers are alleged to have to pay 'ghost overtime' to get people to work the eight hours they are supposed to, otherwise they go home three-and-a-half hours early. Postal workers are caught on camera playing football in the office, one running a business selling mobile phones and SIM cards while he is supposed to be working, and another allegedly selling counterfeit trainers."

According to a report in The Daily Telegraph on 3 May, residents of Southwark have formed a protest group in response to the quality of service. We have heard about the problems of late delivery, of misdelivery and of sorting offices being used for illicit recreational purposes. Now we move on to the quality of the service. According to the article, several of the victims who spoke to The Daily Telegraph feared reprisals from the criminals involved in the theft of cheque books, credit cards, parcels and letters in what they describe as a "Third World postal service". I will provide brief examples. One person was telephoned by his bank to ask if he had written a five-figure cheque. Another person said that electricity bills and mortgage documents had not arrived for eight months. Someone else had had envelopes embossed with the logo of design houses, such as Change, opened.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on rightly apologising to the House on 6 May, echoing the apologies of the chairman of Postwatch. Among others, the hon. Members for Burnley (Mr. Pike), and for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) intervened to outline the difficulties that they and their constituents had experienced. Adam Crozier, the Royal Mail chief executive, announced the following day that he would take day-to-day responsibility for the letter business.
102WH
I suspect that the problem is that the Royal Mail has been asked to go through a long-overdue change far too quickly and is having difficulty in implementing it—and I ask whether there is a regulatory failure as well. For example, I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 26 March about the times at which postal deliveries were received. The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services replied that the licence granted by Postcomm does not specify the time at which the daily delivery to every household has to be made. Consequently,

"data on delivery percentages at particular times of the day are not available."—[Official Report, 26 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 1110W.]

Earlier this week, it was suggested that money should be withheld from the Royal Mail Group if it failed to meet the delivery time, with which I wholeheartedly concur. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) suggested that a reduction in the managers' salaries would be appropriate, and the Chairman replied that that was a matter for shareholders. But there is only one shareholder: Her Majesty's Government, who are represented in this debate by the Minister, who should respond to his hon. Friend and say who should lose. I hope that it will not be the customer.
I gave notice to the Minister about my final point: the need for guarantees of the resilience of the postal service in the northern and east midlands regions, where all-postal ballots will take place early next month. It is absolutely essential that all the ballot papers—every single on—are delivered to the correct address and that every ballot paper posted back to the returning officer is delivered on time, including those posted by close of play the night before the election.
It is also essential that Postcomm monitors and reports the Post Office response to those requirements very carefully, so that improvements can be made in time for the regional government referendums planned for later this year. I hope that the Minister will guarantee that that will be done.
Anthony Trollope is probably the most famous former employee of the Post Office. In his autobiography, he described

"bringing everywhere with me an earlier, cheaper, and much more regular delivery of letters."

However, we now seem to have returned to pre-Trollopian times, and a horse-and-cart service cannot compete in the electronic age.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not been an employee of the Post Office since 1970.
2.17 pm
Mr. Mark Field: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on securing this important and timely debate. From the Minister's point of view it will perhaps be a difficult debate to respond to, as many of the issues raised will be operational. However, we hope for guidance from his perspective on the strategic importance of Royal Mail and on ensuring rapid improvement.
As my hon. Friend said, there has been a catastrophic catalogue of continuing financial calamity in Royal Mail in recent years, many instances of which, it may be

103WH
churlish of me to point out, have happened since 1997, and the Minister will expect me to concentrate on that, but it cannot be a coincidence that to many of its commercial and residential customers Royal Mail appears recently to have rapidly lost its way. I hope that the Minister will set out a timetable for its improvement in the years ahead.
I represent a central London seat and residential customers are of particular importance to me. Every day, about a million people come to work in my constituency, in hundreds of thousands of businesses, both large and small, that have suffered as a result of the Royal Mail service. I suspect that there is a particular problem in London. My hon. Friend made it clear that there has been a London bias in most of the national press coverage of the issue, although I appreciate that there are problems in the Isle of Wight and across the Solent in Southampton.
The "Dispatches" programme was shocking; all hon. Members appreciate that investigative journalism ensures that we see only the worst, and I often remark to friends who are asked to go on fly-on-the-wall documentaries that for every 30 or 40 hours of footage that is filmed, only a few minutes actually appears on the television screen. Much of the "Dispatches" programme was fairly shocking, though.
I shall mention some anecdotal evidence shortly, but it was apparent to me from the day that I was elected that there was a big problem with post in central London. In my constituency there are many depots, and there were some ongoing cases from my predecessor, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, from constituents who had expressed great concerns about postal services. Those complaints, which have run on for several years, continue. My hon. Friend mentioned Kay Dixon, who does a sterling job as the director of Postwatch in London; I have regular correspondence with her, not only on day-to-day matters, such as those under discussion now, but on the urban reinvention programme.
My constituency has been relatively unscathed by that programme, although there were a number of closures during the latter part of the 1990s, following commercial reorganisations, particularly in the City of London, and in the more commercial areas of my constituency. However, it is fair to say that, in the course of urban reinvention, some post office closures in the countryside have caused great pains to many Members of Parliament of all parties. However, in my constituency, there has been only one closure, on Vauxhall Bridge road. Inevitably, many constituents felt that having a post office so close to hand was very much part of the day-to-day glue of their lives, and wrote in dismay at the closure of that long-standing post office.
My hon. Friend also rightly pointed out that there has been concern about fraud: the Post Office and Royal Mail have clearly been unable correctly to address that, and there is little doubt that a small minority of employees are abusing their position and stealing credit cards and various other items of value. Although most individuals are insured and most banks take the view that that is part and parcel of the problem that they must
104WH
face, it is clear that it is a multi-million pound problem, which I fear has worsened, rather than improved, in recent years.
I should like to put on the record a few examples, although I appreciate that other hon. Members who wish to speak will f resent their own anecdotal evidence, and, I hope, some projected solutions. There is a large delivery office—probably the nearest large delivery office to the House—a fairly long stone's throw away, in the direction of Victoria in Howick place, about half a mile from here. It is a large depot, and most residents of south Westminster needing to get hold of parcels or recorded deliveries. when they are not at home, will go to Howick place, because it is a major sorting centre. I understand that there are problems there, and I am indebted to a number of local residents, particularly Mr. Martin Shaw, who has been in touch with me on this matter.
Only last week, some 18 postmen from Howick place depot failed to turn up to deliver because of a works do the previous night. We probably all understand that, after Christmas parties in our own offices, attendance is not perhaps what it might be, but apparently that was not a one-off affair. As a result, casuals were called in, many of whom had not delivered in the area before, so they were dismissed immediately; only casuals who had delivered before were used. Many people in the immediate vicinity of Buckingham gate and Artillery row did not have post delivered that day. Many residents in the Ashley gardens area have not had post for several days, and residents are now making special arrangements with the local post office to pick up their mail directly from the sorting office in Howick place. It is obviously a major problem, which underlines the concerns that were set out in the Channel 4 programme to which I referred.
Some of the more major problems involve businesses. All Members of Parliament know that an increasing, and often perhaps a distressing and irritating amount of our mail arrives electronically rather than through the post. It is fair to say that many businesses can run on that basis. I suspect that a significant number of businesses in my constituency that are in the media industry rely very much on virtual and electronic delivery of messages and the like, so they have less of a day-to-day concern about the operation of Royal Mail. However, that is not always the case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight referred to an accountancy firm in his constituency. This morning, I received a letter from a constituent, Mr. Franks, who is a partner in a small Mayfair-based accountancy firm called Badger Hakim. With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote in full one of his concerns. He says that his business and doubtless the business of other companies operating in the area is being jeopardised by the "appalling service" of the Royal Mail. He says that accountancy firms such as his

"are required to deal with numerous regulatory deadlines, not least, the payment of VAC on time, the payment of PAYE on time, the payment of personal and corporate taxes on time, the delivery of documents according to specific time scales set by law or other regulations. In all of there matters, our business in common with every other business in the UK, and every resident in the UK relies completely upon the Roy al Mail to deliver documents. These documents include payments… official forms and other important correspondence."

105WH
As a result, there is a feeling that the failure of Royal Mail is completely unacceptable.
I understand that one client of the firm received an incorrect determination from the Inland Revenue—and we all know the importance of getting things right with the Inland Revenue, or indeed Customs and Excise. The Inland Revenue has entered a county court summons for the collection of approximately £1 million of tax against the taxpayer, whose real liability is no more than £10,000. He has paid the proper amount of tax and, without getting into the intricacies of the case, I understand that forms that were sent from the accountants' office a week ago have still not arrived. The problem, as my hon. Friend said, is not only with arrival but with the delivery of documents from certain parts of central London. The client cannot enter a defence against the county court summons without the forms being submitted to the Inland Revenue.
The Minister will see that that is a grave problem for anyone in the business community. I hope that he will give considerable thought to the concerns that are being set out. I appreciate that many of them relate to day-to-day operations, but he has made a statement in the House on Post Office matters in recent weeks or months. As my hon. Friend said, Adam Crozier, the Royal Mail chief executive, has made a pledge to take much more day-to-day control of the situation. However, I should be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the longer-term future. Where does he see Royal Mail going in the years ahead?
In the mid-1990s, when my party was in government, there were proposals for privatisation, but the actions of many Back Benchers in the Conservative party ensured that we did not take that route. There is a grave danger because, in essence, the past 10 years have been entirely wasted. There is no sense of a strategy on what the organisation should be doing, other than trying jealously to protect its monopoly. Inevitably, there are commercial pressures in relation to many parcel deliveries and the all-embracing threat to the letters market from electronic mail.
Where does the Minister believe that the Royal Mail will be in 20 or 30 years' time? What sort of market must it appeal to? How will its profitability be affected? Those are strategic decisions. Inevitably, it would be wrong of the Minister to step on the toes of those who have been charged with fulfilling the responsibilities, but I hope that he, too, has at least some vision of where the service should go.
It is a great tragedy that 164 years after the beginning of a universal postal service in this country, many individuals and businesses needing letters and parcels urgently delivered are turning to pre-1840 solutions. They have to organise for delivery privately because they cannot rely on a service of which we should be and have been rightly proud. There is little doubt that our mail service has been a template for those that have developed in other countries, but I fear that many of those nations have a more reliable service than we currently do.
I hope that the Minister will give some thought to my words and those of other hon. Members present, to ensure that we have the rectification required, so that we can be proud of our mail service in the years ahead.
2.31 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on securing the debate. As he well recognised and eloquently put it, it is an important issue.
The situation in Wales is not good. Some five of the seven postcode areas covering more than 75 per cent. of Wales failed to meet their minimum targets for delivery of first class mail according to figures recently issued by the Royal Mail Group. The statistics reveal that the NP postcode covering Newport, LD covering Llandrindod Wells, CF covering Cardiff, SA covering Swansea and SY covering Shrewsbury and mid-Wales all fell below their minimum targets for next-day delivery of first class post in the first three quarters of the 2003–04 financial year.
Needless to say, those figures are disappointing and speak for themselves. The majority of postal users in Wales are getting a sub-standard postal service. At the end of last year, seven areas were meeting some of their targets, but most were not and a great deal more should be done in Wales. Plaid Cymru thinks that postal services should come under the authority of the Welsh Assembly Government. That would not exclude managerial autonomy, but it would introduce some democratic accountability.
The National Assembly has helped to arrest the decline of rural post offices. It recently announced a £1.1 billion fund to support 11 post offices throughout south Wales from Abercwmboi and Abertridwrr to Mountain Ash and Merthyr Tydfil. There is a problem with post offices closing down. An elderly lady who ran a part-time post office in Mallwyd in my constituency gave 10 months' notice that she was giving it up. The local garage proprietor, who had run his business for three years, with a turnover of about £1.7 million a year from the garage, café and shop, applied for the post office franchise. Despite three requests, he was ignored and ultimately given a flat rejection by the people in power. I intervened and asked why. Breaching confidence, as one would expect an amateur outfit to do, the Post Office said that it was not sure whether he was responsible enough. I said, "Responsible? With all that money flowing through his business? He is very responsible. I know him personally." I had a row with Ms Carol Davies of the Post Office. She went on sick leave and he was subsequently given the right to run the post office.
If anyone tells me that there is no underlying scheme to close down rural post offices, they are daydreaming, because there definitely is. I have seen it so many times, and good luck to the National Assembly for recognising the problem. Despite the matter not being devolved, the Assembly recognises the importance of having a good rural post office system.
Michael Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the situation is even worse than that? The current system of Government funding for rural post offices throughout the United Kingdom ends in 2006. Whereas at the end of last year it was expected that money would be announced to see post offices beyond 2006, rural postmasters and postmistresses, and, more importantly,

107WH
perhaps, their customers, are still waiting to hear from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I was going to mention that, but shall not now. The £301 million of funding, or whatever the amount was, finishes at the end of April 2006. I am sure that the Minister will give some assurances on that funding because the hardworking men and women who run the sub-post offices deserve it. How else can they plan for the future? I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that intervention.
Here are some facts about the Royal Mail Group. A £55 million profit was made in the six months to September 2003. The chairman of the board, Allan Leighton, is now proposing to donate £1 million to London's bid to host the Olympic games in 2012. Some may say that it is an abuse of his position to spend customer's money in that manner, particularly when Royal Mail is cutting staff to save costs. Surely £1 million would be better spent on enhancing its services.
The profits confirm the union's view that Royal Mail has talked up the plight of the industry and exaggerated its losses to justify a cost-cutting strategy and make the need for restructuring appear more urgent than it is. The postal industry continues to expand. Mail volumes continue to grow and, in many areas, work force productivity has increased.
Last year, Wales lost the travelling post offices network. Management did not even place a tender for mail dispatches to and from Cardiff airport. So the mail for south and west Wales is now transported by road from Bristol airport by Bristol staff. All mail from mid-Wales and north Wales is conveyed by road to towns in England for processing. I am not making a political point, but a common-sense one. Surely mail processing should be done nearer home. The Royal Mail plans to reduce the number of mail centres in the UK. That will inevitably mean greater concentration away from mid-Wales towards Wolverhampton and Birmingham, making later deliveries and the concentration of mail from mid-Wales further east probable.
The official consumer watchdog, Postwatch Wales, published a report earlier this year that claimed that most of the 14.5 million domestic letters that are lost each year are delivered to the wrong addresses. That figure of 14.5 million is Royal Mail's estimate and some say that it may well be conservative. A recent MORI survey of 2,000 people carried out for Postwatch found that householders are becoming so used to the problem of late and wrongly delivered mail that they do not complain. However, the point has been made, and I think that I should reiterate it, that, if we are moving towards postal votes, that situation clearly has to be put right. Otherwise, we are, among other things, undermining democracy.
During the last Assembly elections, I know for a fact that 11,000 leaflets with the election addresses of Plaid Cymru candidates on them were not delivered in Conwy, but were found in a sorting office in Chester after the election. An apology was forthcoming, but that was not very useful to candidates who lost by a couple
108WH
of hundred votes. That happened in another two constituencies in Wales, so there is cause for concern. I am not a union basher, but I wonder whether it can be persuaded to be a bit more careful with election addresses, particularly those of our party.
Of course, I appreciate that mail delivery is a difficult job, especially in rural areas, and that the universal delivery that we have all been led to believe will happen for ever may well be under threat. In June 2002, the Secretary of State was pleased to announce a liberalisation, which she supported, of the bulk mail market. She cited the experience of Germany, but I am not altogether sure whether that is a cause for universal acclaim because, at the end of the day, Deutsche Telekom, Deutsche Post, TPG Post and others may well be eyeing up the market with a view to cherry-picking some of it. Inevitably, in a cherry-picking situation, other services will have to go by the board. I am not a Europhobe, but I am concerned about other companies coming into the market and cherry-picking, which might leave the universal service obligation in tatters.
I represent a rural seat and am very concerned about so-called liberalisation. I hope that the Minister can slow down the process because it seems to be going hell for leather. I understand the benefits that greater commercial freedom can bring, but the Communication Workers Union and I are saying, "For heaven's sake, let's slow the process down to see how it is working; otherwise we might be heading for a disaster." I repeat what was said earlier on whether the Government have a vision for the Royal Mail: I am afraid that we are heading as quickly as we can towards commercial freedom and competition that may be unfair.
I reiterate the point raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about the subsidy. One of the most notable components of the postal service is the universal service obligation. Are its days numbered? Rural Wales is already quite badly affected. For example, I used to be able to guarantee that the post would be delivered to my home before 8.30 every morning; now, it never arrives before 9.45 am, when I have long since departed.
More to the point, commercial entities and professional firms such as accountants and solicitors in Dolgellau, Bala and various other places in my constituency now have to wait until at least 10 or 10.30 am to receive a delivery. Often the practice among lawyers who did court work, as I did, was to deal with the post first and then leave the office at about 9 or 9.20. That is no longer possible, so making life far more difficult. It is hard for those lawyers to deal with urgent inquiries, which, believe it or not, still come by post rather than by electronic means. That means that such firms, even in rural areas, will turn in droves towards document exchange, which will further undermine the service and imperil the universal service obligation.
The vast majority of firms in Wales are in the small and medium-sized enterprises sector. It has been estimated that 90 per cent. of all employees in Wales work in the SME sector. That is a huge chunk. Many of those people live in smaller towns and rural areas. They will suffer—indeed, they are already suffering. Some people in my constituency do not even get a delivery by 11.30 or 11.45 am, and it is likely that that will get worse. I certainly cannot see that it will get any better in the light of the cherry-picking.

109WH
The definition of "urban" in the urban reinvention programme needs to be clarified. For example, Upper Cwmtwrch in the south Wales valleys is apparently urban, but Lower Cwmtwrch is not. On a serious note, the definition refers to

"a settlement of 10,000 population".

What is a settlement? The population along the Meirionnydd coast is about 10,000. Is that a settlement? The scheme has almost been completed in Wales, but we have had to contend with that complication.
I recently spoke to Mr. Eifion Pritchard, the chair of Postwatch Wales, who reminded me of other concerns. What is to happen to the rural network after April 2006? I am talking about the £300 million to which I referred. I want an assurance on that. There is also the issue of definitive Welsh and Scottish stamps. Many thousands of people in Wales signed petitions last year calling for such stamps. They are being produced, but the problem is that they can only be purchased in loose form, not in booklet form. The Royal Mail says that there is not enough demand for them. It does not shock me to know that there is no demand for them if people cannot buy them in booklet form. I ask the Government to bring some pressure to bear on that situation in Scotland and Wales if they can. It seems a very simple thing to do.
I hope that the Minister will deal with my points in detail and, if he cannot, I ask respectfully if he will write to me about them.
Mr. Adrian Flook rose—
Lembit Öpik rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will manage to fit both hon. Members in, but only if they are quick.
2.46 pm
Lembit Öpik: In a spirit of cross-party friendship, and in case I forget to tell the hon. Gentleman when I intend to visit his constituency, I will endeavour to be quick.
I would like to say how extraordinarily impressed I am with the overall performance of the Post Office through the years. It really is some achievement to create a system so effective that, on the whole, it can deliver a letter pretty reliably from one end of the country to its destination at the other at relatively low expense. I am also impressed by the individual commitment of those who work for the Post Office.
As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) rightly said, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that we can all bring to bear in this discussion. A couple of examples of particularly impressive service come to mind in my area. For example Mr. and Mrs. Jones, who run a care home called Bryn y Graig, were receiving post at their house despite the atrocious condition of the road leading to it. Ultimately, the post office van actually broke its sump in an effort to get to the house. Another example is the feeling one gets from visiting postal workers at Christmas time. While everyone else is settling into the festive spirit, they are working at 5 or 5.30 in the morning, often in very cold conditions, to ensure that the Christmas post arrives on time.
On the whole, the criticisms that we may have of the Post Office cannot be levelled at the overwhelming majority of staff who work there. Nevertheless there are
110WH
issues. We have already well rehearsed the problems of non-delivery. Once again, let us remember that while the percentage of letters lost or not delivered on time is relatively small, it is very important to those who are receiving late post or not receiving it at all. I have had recent business dealings with the NatWest bank in Newcastle upon Tyne and one of its staff, Diane Simpson, probably would not mind my mentioning her frustration at the changes to the postal service. They seem to be delaying the arrival of post and making it more difficult for her to do her job as she used to when she could rely on the post arriving earlier.
A fellow called Oswald Pugh spoke to me as recently as last weekend about the non-arrival of post, which was another incentive for me to come and speak here today. He sent a recorded delivery letter about a speeding ticket he received, and there seems to be no evidence of its having arrived. I should warn that it may not turn out to be the Post Office's fault, but the fact that that is one of the lines of questioning shows a need for the Post Office to reassure people that it will improve its standards of delivery in relation to that small proportion of letters that go amiss.
In defence of the Post Office, I must remind people that we must recognise the economic pressures that have been forced on it. Without going into too much detail—we have discussed the matter before—let me say simply that the Government have been over-zealous in the privatisation of some services, and almost dogmatic in their demands for the creation of a greater competitive environment. Let us remember, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has pointed out, that private companies will cherry-pick the most profitable elements and leave the rest to the existing postal service. That simply drives down the profits on the mandatory services that it must provide. It is a great shame that that is taking place.
Incidentally, I too had an experience with leaflets going astray at election time. Leaflets selling the benefits of voting for me were delivered in error in a neighbouring constituency. That was distressing for me, but it would be difficult to measure how distressing it was for those members of the public who received my leaflets in error, and realised after the election that they were not to be represented by me after all. I never put a claim in for that, but something might come in the future, in our litigious society.
What can be done about all that? I am interested in hearing from the Minister how he and the Government intend to ensure that the Post Office is not put under unreasonable competitive pressure. In other words, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that cherry-picking does not make it impossible for the Post Office to maintain a universal service at a reasonable price. It would not be acceptable for the Minister to say that that is a matter for the free market, as the Post Office is an essential service, never more so than in rural areas such as Montgomeryshire.
The other thing that I hope to get from this debate probably cannot be provided by the Minister but by the powers that be who read these debates. I hope that they will give some indication as to how they intend to ensure that standards are improved. I stress again that the standards are extremely high. There is a very low level —

111WH
a tiny, minuscule level—of criminality in the Post Office. Nevertheless, the service could be improved by making it easier for the public to make a complaint and by treating complaints with great seriousness. When a letter of mine—once again, to NatWest—was delayed recently, I felt that I was brushed off by the Post Office. I was told that there were all kinds of restrictions before I could make a complaint—cold comfort when one has paid in advance for a service that has not been provided.
We all benefit from having an advanced postal service. Perhaps Britain has to pay the cost of having had, as far as I know, the first postal service in the world. Modernising is more difficult for those who go first. Nevertheless, the Minister has an opportunity to give us some specifics as to how he will give the Post Office the latitude to maintain a universal service. After this debate, I shall be watching my postbag for what the Post Office itself can proactively offer in the interests of the collective postal good.
2.53 pm
Mr. Adrian Flook: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on his diligence in securing this debate. His diligence is matched only by that of the excellent and hard-working local postmen and women in the Taunton constituency. My home is only 100 or 200 yards from the sorting office on Chip lane, as it is known. I often see the postmen and women as they cycle back, wearing the helmets that they have been obliged to wear as of last June. I am on at least waving terms with the vast majority of them, and I know that they go out in all weather.
It is important that I acknowledge in this Chamber that in my area, the problem is not local. It appears that the problem is the lateness of postal deliveries to Taunton; I know that from my constituency office. I was there on Monday morning when the chap who normally delivers the mail that comes down from my Westminster office arrived—all mail addressed to Adrian Flook MP is directed straight through to Taunton via the House of Commons. That mail is now consistently not arriving in Taunton until after 12 o'clock. The postman is as exasperated as are my two diligent members of staff. They cannot begin their working day properly until they see all the post.
The Post Office is not helping itself in Taunton. It is at this difficult time, the very month when working practices have changed so much that the local sorting office is in huge turmoil, that the Post Office, which is part of Royal Mail and which we as taxpayers all own, has announced that it will sell the Crown post office to Spar, which will then operate eight counters for the same number of hours, if not more—we were told that it would be open on Saturday afternoon. We acknowledge that the Post Office is trying to improve the quality of service, but somehow I doubt that that will happen.
Some lady in Watford or further afield has decided that the main post office on Fore street in Taunton should be given to the private sector. There is no problem with that in itself, except that she has not realised that, day in and day out, queues snake around the large concourse in front of the eight counters. If Spar
112WH
plans to sell various kinds of chocolates, crisps, sandwiches and soft drinks in the shop, where will the people go? Will they snake around the aisles? Or, as happened recently, will they fall out on to the street, which is the busiest in the centre of Taunton? Where will the people queue to get their first and second-class stamps, car licences, postal orders and pensions?
What is particularly reprehensible is that the decision has been taken before we have received our network reinvention in Taunton. The Post Office is saying that everything is fine, that it has sorted out the local post offices and that anything else going on in or around Taunton does not matter. Network reinvention was supposed to be introduced in March this year, but has now been put back to June and possibly later. The Minister kindly wrote to me to inform me that June was the date, but I hear now that there has been some slippage. We know that Post Office Ltd. is selling our Crown post office from under us and giving it to Spar to operate. The Minister may not be able to respond today, but I hope that he can answer the written question that I have tabled on it. The main point is that the population of Taunton is being asked to be understanding about the changes, but the Post Office is making life difficult for everyone who uses the main post office.
I have received many letters on the subject, notably one from Trevor Spurway, a highly regarded architect who spends £5,000 a year on sending letters. We do not get a second post, so Mr. Spurway expects to receive his letters punctually early in the morning so that his staff can reply to the letters, pay the bills that he receives and, more importantly, cash the cheques for the money that he is owed. He has been told that if he wants a service by 8.30, he can go and collect his mail. Well, that is great, because if he and all the other small businessmen in Taunton, of which there are hundreds, all turn up at the sorting office in Chip lane, with all the bicycling postmen coming back after delivering their rounds, there will be one heck of a crash as all the cars drive into Chip lane.
The service counter is about 6 ft wide, so that system will not work, yet local businessmen are dependent on the cheques that they receive in the mail. It beggars belief that we are following a system suggested by a lady from Watford or somewhere else. We were told that it would be fine to get rid of the main post office because the new accommodation would have physical attributes worthy of what we had before. The same has happened with our sorting office, which has been undermined as well.
I am sorry for the hard-working Post Office employees, particularly those in the main post office who will be laid off if they do not want to be employed by Spar at a lower wage. All that they can do is to go to Bridgwater or Tiverton. I am sure that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) will say that the same thing is happening to his post office, which is appalling. In the view of everyone in this country, particularly those in Taunton and the rest of Somerset, the Post Office is rapidly going downhill.
2.59 pm
Brian Cotter: The debate has been wide-ranging, both geographically and otherwise. We have had contributions from rural Wales, and from towns and cities including London. We should congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on securing the debate. All the different parts of the country are represented.

113WH
Anyone who saw the recent "Dispatches" report on television will recognise the importance of such a debate in addressing the challenges facing Royal Mail. In working to improve the quality of service offered, we need in particular to restore public faith in the company and ensure its long-term viability. I was intrigued by the suggestion that after sending a letter, we would have to phone the people at the other end to make sure that they had got it. I am sure that BT would be pleased about that, but I am not sure that I am.
Hon. Members have raised the problems for business; with my particular interests in Parliament, I am concerned about such issues. There have been late cheques and lost orders. There can also be all manner of trouble in connection with personal matters. If people do not get letters, birthday cards or anniversary cards, they may phone and and say, "Forgotten me again, have you?" One has to say that one has sent the card, which then dribbles in. By that time, words have been exchanged.
The Channel 4 programme exposed an awful lot of concerns about fraud and theft, particularly in London. Viewers will have been shocked by the images and by claims that organised criminal gangs have been involved. The programme exposed incompetence and untrained, ill-managed deliverers. The long established postal workers are extremely competent, but training levels nowadays are perhaps not always what they should be.
It is evident that the Royal Mail must change in practice and drastically improve its service. For thousands of hard-working, honest postal workers, particularly since the exposure of that programme, I am sure that the present situation is a grave disappointment. The reputation of the Royal Mail has been tarnished. Speaking personally, my post in my village in the constituency of Weston-super-Mare is delivered well. Perhaps I am the exception to the rule. I am left thinking, "This chap turns up, he is good and very nice"—but is the chap at the other end equally good? I am sending stuff in the other direction, so that is a concern. One may be lucky, as I am, in having a good service, but what happens elsewhere is also important.
In the long run, we need an open investigation with a much wider remit to consider the day-to-day workings of the Royal Mail, to ensure that they are examined and to improve the quality of service, which we all rightly demand. We also need a coherent and long-term Government strategy on how we can secure Royal Mail's future in the face of an increasingly liberalised market, and we should bear in mind that the company will be open to full competition from April 2007. To achieve that, it is imperative that the Government work together with Royal Mail's management and workers to address some of the challenges that the company faces.
First, we must recognise that there is no quick fix for addressing the problems of a public company that was starved of investment for years. For many years, there seemed to be paralysis and a freeze on doing anything about that, so we are faced with this situation today. There were years of underinvestment in staff training and technology. Adam Crozier, the Royal Mail chief executive, outlined the seriousness of the situation last week when he told a BBC breakfast programme that, in
114WH
terms of investment, Royal Mail is years behind its main rivals, Dutch and German competitors TPG and Deutsche Post.
Royal Mail has also suffered greatly as a result of unofficial strike action, and that needs to be addressed. Wildcat strikes are not acceptable in this day and age. To be fair, we must acknowledge the fact that it is such strikes that have prevented the company from meeting some of its delivery targets. That has contributed to the imposition of fines and to the general perception of the Royal Mail.
As many hon. Members have mentioned, there is a tremendous impact on small firms. I know from my personal experience of dealing with firms how much they depend on the post arriving. I own up to the fact that over many years, a long time ago when I was running my own business, there were occasions when I would be waiting for a cheque to arrive before rushing to the bank to get it through the door in time to keep my balance—
Mr. Turner: Solvent?
Brian Cotter: Solid, or in trim. I attest to that. There must be a case for the Minister to deal with unofficial action. I hope that the new management are trying to examine relations between the work force and Royal Mail.
The problems that Royal Mail has been experiencing in recent months, which colleagues have very adequately addressed, including the losses from the unofficial action that I referred to, huge fines, and outdated equipment are all weakening the company's ability to provide the full liberalisation of the postal service next year. Although it is welcome that Royal Mail is in profit again for the first time in two years, we must ask ourselves for how long that is sustainable, given the current problems faced by the company in the light of the introduction of full competition.
As a result of the liberalisation programme, many EU member states are already considering the position of their national provider in the face of increasing competition and the likely rationalisation in the European market. The Government will have to consider where future investment in Royal Mail will come from. In the face of increasing competition it is likely that it will, perhaps, need to enter into the financial markets to retain that finance. If it does not receive investment in future, that will also weaken the position of the organisation's employees, who are rightly concerned about their future.
I shall conclude now, because we should give the Minister time to respond to this well chosen debate, as there are serious issues to consider. The days of Postman Pat seem long behind us, although I pay tribute, as we all do, to individual postal workers. The concept of putting something in the postbox and then thinking, "That's that—done and dusted", confident that it would come out at the other end, seems to have gone out of the window.
We used to rely on the little tabs on letterboxes saying when the next collection was due. I wonder how efficient the Minister considers those to be. I wonder, too, whether we can rely on special delivery, for which I believe that people can pay extra. I hope that the

115WH
Minister will have some figures on that—if not today, later. Perhaps those of us who are prepared to dip into our pockets occasionally for a special delivery will get that service. There must be facts and figures for the percentage of special delivery items that are delivered on time, or delivered at all.
Now I shall leave it to the Minister to address those issues—the future of Royal Mail, which is so important to us, the improvements that are needed, and its viability for the future. We look forward to his answers.
3.8 pm
Michael Fabricant: The Royal Mail Group is in a mess. So said my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), who must be congratulated on securing this debate. Sadly, every single speaker has had to confirm that.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Flook) and many other hon. Members said that many postal workers do a very good job. They work hard and are responsible, but they are being let down by a small minority.
A number of colleagues have mentioned the "Dispatches" programme, the subject of which is a disgrace. I remember that many years ago I used to supply broadcasting equipment to Gosteleradio in Moscow. We could not send anything by post to the Soviet Union. Occasionally I would send the latest Beatles album in the post, but I would find that it had been nicked by postal workers. That is not the sort of thing that we ever expected to see happening here in the United Kingdom, yet if the "Dispatches" programme is to be believed, it is not Beatles albums that are being nicked, but far more valuable things. There is no excuse for that.
A number of colleagues have also spoken about the network reinvention programme. I think that all hon. Members accept that all the 9,000 urban post offices cannot be sustained. However, considerable alarm has been expressed by hon. Members of all parties in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber about the manner in which the network reinvention programme is being implemented. Mark Fox, the prospective Conservative party parliamentary candidate for Great Yarmouth has expressed grave concern about four closures that are happening in that town, where the Post Office says that post offices that are closer than one mile from each other are ripe for closure. Yet, it does not take into account the elderly population in Great Yarmouth and other areas, and the natural obstacles that often exist between different post offices.
Hon. Members have also spoken about the 14.5 million items of mail that have gone missing from the Post Office during the past year. Six and a half million of those were lost and 8 million were misdelivered. I am delighted that Adam Crozier, who did a first-class job as chief executive of the Football Association, has decided, as chief executive of the Royal Mail Group, that he will take personal control over that issue. While I do not expect the Minister to take personal control, I expect the Government to accept some responsibility. We must never forget that the Royal Mail Group is one of the
116WH
remaining nationalised industries in the United Kingdom where the Government hold 100 per cent. of the shares, appoint the chairman and have a major influence on the names of the directors who are appointed to the main board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight mentioned his concern regarding all-postal ballots, which the Government are so keen to promote. We heard from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) about election addresses going missing and from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire about their being sent to the wrong constituencies. That was bad enough, but what if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said, ballot papers do not arrive with electors? What if the ballot papers that do arrive do not appear with the returning officer in time and such votes cannot be counted? It is most important that the Minister, as a Minister of the Crown, makes representations and gives a clear undertaking today that the very process of democracy in the United Kingdom will not be damaged by the unreliability of the current postal service.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy also raised the question of the Government's vision for the Royal Mail Group. Last Thursday, when I asked the Minister's boss, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, what vision she had regarding its future governance, it appeared that she had none. One merely has to read Hansard to see that there is no vision, or if she has one, it dare not speak its name, because she was not prepared in the past, or on that occasion, to state what it is. Yet, it is true to say that the Royal Mail Group cannot continue as it is at present.
A number of hon. Members, including myself, mentioned rural post offices. There are 9,000 such post offices in the United Kingdom at present. Postwatch estimates that if the £150 million a year grant from the Treasury to the Royal Mail Group ceases at the end of April 2006, 7,000 of them will close. We have read in the press that there is every chance, because of Labour Back Benchers' fears that they might lose their seats at the next election, that the Government will provide that funding. However, it was promised at the end of last year, and I hope that the Minister will use this opportunity to say precisely where it will come from.
The main point of this debate was the question of late deliveries. If I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will quote from a letter that I received from a leading financial adviser in the west midlands. He did not want the name of his company mentioned, for fear that some letters would go missing. He said:

"Since 1987 our Post has invariably arrived between 8.00 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. Therefore, staff have been recruited and work rosters set, so that the Mail might be attended to immediately.

However, in March, with no consultation and after only two weeks notice, our Postal deliveries started to arrive around 12.30 p.m. This was an impossible scenario because our staff were left under-employed during the morning shift.

We, therefore now have to send two staff to collect our Post each day, which is not actually ready until 8.45 a.m., when Postal Delivery staff leave the Sorting Office. Is this progress?"

He continues:

"How can this country compete with its European and American neighbours with this ante diluvian development?

117WH
Adam Crozier said that it is Royal Mail's aim to deliver the first post—the only post—in the morning. He accepts that changing rosters have caused a problem. Problems have also arisen because those new rosters mean that post workers do not know their beat. The Communication Workers Union has also stated that there has been insufficient training for postal workers.
I received a copy of an illuminating letter, which begins:

"Dear James,

As you know the Royal Mail has decided to get rid of the second delivery. As a result, all rounds have been increased from an hour and a half to three hours, sometimes with bizarre results.

In Edith Grove, we used to have the best postman in the business. His name was Mike Collier, known to his colleagues as 'Loon', for reasons I never understand; there was nothing Loony about him! I have never known a postman like him. He knew everybody in all the streets he served, he knew everyone's little foibles … he was always good-humoured, he was fast, and as a postman he was faultless. I always knew he was on holiday because I did not receive my own post, and yet received lots of post for other people.

A week or two before Easter he went on holiday, and temporary postmen came. But when he came back, they had put him on another round … last week we had a new man who we were told would be our 'regular'. Still I got post which was not mine, still my own post didn't arrive, or if it did, it arrived damaged or opened; on Thursday, nobody in the street received post, as far as I can make out. A week or so ago, a parcel was put on to the dustbin housing of the house next door. I assumed it was theirs. Some days later, a neighbour asked what it was, so I went to investigate—and found that it was post that should have been delivered to my house. It was clearly addressed, but the postman had simply not bothered. When my new credit card did not arrive on Friday, the last day of my old one, I went to speak to the manager.

While I was there, someone else came in, from 11 Edith Grove; he runs a business, and was up in arms about the situation. The manager told us that the problem was the unions, that routes had to be worked out on computer and then agreed with the unions, and he could do nothing about it."

The writer goes on and on. It is not boring, but sadly I cannot read it all because I will not allow enough time for the Minister to answer all those important points.
I hope that the Minister will answer those points, because Ministers—not necessarily this Minister, but his colleagues—reply to more and more parliamentary questions about the Post Office with, "This is not a matter for me. It is a matter for Postcomm and the Royal Mail." That simply is not good enough. The Government must accept some responsibility for the Royal Mail; they cannot shirk that. They are the 100 per cent. shareholder in the Royal Mail Group and they have to approve the appointment of the chairman.
I hope that the Minister will accept some responsibility on behalf of the Government, and that he will accept that businesses and private customers are suffering from late deliveries or deliveries that simply never happen. I hope that he will agree that the disruption to the mail just cannot continue. Our democracy itself could be endangered by electors not receiving ballot papers and returning officers not receiving returned ballot papers in time. I hope that he will set out how Royal Mail, in partnership with its owners, the Government, will restore itself to become the beacon of excellence that it once was.
3.19 pm
The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms): I, too, start by congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on securing the debate. It is an important and timely debate, and I welcome the opportunity to air some very serious matters.
The performance of Royal Mail has been sharply criticised recently, and rightly so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, on behalf of the Government, apologised for the problems. All the specific problems that have been mentioned need to be addressed and Royal Mail management will see all the specific and local points that have been made. There are, without question, problems.
However, I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for reminding the House about the fact that, for the most part, the organisation continues to do a good job while at the same time rolling out one of the biggest restructurings ever undertaken by a British business. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) made that point about his local service, and my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) spoke in another debate about the excellent and recently improved service that she has received.
There are certainly serious problems in many constituencies. Royal Mail has held up its hand and acknowledged those, and it is working hard to resolve them and get the service back to the level that its customers demand. I well understand, as does Royal Mail, how important that is for both domestic and business customers.
At the beginning of 2002, Royal Mail was losing more than £1 million every working day. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) suggested rather half-heartedly that that was connected with the change of Government in 1997. To his credit, he was apologetic about making that point. He was right to apologise about it, because that was certainly not what the problem was. He was on stronger ground in pointing to the competition with e-mail and the wider growth of competition in the postal services market. It was clear that losses could not be allowed to continue.
We took action to put things right. We appointed Allan Leighton as chairman, to provide leadership and to turn the company around. We have further strengthened the board since then and we agreed a three-year renewal plan that put in place a financial package of more than £1 billion to support its implementation. We are just into the final year of the plan. At the latest half-year, Royal Mail posted a very small operating profit of £3 million before tax. That is encouraging, but it is clear that the turnaround to sustainable profitability is not yet complete. The final year, which we are now into, is crucial as major changes are made to how the business operates.
There have been problems, as contributions to the debate and recent media coverage have shown. Royal Mail has not met its quality of service targets. It still delivers more than 90 per cent. of first class letters the next day, but it accepts that that proportion is not good enough. It needs to be at the higher levels that we saw in the past.

119WH
As we heard, a key element is the move to a single delivery. It is, to the company's customers, by far the most visible change, and its introduction has certainly been accompanied by some problems. The UK is one of the last places to have more than one delivery a day, and that must change if Royal Mail is to be competitive. Royal Mail delivers more than 82 million items to up to 27 million addresses. The amount of mail for daily delivery today is about the same as the highest Christmas peak was 30 years ago. The number of addresses to which delivery is made has also increased significantly. As a result, the pressure on early-morning deliveries has increased hugely.
By contrast, improvements in mail sorting technology and distribution networks mean that second delivery was, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight said, required for only 4 per cent. of mail, but the cost of providing that service was about 20 per cent. of total delivery costs. Clearly that could not continue.
The change to single delivery means a later start on some routes, in order to sort mail for delivery and put it into route order. As hon. Members have said, the aim is to deliver to the majority of customers by lunchtime. The change is a huge undertaking, but the single delivery has been introduced in three quarters of all delivery offices—1,100 out of 1,450. The process takes six to eight weeks to bed in as staff get used to new and longer delivery routes.
I point out that changes are being made following full consultation between management and employees at the local level. I think that that is a good thing. The debate has clearly shown that many people are anxious about the changes. In the last week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received Allan Leighton's personal assurance that the company is vigorously tackling the problems that customers in some areas are experiencing while the single delivery is being introduced, and solutions are being found. I will be watching for performance levels to come back up to what was achieved last year, when 93 per cent. of first class letters were delivered the next day.
The problem of lost mail was raised. As I said, Royal Mail handles about 82 million packages a day; estimates vary on how many letters are lost, and the different estimates can be used to support either side of the argument. Royal Mail commissioned consultants, who produced independent figures that estimated the amount of letters lost or substantially delayed at 0.07 per cent. In the first two years of that data gathering, the estimated number of losses fell by nearly a half, but that still means that about 2 million items go missing or are delayed every year. The company's top priority is to improve the quality of services to its customers, and I hope that that figure will fall a good deal further.
The Postal Services Act 2000 introduced a strong regulator to monitor performance: Postcomm has real powers to impose penalties, and last year it showed that
120WH
it was not frightened to use them when it imposed a fine of £7.5 million, the biggest fine ever issued by a regulator. Postwatch, alongside Postcomm, will continue to monitor the situation closely, and I join the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster in commending the work of Kay Dixon of Postwatch in London and Peter Carr, the chairman of Postwatch, and their colleagues.
I was appalled at the unacceptable behaviour on display in the shocking "Dispatches" programme. Royal Mail management will thoroughly investigate the allegations, especially the criminal activity, which was indeed disgraceful. Where appropriate, action will be taken against individuals, including dismissal if necessary. The company have already taken action on a number of those points.
As several hon. Members have rightly said, the vast majority of postal staff do a superb job; they are honest and hardworking, and take a pride in their job. Those responsible for the conduct that we have heard about are a tiny minority. Postal workers are part of the fabric of a community, especially in rural areas where they give people support and assistance, as well as delivering the post.
Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Timms: I do not think so, because the hon. Gentleman has raised the important issue of the postal elections, which I need to comment on. I understand hon. Members' concerns about the impact of the quality of service problems being experienced by Royal Mail on forthcoming postal ballots. Royal Mail is well aware how important it is to ensure that it provides a reliable service during the pilot postal elections in June, which will affect up to 14 million people. Royal Mail will give the handling of the ballot papers its highest priority; electoral mail will be readily identifiable and it will be given priority over other mail.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is overseeing the elections, has had meetings with Royal Mail to discuss the development of detailed national and local plans for the pilots, and it is confident that robust plans are in place for the delivery and return of all electoral mail. The Department's project team will monitor Royal Mail's performance during the election period; it is in regular contact with Royal Mail to ensure that everything runs smoothly.
Finally, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned collection times on post boxes, a matter that is regularly raised with me. He will be pleased to know that in February Royal Mail announced that it had accepted proposals from Postwatch to reintroduce tabs on post boxes that show the last collection time. That announcement will be widely welcomed.
We have had a valuable debate, and work is being done to address with great urgency the problems that have been raised. I am grateful to hon. Members for drawing them to our attention.

MRSA
3.30 pm
Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity for this debate. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) hopes to catch your eye during it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that is certainly acceptable to me.
I thank my constituent, Rosemary Edwards, for allowing me to raise this matter today; I know that it is a painful subject for her and her brother. She has two major concerns: first, she wants to know how the incidence of MRSA can be reduced in hospitals; secondly, she is concerned about how St. Helier hospital dealt with her and her brother's complaint about the way their father was treated. Her father, Mr. Thomas Alun Charles Edwards, first became an in-patient at St. Helier hospital on 7 March 2002. With her agreement, I will focus only on the first point, which is the more general issue about MRSA and how it can be tackled.
Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA, is part of a wide range of infections that can be found in hospitals. Those include methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus, which the actress Leslie Ash recently contracted. As the Minister will know, there has been a sharp increase in the number of cases of MRSA. According to a report published in The Times at the weekend, the number has risen from 114 cases in 1992 to 5,561 cases in 2003. There has also been an increase—albeit not so significant—in the number of cases of MSSA, which have risen from 4,373 to 7,886 in 2003.
Sue Doughty: The Minister will be aware of graphic headlines in the Evening Standard last week, referring to hospitals in the grip of killer superbugs. It is important that we understand that we are talking about MRSA and not—as we suspect that the Evening Standard did in its analysis—methicillinresistant Staphylococcus, not aureus. We need to understand what the risk really is and deal with it accurately. It is important for my constituents that we get clear information.
Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is important for her constituents that the information is accurate.
The UK has a relatively high level of hospital-acquired infection. The cost, in health terms, is very high. One in 10 patients has some kind of health-care acquired infection. In financial terms, the cost is estimated at about £1 billion a year, according to the National Audit Office. Infection control programmes are cheap in comparison; it is the equivalent of maintaining one hospital bed a year per 250-bed hospital. In other words, the cost of one patient suffering MRSA and being kept in hospital for a year is the same as that of ensuring that the full 250-bed hospital is kept as clean as possible.
The Government recognise the issue of MRSA. Their document, "Winning Ways: Working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England", published at the end of last year by the chief medical officer, confirms that the national health service does not perform as well as the health services of other European
122WH
countries. There are evidence-based countermeasures of known effectiveness that are not being implemented consistently or rigorously in the majority of hospitals.
I said that I would concentrate on MRSA, rather than the more specific complaint, but it is worth pointing out that my constituent was made aware of her father's MRSA diagnosis from a piece of paper that was accidentally left by his bed. Clearly that is not an appropriate way to be informed of such a serious complaint. It is also important to note that according to the death certificate her father's death was not caused by MRSA, but by coronary artery disease. However, MRSA was likely to have been a significant contributory factor.
What is MRSA? It is spread mainly through hand contact, but some people carry the bacteria on their body and are not infected by it. It often occupies the skin and nose of humans and only becomes dangerous if it finds deep tissue. It is easily spread because it moves with the skin. It can be washed off with soap, but disinfectants do not rid surfaces of it. As hon. Members will know, MRSA infections are resistant to treatment.
What has St. Helier hospital been doing in response? It holds training sessions for staff. It has an awareness programme about hand washing for staff. Back in October 2002, when we first received a comprehensive response from the chief executive about the different things that the hospital had undertaken, there was talk of providing information leaflets about MRSA. I rang yesterday to check on the progress. I was told that the leaflets are now at the printers. Bearing in mind that this letter was from October 2002, I hope that being at the printers is not the equivalent of the cheque in the post. Clearly a long time has elapsed since the original commitment was made.
If a patient is found to be carrying MRSA, the hospital carries out a risk assessment. The patient is isolated or moved to an infection control ward if it is felt that a spread is likely to occur. Could the Minister tell us about the availability of such isolation areas? She may not be able to do that now in relation to St. Helier hospital, but perhaps she could tell us in general terms. Finding places within hospitals where sufferers can be isolated has been an issue. The hospital treats with mupirocin cream, but is limited to two courses because of MRSA resistance. During my conversation with the trust yesterday I was given assurances that it was making the progress that was needed against the different infection control indicators.
The hospital clearly has a responsibility here, but so do the Government. The Government's actions are set out in the "Winning Ways" report, to which I have referred. It is worth considering some of the progress that has been made in relation to the report. For instance, according to action area one—"Active Surveillance and Investigation"—the chief medical officer will publish on his website a listing of rates of health care associated infection in each area of the country. The availability of information and people's awareness of MRSA levels are of concern to my constituent.
I am perhaps no longer an expert in IT terms, having left the industry seven years ago. However, a cursory search of the chief medical officer's site yesterday did not reveal an area-by-area listing of rates. The Minister's

123WH
officials may say that it is there and that I was looking in the wrong place. I should be interested to know whether that information is available. Another key point in action area one was the requirement to carry out a national audit of deaths from health care-associated infections. Until we have carried out that audit, it is impossible to say how many deaths are associated with such infections.
Action area six on management and organisation described key points to which the different trusts needed to respond. It stated that the chief executives of the trusts will

"designate the prevention and control of healthcare associated infection as a core part of their organisations clinical governance and patient safety programmes",

that

"a Director of Infection Prevention and Control is to be designated within each organisation",

and that the Department of Health will publish further guidance. I accept that "Winning Ways" was published at the end of last year and we are only in May, but I hope that the Minister can reassure me that progress is being made on these matters and that she is starting to receive information from different trusts confirming that these action points are in hand.
My constituent raised other issues about her father's treatment in hospital, such as poor communication with doctors, hostility of staff in certain instances, and the deterioration of his health while in hospital, but I want to focus on MRSA. To avoid MRSA becoming an even bigger problem, we should examine new techniques that might be more effective at addressing it. Can the Minister say whether the Government have looked at the Bioquell system? I understand from Bioquell's briefing that it was first deployed during last year's severe acute respiratory syndrome crisis, when it was used in three hospitals in Singapore. It has also been used in an intensive care unit in a Paris hospital that was infected by another superbug. According to the company's research, the system achieves significant levels of decontamination or removal of the MRSA infection. According to the research results, after cleaning the MRSA level was reduced from 90 per cent. to 66 per cent., and after the use of the Bioquell system the level fell to 1 per cent. If its research is correct, there is a significant improvement in cleaning and decontamination. I hope that the Minister can comment on that.
My constituent also highlighted the issue of the availability of information. She felt that patients and their families and other relatives should be informed of the level of MRSA infection in hospitals. Can the Minister give the Government's view on whether it might be appropriate to make more information available not just at an area level, which is being proposed, but in the hospital environment, and to do so more publicly? I understand that risks may well be associated with that in terms of the level of concern or fear that people might have, but has the Minister weighed the pros and cons of that argument?
According to reports in The Daily Telegraph, there is an issue relating to doctors not wanting to put MRSA on death certificates because of concerns about possible
124WH
litigation. Has the Minister considered that? What advice would the Government give to doctors in that situation? Should there be a separate category for MRSA so that we can get a better handle on what levels of infection there are?
It is clear that MRSA is far too prevalent in English hospitals. "Winning Ways" is a good start in our fight against it. However, it is not too soon to start to review whether the action points that it identifies have been put in train, although I acknowledge that it is too soon to assume that everything has been dealt with—that is not possible within the time frame.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this Adjournment debate on a very important subject. I express my sincere condolences to the family of Mr. Edwards. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that because of patient confidentiality, I cannot comment further on his case. However, he has kindly spoken largely about general issues so I can respond to much of what he said.
We recognise that MRSA and other hospital-acquired infections are a serious problem for the NHS. They are difficult and expensive to treat and affect patients by causing illness, pain, anxiety, longer stays in hospital, and sometimes death. This country is not alone, as these are a major concern for many health services worldwide. The European antimicrobial resistance surveillance system shows that some countries—the Netherlands, Finland, Sweden and Denmark—have maintained low levels of MRSA bloodstream infections. Although this country has a relatively high level of infection, other countries—for example, Austria, Belgium, Germany and Ireland—have also been experiencing increasing levels since 1999.
I shall talk about decontamination later, but there is no single solution to preventing hospital-acquired infections, and not all infections can be avoided. We need to remember that medical science is improving the quality of, and is prolonging, life, which means that patients are more vulnerable to infection as they become older, more vulnerable and are still being treated.
The control of infections, such as MRSA, is complex. It is affected by factors such as the number and type of patients treated, patients infected in other countries, trusts or in the community, the design and layout of the building, and appropriate prescribing. As the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, we are committed to tackling those issues In recent years, we have actively provided the NHS with advice and information on MRSA. The mandatory surveillance of MRSA bloodstream infections started in 2001, and for the first time provided data by individual named trusts. We now have two years of that data to show the national position, and to enable trusts to investigate their own performance and act as appropriate to improve patient care. The MRSA data are available by individual named trust on the Department's website. That information is for a wide audience to consult and be aware of.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned our major initiative, "Winning Ways", which ensures that we tackle the issues. We already have standards to ensure

125WH
that there is a managed environment, which minimises the risk of infection of patients, staff and visitors. Although progress is being made on, for example, increasing attention to hand hygiene, which is demonstrated by a 35 per cent. increase in the amount of alcohol handrub that has been purchased through NHS logistics, we recognise that further action is needed. That is why the chief medical officer developed "Winning Ways", our action plan to fight health care-associated infection. The report recognises the need for infection control to be everyone's business, and not just the concern of specialists such as infection control teams.
To improve senior manager commitment at a local level, a director of infection, prevention and control will be designated by every organisation providing NHS services. That individual must report directly to the chief executive and the board. The director of infection, prevention and control is not a new post, but an extra responsibility for an existing senior health professional. Designation of the new director is a local decision, but we expect that the individuals concerned will have the appropriate expertise and authority to challenge inappropriate clinical hygiene practice and antibiotic prescribing decisions. The majority of trusts have now designated a director of infection, prevention and control, and the directors will be able to pull together the prevention activities required to control the infections and bring about fast, effective change to improve practice.
Tom Brake: The Minister said that she believes that a majority of trusts have identified their director of infection prevention and control. Does the Department do anything proactively to ensure that all the trusts appoint such a director?
Miss Johnson: We expect the trusts to act on the recommendations. Obviously, we do not audit every piece of advice and information that is sent to them. They would be overwhelmed with bureaucracy and we must keep that to an absolute minimum to ensure that trusts can concentrate on taking the required actions and trying to give patients the best possible care.
To complete the point that I was making, we are assisting the NHS to develop a consistent approach to help identify training needs. Guidance on the competencies required for the position will be published shortly. "Winning Ways" reinforces good clinical practice, but there are a number of new measures included in it—for example an investigation of new systematic approaches to the identification, evaluation and control of infection hazard. A new audit of deaths from health care-associated infection will investigate a proportion of the deaths that occur to identify avoidable factors and lessons to be learned. There is a high-quality research and development programme on health care-associated infection, on which £3 million will be spent over the next three years in addition to the Department's antimicrobial resistance research programme, which accounts for more than £2 million and includes work on MRSA.
There is also a rapid review process to assess the new procedures and products for which claims of effectiveness are made over their ability to prevent or control health care associated infection. A range of
126WH
activities is underway to help the NHS control MRSA. Of particular relevance is the toolkit to improve compliance with hand hygiene. That has been piloted and the results are being evaluated. In addition, professional guidelines on preventing and controlling MRSA in hospitals are being reviewed.
In relation to the issue of prevalence, I want to ensure that the hon. Gentleman and anyone else following the debate is aware that Staphylococcus aureus is carried by about 30 per cent. of the population, normally with no problems.
3.52 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
4.7 pm
On resuming—
Miss Johnson: Staphylococcus aureus is carried by 30 per cent. of the population without a problem. Of the patients admitted for elective surgery, between 2 and 5 per cent. are carrying it but are not suffering from it in any way. MRSA is less common. Patients having elective surgery have been surveyed fairly frequently, and rates of 2 to 5 per cent. are cited. Most of those patients have been in a hospital or nursing home in the previous year. However, rates are believed to be lower in the general population with no hospital contacts. Rates will be higher in certain patients, for example, diabetics with foot ulcers.
Some interesting research has been done at St. Thomas's on the use of vaporised hydrogen peroxide, or the Bioquell system as the hon. Gentleman referred to it, which casts some doubt on the conventional view that the environment is not an important source of MRSA in patients. We will consider those results during the development of our research strategy on health care-associated infections, which I mentioned earlier.
Guy's and St. Thomas's is to be commended for taking a positive approach to investigating new techniques to tackle MRSA, which is a problem throughout the NHS. The next stage is to investigate the effects on infection rates of improving the environmental decontamination, sound scientific data which will help the NHS to decide whether to implement those methods more widely. That decontamination method requires empty facilities that can be sealed.
Routine mortality statistics cannot provide information on the number of deaths where MRSA is the underlying or contributory cause of death. That is why in implementing "Winning Ways", we will establish an audit of deaths to identify avoidable factors and the lessons to be learned from them. It is difficult to produce statistics on MRSA, because there currently are no codes for antibiotic resistance in the international classification of diseases. However, codes are being introduced from 2006, and they will help to ensure that better data are available in the future.
Many of the patients who die with MRSA are already seriously ill with another medical condition, and it is difficult to say with any certainty whether they would have recovered from their underlying condition if they had not acquired the infection. At present, the death certificate is designed to obtain the first underlying cause

127WH
of death. It is up to the doctor to decide how many conditions in the sequence, other than the underlying cause, should be recorded. MRSA may contribute to death, but it is unlikely to be the first event in the sequence. Requiring that it be mentioned on postmortem reports under the present system would be unlikely to catch most deaths following MRSA infections. Most deaths in hospital are not subject to post mortem. Indeed, most post mortems normally involve little microbiology.
However, we are on the verge of fundamental changes to the way in which deaths are certified. The proposed changes should enable death certification to be done electronically and information from patient records to be linked electronically to the registration, with the consent of the family member registering the death. That will help identify cases in which MRSA or other hospital-acquired infections played a role.
New guidance has been commissioned to cover design and cost standards for different types of isolation facilities in general acute hospitals. It will include a new approach to ventilated isolation, which will improve flexibility, value for money and safety. We are undertaking modelling work to establish how many isolation rooms the NHS needs, and we will undertake an economic evaluation of the cost of meeting the shortfall. Since 1997, our advice for major hospital redevelopment has been to aim for a minimum of 50 per cent. single bedrooms. Clearly, fewer issues are likely to arise as that provision under our big hospital programme becomes more extensive.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman's point on leaflets was about the St. Helier trust leaflet. I cannot explain why the leaflet is still at the printers if the trust was working on it in 2002. The Health Protection Agency has produced a leaflet that is available to trusts, although several trusts also produce their own. I hope that rapid progress will be made on that.
128WH
Cleanliness in hospitals is an important issue, although we do not have evidence to show that MRSA and similar infections are associated with a lack of cleanliness. We are working to improve infection control and cleanliness. The clean hospitals programme demonstrates a major improvement by the NHS in creating the right environment for patients, staff and visitors. It is not, and we have never claimed that it should be, a technical inspection of hygiene; rather, it assesses the hospital from the patient's perspective. The Government have invested an additional £68 million in a nationwide clean-up campaign and have initiated a programme of unannounced visits by independent teams. Every hospital in England now provides a patient environment that is good or acceptable. Nevertheless, we accept that there is still room for improvement. Revised national standards of cleanliness for the NHS were issued in August last year, and a cleaning manual was issued to the NHS in April this year.
Tom Brake: What about the point about more information in hospitals on MRSA infection rates?
Miss Johnson: The hon. Gentleman himself said that this is a difficult and sensitive issue. I have discussed prevalence in the general population, which would impact on the provision of information.
We believe that "Winning Ways" will result in real change and will significantly benefit patients. The new director of infection prevention and control will be key to that change and will have the appropriate expertise and authority to challenge poor practice. The process will also be helped by other changes in the NHS such as our major programme of creating extra capacity and the increase in public expenditure on the NHS, which is set to rise to £90 billion. We have also implemented major recruitment drives for qualified health care personnel and increased the number of training places for doctors and nurses.

Rail Services (Milton Keynes)
4.15 pm
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: My purpose in securing the debate is to highlight the importance of frequent and reliable rail services to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White). I want to speak on behalf of not only current users of such services to and from Milton Keynes but the extra users that will be generated over the next decade as a result of housing growth. I want to press the Minister to ensure that rail users from Milton Keynes benefit not only from the current west coast main line upgrade but from sustained investment in the railways to ensure that rail infrastructure matches the growth of the city.
It is also not my intention to criticise Virgin Trains, Silverlink or the Strategic Rail Authority. The problems that face my constituents and those of my hon. Friend and others along the west coast main line are a direct result of a deal that was done between Railtrack and Virgin Trains in the desperate privatisation that took place in the dying days of the previous Conservative Government. At that point, Virgin was given the exclusive use of the fast line, which forced all other passenger services and freight on to the slow line. That has severely constrained the options that are now open to the Strategic Rail Authority in allocating track space among the different operators.
The west coast main line modernisation was expected to benefit rail travellers from Milton Keynes. It will improve the reliability of all services, but I would contend that the other benefits of modernisation are not being shared equally between the different parts of the line. Off peak, my constituents will benefit from faster and more reliable Pendolino services northwards and to London. However, commuters from Milton Keynes are seriously concerned by their loss of access to the Virgin services at peak times and the consequent almost total reliance on Silverlink services during those times. They fear that the extra capacity that is being created by Silverlink will not fully compensate for the loss of access to seats on Virgin trains.
The success of Milton Keynes as a new city depends on its situation and on good transport links, and in particular those from north to south. There are three stations in Milton Keynes that are served by the west coast main line: Wolverton, Milton Keynes Central and Bletchley. The business community, and the continued growth of the local economy, depend on fast, frequent links from London, and from Birmingham and the north. The SRA estimates that 3,000 people commute daily to jobs in London, and an increasing number of people are commuting in to Milton Keynes from London, and from Birmingham and Northampton.
At present, travellers to London from Milton Keynes Central can choose between the inter-city Virgin services and the county services that are run by Silverlink. Journey times are shorter on the Virgin services and the Silverlink services are fast, semi-fast or slow, depending on the number of additional stops between Milton Keynes and Euston.
During the modernisation works on the west coast main line my constituents have been experiencing considerable disruption and delay. There has been a
130WH
series of weekend blockades and longer blockades over the Easter break. Further reductions in services have been announced from 24 May until 20 June, not to mention a month-long blockade in the summer. For the most part travellers have accepted that inconvenience as a necessary part of the modernisation. However, they were expecting that, having borne the pain, they would benefit from the improvements once the work was complete. For some time, I have been lobbying the SRA for a fair deal for Milton Keynes commuters. The SRA is in the process of finalising the new timetable for September 2004 onwards, and the published version is causing considerable concern locally.
As I said, the introduction of the Virgin Pendolino services will reduce journey times, but at peak times many fewer will stop at Milton Keynes than the intercity trains that they will replace, so that is of little direct benefit to Milton Keynes commuters. The reduction in Virgin trains stopping at Milton Keynes reduces the options for those travelling to London. It also affects those commuting into Milton Keynes from the north, as some of the trains from Birmingham will not now stop at Milton Keynes. However, I am pleased that the SRA has now responded to lobbying by adding one early-morning service that will go directly from Birmingham to Milton Keynes.
The Pendolinos will displace all the Silverlink services from the fast line to the slow line, and commuters fear that journey times will increase. The SRA says that, from December 2005, the slow line should be improved to allow speeds of up to 100 mph. It claims that Silverlink fast services will be two minutes faster than they are at present, although that will be 10 minutes slower than Pendolinos. To make more room for commuter services, all freight services have been removed from the slow line at peak times, which is welcome.
Of more concern to commuters than journey times are the fears that capacity will be inadequate to cope with commuter numbers. In the morning peak, there will be Virgin services at 6.40 and 7.06, but in the two-hour gap until the next stopping Virgin train, which is a time of very heavy usage, commuters will be reliant on Silverlink alone. Commuter trains are already extremely full, with some passengers forced to stand in both first and second class.
Regular commuters are concerned about the likely situation after September. The SRA argues that capacity will be maintained, as some Silverlink trains will be increased from eight carriages to 12, and all stations between Northampton and Euston except Bletchley—I shall return to that later—will be modified so that they can take 12-carriage units, or rather so that passengers can get on and off all 12-carriage units. According to the SRA. in the morning peak there will be an extra 600 seats on Silverlink trains and an extra 2,700 from London in the evening peak, when even fewer Virgin trains are available.
Despite that extra capacity, commuters remain concerned. There are added worries because of the reduction in train numbers from the other Milton Keynes stations—from Wolverton, where there is one fewer service in the morning though two extra in the evening, and from Bletchley. It is therefore possible that commuters may transfer from those two stations to Milton Keynes Central, adding to the pressure.

131WH
The situation has arisen because of the priority given to the fast Pendolino services, which are monopolising the fast track. However, I argue that the very fast acceleration and deceleration of Pendolinos means that a stop at Milton Keynes would not add significantly to journey times, and observation already shows that Pendolinos speeding through Milton Keynes are rarely full.
The SRA should be able to insist that more Pendolino services stop at Milton Keynes. In particular, both the extra Pendolinos that go through Northampton in the morning should also stop at Milton Keynes, as I was led to expect by letters from the SRA. It now seems to be proposed that only one should. It is unacceptable that travellers from Milton Keynes may be forced on to more crowded and usually slower trains when there is spare capacity on Pendolinos.
Brian White: One fear that Milton Keynes companies have is that their work force, which comes in from the west midlands and London, will be forced on to the roads—the M1 and M6. That will have a detrimental effect, but simply adding the services that my hon. Friend is talking about would alleviate it.
Dr. Starkey: Indeed, and another concern is that although the SRA has done a passenger count from Milton Keynes Central in the morning peak, which is how it arrived at the estimate of 3,000 commuters daily, it has not done counts of people getting off trains in Milton Keynes. Until a number of commuters and I alerted the SRA, it seemed not to be aware of the growing numbers of people who are commuting into Milton Keynes. That is of huge concern to businesses and to my hon. Friend and me.
Is the Minister satisfied with the judgment made by the Strategic Rail Authority on the balance to be struck between the needs of long-distance travellers and commuters from Milton Keynes? The authority seems to be operating only with data based on estimates, and I am not certain how accurate they are. If the additional capacity proves inadequate and the fears of Milton Keynes commuters turn out to be justified in September 2004, will the Minister insist on action immediately, or will my and my hon. Friend's constituents simply be expected to put up with it?
So far, I have dealt with current commuter needs; I now turn to the likely future growth in rail passengers, and the action that needs to be taken to meet that need. The Minister will be aware that Milton Keynes has been designated by the Government for future housing and employment growth. The demand for rail services is bound to increase, so even more capacity will be required.
Knowledge of that future growth makes current commuters concerned about capacity. Even if the capacity is adequate now, they worry about how long it will be before demand exceeds supply again. The Deputy Prime Minister has assured both Milton Keynes Members and the council that all necessary infrastructure will be provided in parallel with housing growth, not after housing growth. If the rail capacity
132WH
from Milton Keynes is not increased, either economic growth will falter or the extra traffic will be transferred to the road, cancelling out the effects of the improvements planned for the M1.
I urge the Minister to work with the SRA and the train operators; he should start now to plan the rail infrastructure required to sustain that planned future growth. I draw his attention to four items. First, an extra platform with a loop on the fast line is needed at Milton Keynes Central; that would allow the interval between trains on the fast line to be reduced from eight minutes to four, permitting more Virgin trains to stop at Milton Keynes at peak times. Secondly, the additional turnback siding at Wolverton would allow more services to Wolverton, to the north of central Milton Keynes, as well as to Milton Keynes Central, and would encourage more people from the north of the city to choose rail rather than road.
Thirdly, improvements to signalling at Bletchley and works to the junction have been postponed by Network Rail until at least 2009. Those works would enable Bletchley to run the 12-car trains, and would allow greater speeds for trains going through Bletchley. It would also pave the way for the opening of the east-west route from Bletchley to Bicester, with the possibility of services from Oxford to Milton Keynes Central. Fourthly, the Hanslope flyover would allow services from Northampton to cross the fast line without delay.
Negotiations with the SRA are taking place for a two-year extension of the Silverlink franchise, and the long-term franchise is still up for consideration. As more commuters will be using the Silverlink services, the quality of trains and rolling stock will become more important. I ask the Minister to guarantee that the SRA will ensure that the new franchise will include quality standards, and that the authority will commit the franchise holder to significant quality improvements on the Milton Keynes to Euston commuter service. That would include the introduction of better-quality rolling stock, equivalent to that being introduced next year across the whole network, complete with air conditioning and InterCity-style tables.
In conclusion, I accept that the needs of different groups of rail passengers need to be balanced and that the SRA feels constrained by past commitments to British Rail and Virgin. However, it is not acceptable for Milton Keynes commuters to receive a worse service just to save passengers from the north a few minutes. It is not acceptable for Milton Keynes to be expected to grow and accommodate a high proportion of extra housing need in the south-east without improvements to the rail transport capacity. I urge Ministers to intervene to ensure that the interests of Milton Keynes commuters are protected, and to guarantee that the future needs of Milton Keynes are met.
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on securing the debate and on the cogent and detailed manner in which she presented her case. I also take the opportunity to commend her and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Brian White) on the way in which they, the council and

133WH
much of the community in the area have greeted and embraced the notion of growth area status and of operating within the sustainable communities plan. If every community responded in the same fashion, we would be in a happier situation than we are.
From what my hon. Friend said, she will understand that the entire area, including its infrastructure, is in a state of flux. There is the west coast main line situation, which I will discuss later, and the two-year extension to Silverlink services. As a Minister in the Department for Transport, and as a former Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, lovingly attached to the sustainable communities plan, I would agree with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that infrastructure in the UK should complement growth as it occurs rather than chasing it, as has happened in the past.
My hon. Friend's remarks about the balance between local traffic, local commuters and high-speed interurban rail travel were also well made, and will become increasingly relevant as we begin to rationalise and bed in the entire national rail network. We are trying to strike that balance.
As my hon. Friend said, the vast majority of passengers in the area use Milton Keynes Central, which is served by trains running to Watford Junction and London Euston and to Northampton, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham, the north-west and Glasgow. Happily for all the commuters from Milton Keynes, although they may not know it, they sail through God's own country—Harrow, East—en route to London. Occasionally, trains stop there—at Harrow and Wealdstone station. I have used the service in both directions, and therefore understand much of what she says.
My hon. Friend made fair points about the west coast main line modernisation. I know that many communities up and down the line have been extraordinarily patient through the blockades in the various bits of work that are taking place. There is, has been, and will continue to be significant progress in that area, but she will know that there are still some hurdles to be overcome by September 2004, in relation both to the new Pendolino trains and to infrastructure delivery. Overall, however, we are encouraged by the progress being made.
Further effort is, however, required and is being made, to ensure that the arrangements for engineering possessions along the route are resolved more effectively and quickly, with customers being kept better informed. I would love to say that every single loving minute and hour spent on the west coast main line has been thought through in its entirety and that there has never been any unnecessary delay or imposition on local communities, but that is not the case. In such a major modernisation project, there are often more difficulties than originally expected, so that a weekend blockade may extend to a series of weekends. I congratulate the people of Milton Keynes on their forbearance.
I am also aware that commuters and other travellers from Milton Keynes Central have expressed concern that Virgin Trains services will not be calling there at peak periods from the commencement of the new timetable in September 2004. That is because Virgin Trains considers that, with that new timetable, there will
134WH
be more long-distance passengers already on the trains who will not choose or seek to stop at Milton Keynes. Virgin Trains services will continue to call off peak at Milton Keynes Central. Northbound services will continue to call there during the morning peak and southbound services during the evening peak, so that commuter journeys to Rugby, Coventry and Birmingham will continue to be possible. That will start to address some of the issues raised by both my hon. Friends about the travel-to-work area in that whole subregion. I am keenly aware that much of what we are trying to do on the M1 and the M6, and in improving elements of the surrounding road infrastructure, is not a question of getting people off rail and on to roads. I fully accept that case.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Silverlink franchise has been extended for a further two years and the SRA is discussing the detailed terms of the extension with the company. It hopes to make an announcement soon, when the details have been finalised, but it will include some other elements that are not germane to this debate that she has referred to in the past, such as taxi provision and car parking arrangements at Milton Keynes Central station.
I am sure that by the end of the two-year extension period, and in the intervening period between the granting of that extension and the bedding in of the new timetable from September, we will start to get an idea of whether the balance between community and inter-city services is right. We will also be able to see the state of rolling stock, and other issues rightly alluded to by my hon. Friend, a year or so into the extension, and the improvements to that commuter service, if it is to be run by Silverlink. By that stage—when we will be well within the first phase of targets for growth in Milton Keynes—we will be far better placed to understand whether the balance she referred to is right, or whether it needs considering again.
I am more than happy to undertake to keep a keen eye on developments from September onwards, as the new timetable begins and the extension of the Silverlink franchise unfolds—in relation to what the SRA decides. As a Transport Minister, I shall keep a keen eye on the balance of infrastructure and transport modes—to use the jargon—to ensure that the growth that is so welcome in the area, and the economic activity and prosperity that are equally welcome, are in no way encumbered by getting the mix between train and road infrastructure wrong. Those are elements that I shall certainly keep under review.
My hon. Friend might like it if I were to pull the rug from under all developments now, drag Mr. Branson and everyone else in and say, "You will stop at Milton Keynes," and instantly wish into existence new air-conditioned rolling stock for Silverlink so that everything is tickety-boo in the land of milk and honey that is Milton Keynes. I cannot do that, but during the transitional period I shall undertake to keep a strong, watchful eye on the new contract as it beds in, and the new timetable. An area that craves—or perhaps does not quite crave, but certainly welcomes—the sort of growth that fits in entirely with the sustainable communities plan must get the infrastructure commensurate with such growth.

135WH
I would love to give instant answers to my hon. Friend about the extra platform and loop on the fast line from Milton Keynes Central. I shall certainly include that in the watching brief for the SRA and others during the transitional period, as well as the additional turnback line, the Bletchley signals and junctions and the flyover for services to and from Southampton. I will happily plug those factors in, and we shall see what prevails. I understand how those adjustments—which look minor on paper but I am sure come with a billion-pound bill attached—would change things enormously.
Since I have discovered the fact, I would suggest that if the burghers of Northampton had accepted the offer of being on the west coast main line 100 years ago, rather than snottily batting it off, much to the annoyance of subsequent generations in Northampton, we would not be in this position. Let us see where we are. We are undergoing a period of real transition for the whole area, in terms of growth and infrastructure. I take very seriously what both my hon. Friends have said, but we must consider how the new timetable and extended franchise bed in and operate.
All that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West says about new rolling stock, additional carriages and greater capacity is right. We will have to wait until September 2004 and the new timetable to see whether the greater capacity is appropriate.
Dr. Starkey: I am encouraged by the Minister's extremely positive response, but can I press him to ensure that infrastructure issues are discussed at the next meeting of the Milton Keynes and south midlands interregional board, which is chaired by Lord Rooker and includes a representative of the SRA? That would ensure that the issue is fed into that programme as well and therefore can be taken up by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as well as the Minister's Department.
Mr. McNulty: I should have made it clear that there is now a broader brief across the Government—certainly within the DFT and the ODPM—and that we are addressing all these issues in unison. I shall bring those infrastructure matters to the attention not only of the SRA but of my noble Friend Lord Rooker, who can discuss them at his leisure with colleagues who are responsible for the whole of the Milton Keynes and south midlands corridor.
136WH
My hon. Friend will know that although the bulk of any infrastructure changes—she made a point about the M1—are quite rightly he responsibility of the DFT, the ODPM, through the growth area funding for the three growth areas and the Thames gateway, is considering particular infrastructure projects in which it could intervene. Perhaps it could intervene more rapidly and in a more focused way than the DFT, which has nationwide programmes. The ODPM is considering where it can make swift and positive interventions that will assist and complement what the DFT is doing in the normal routine of things. Of course, I shall pass on the points that have been made to Lord Rooker, who will pass them on through the forum that my hon. Friend mentioned.
The points about infrastructure and growth were well made. For this community, along with many communities up and down the west coast main line, after so much grief, a little bit of the glory and the glow that is the new all-singing, all-dancing west coast main line is important. My hon. Friend will appreciate that we are talking about the two peak periods. There is not an issue in relation to the off-peak period. We are not about to expunge any trains stopping at Milton Keynes Central, apart from Silverlink commuter trains.
I will take all those elements back with me. I appreciate that my hon. Friend understands that we are in a state of transition, given the contract and the new timetable, but I hope that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East will understand the assurances that I have given and will note that as a DFT Minister, not simply as an ex-ODPM Minister, I am keenly aware that transport infrastructure, along with all other forms of infrastructure, social and otherwise, are vital if communities are to grow.
The infrastructure must be put in at the right time for our growth areas to operate and function in a sustainable fashion. The Government are acutely aware of the mistakes of the past, when, a long way down the line, if people were lucky, the infrastructure would follow after the communities had been built. We are trying to reverse that process and at least match infrastructure investment with growth. With those assurances, I hope that my hon. Friend can go away, happy and skipping, back to Milton Keynes. Please can she give a wave when she gets to Harrow and Wealdstone station? It is mine.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Five o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Advisers/Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on external consultants and advisors in each of the last three years. [171876]

  Mr. Caborn
  The use of external consultants and advisers over the period 2000 to 2003, the last full years of accounting, were as follows:

  £

  2000–01

  358,000

  2001–02

  693,000

  2002–03

  323,820

  These figures include the Royal Parks Agency. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has over 66 sponsored bodies and compiling the figures for them could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Archaeological Sites
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service not to proceed with the case against Mr. Robert Duqueria for the alleged removal of objects from the scheduled site of Cunetio, Wiltshire on her strategy to protect archaeological sites in England; and if she will make a statement. [172212]

  Estelle Morris
  It is for the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether any prosecutions are in the public interest and it judges each case on its individual merit. Through the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 and the Treasure Act 1996, there is a framework of legislation in place to protect important heritage sites. I would expect those, who operate in this area would do so in accordance with the law.

  In addition, the recently expanded Portable Antiquities Scheme, through its network of Finds Liaison Officers, is designed to encourage closer working relations between archaeologists and metal detector users.

  Bingo Hall Conversions
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of the number of bingo halls which occupy more than 10,000 sq ft and would be eligible to convert to a casino under the terms of the draft Gambling Bill. [172046]
  324W
  Mr. Caborn
  There is no central record of the total area which each licensed bingo club covers; but we have seen estimates that over half of the current total of about 700 clubs have a total area in excess of 10,000 sq ft. We indicated last August that, under the proposed Gambling Bill, the minimum size of the area set aside for table games in a new casino should be 5,000 sq ft. We are now looking again at that requirement in the light of the views of the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the Bill and the points made by interested bodies and individuals in commenting on the Bill proposals. It is, however, relevant to note that a 5,000 sq ft minimum table gaming area would entail a total casino size considerably in excess of that, particularly if the casino also wanted to provide bingo for its customers.

  Early Retirement
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many employees in her Department took early retirement, and at what total cost, in the last financial year. [172185]

  Mr. Caborn
  In DCMS one employee was granted approved early retirement terms in the financial year 2003–04 at a cost of £9,361. In addition, two employees were awarded compensation payments at a cost of £61,887.

  Ice Hockey UK
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance is provided by her Department to Ice Hockey UK. [172077]

  Mr. Caborn
  Ice Hockey is classified as an Olympic sport and as such funding decisions are a matter for UK Sport.

  The top priority for UK Sport is the provision of support for those senior athletes/teams operating at a UK/GB level who have realistic chances of winning medals at the highest level (Olympic Games/World Championships within the current Olympic cycle).

  UK Sport have informed us that in recent years, GB Ice Hockey has been unable to provide evidence that it can meet this criteria and has not, therefore, received support from UK Sport.

  There is scope for developing talent via the home country Sports Councils but sports would be assessed against a number of criteria. Ice Hockey has not been deemed a priority at present by Sport England.

  However, UK Sport does acknowledge that if GB athletes are to win medals in the Winter Olympics, in the longer term, some form of support needs to be provided. In recognition of this, UK Sport is in discussion with a number of partners, including an Olympic Winter Sports Group. Ice Hockey UK is represented on the Winter Olympic Sports Group.

  Productivity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her policy is for(a) increasing the productivity and (b) cutting the costs of (i) her Department and (ii) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [172190]
  325W
  Mr. Caborn
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 10 May 2004,Official Report, columns 148–49W.

  Regional Tourism
  Mr. Borrow
  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 South Ribble since 1997. [172143]

  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 2 million images, tens of thousands of sound and video clips and documents and over 1,000 learning packages. All projects can be accessed via the 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.

  Mr. Borrow
  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 South Ribble. [172144]

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

  During 2003–04, the Lancashire and Blackpool Tourist Board received £275,000 from the agency's tourism budget for a variety of tourism marketing and development projects. South Ribble has also benefited from the agency's contribution of £60,000 during 2003–04 towards the construction of a visitor centre in Cuerden Valley Park.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money from the New Opportunities Fund was allocated to South Ribble in each year since 1997. [172153]

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

  Financial year

  Amount (£)

  1999–2000

  482,994

  2000–01

  273,735

  2001–02

  0

  2002–03

  0

  2003–04

  31,296

  326W
  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.

  Sports Funding (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what grants are available to build(a) a running track and (b) rugby football and other sports stadia in Chorley; and what other assistance her Department can give to such projects in Chorley. [172332]

  Mr. Caborn
  Grants for the provision of sports facilities, including running tracks and sports stadia, are available through the following programmes: Community Club Development Programme and Active England, administered by Sport England; and the New Opportunities Fund for PE and Sport, administered by the New Opportunities Fund. In addition, grants are available to support football facilities through the Football Foundation.

  Chorley Cricket Club has benefited from a Community Club Development Fund grant of £53,000 to provide cricket practice areas and nets.

  Terrestrial Television (Wales)
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many households in Wales she estimates cannot receive a terrestrial television signal from the public service broadcasters. [172440]

  Estelle Morris
  The spectrum planners working for the Government's Digital Action Plan have been working to improve the accuracy of the planning tools used to derive both analogue and digital coverage. Until this work is completed, OFCOM estimates that approximately 3 per cent. of households in Wales are unable to receive PSB services (excluding Five) via terrestrial means (analogue or digital).

  Analogue coverage for Five is not available on a per country basis. According to figures given by Ofcom, 20 per cent. of UK households do not currently have access to Five in analogue form, although some of these will be able to receive it by digital terrestrial TV.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's response is to the recent request of the transitional Government in Afghanistan for extra military forces from NATO to ensure security; and if he will make a statement. [172050]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Afghan Transitional Authority holds ultimate responsibility for the security of the Afghan national elections due in September 2004. NATO's planned expansion of the International Security Assistance Force will, however, contribute to creating the security conditions within which free and fair elections may take place. As I explained to the
  327W
  House on 31 March 2004, Official Report, column 96WS, we have offered to play a leading role in this expansion in Northern Afghanistan.

  Army Air Corps (Medical Care)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what specialised diagnosis services are available to personnel based at(a) AAC Aldergrove, (b) AAC Hereford, (c) AAC Wattisham, (d) AAC Middle Wallop, (e) AAC Netheravon and (f) AAC Dishforth; [169988]

  (2) what the average waiting time is for specialised diagnosis services available to personnel based at (a) AAC Aldergrove, (b) AAC Hereford, (c) AAC Wattisham, (d) AAC Middle Wallop, (e) AAC Netheravon and (f) AAC Dishforth. [169989]

  Mr. Caplin
  Specialised diagnosis services would require secondary care opinion that would normally be provided within the NHS, including those NHS Trusts which host Ministry of Defence Hospital Units. Waiting times would be based on clinical need and would vary depending on the type of specialised diagnosis required.

  Cluster Bombs
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a moratorium on the(a) use, (b) manufacture, (c) sale and (d) export of cluster bombs until new international law on the use and clearance of these weapons is introduced. [172024]

  Mr. Ingram
  No. Cluster bombs are legal weapons that are not indiscriminate. They provide a unique capability for use against wide area or dispersed targets. Were we not to use them, it would be necessary to use a large number of either unitary bombs or artillery shells to cover an equivalent area, involving a greater tonnage of explosive. Increasing the number of munitions launched also increases the risk that one or more launches may go astray. In many instances, using munitions other than cluster bombs may pose a far greater risk to civilians at the time of attack. Any applications for the export of cluster bombs would be considered on a case by case basis against criteria announced by the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997 and the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Sales.

  Defence Medal Offices
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom the legal title of the land occupied by the Droitwich Spa Army Medal Office belongs; and who would receive the proceeds of any sale of the site. [172034]

  Mr. Caplin
  The land was acquired on 30 March 1940 by 'The Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings'. Subsequent Government inter-departmental transfers culminated in the disaggregation of the Common User Estate by the Government's Property Holdings Unit in April 1996. This resulted in the land transferring (again on an inter-department basis) to the Ministry of Defence although technically the legal title remains with the successor to 'The Commissioners of His Majesty's Works and Public Buildings'. The proceeds of the disposal would fall to the MOD.
  328W
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the investment appraisal for the proposed closure of the Droitwich Spa Army Medal Office and the relocation of its services to RAF Innsworth; [172036]

  (2) what the costs of upkeep and maintenance of the Army Medal Office, Droitwich Spa, were in the most recent year for which figures are available. [172037]

  Mr. Caplin
  A copy of the Investment Appraisal will be placed in the Library. It considered the options for co-location of all functions that will come into the Joint Personnel Administration Centre, but did not deal exclusively with the issue of the Army Medal Office. I have also placed in the Library a letter dated 18 March 2004 to the Trade Unions, in which more details were provided on the specific business and financial justification for the closure of Droitwich and the creation of the Joint Medal Office at RAP Innsworth.

  For financial year 2003–04, the property management costs for the upkeep and maintenance of the Army Medal Office were some £110,000. This figure excludes staff and medal bullion/production costs. Utility costs for the same period were some £22,600.

  HMS Trafalgar
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safety of HMS Trafalgar following its repairs. [170663]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 6 May 2004, Official Report, column 1713W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen).

  Infantry Anti-structure Weapon System
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the procurement of an infantry anti-structure weapon system; and if he will make a statement. [167231]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to my Written Ministerial Statement of 6 May 2004,Official Report, column 86WS.

  Iraq
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what laws apply to the activities of private contractors operating in(a) Iraq and (b) UK controlled areas; and which courts have jurisdiction. [171441]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) average and (b) maximum tour lengths of troops deployed to Iraq since 1st May 2003 were for (i) territorial army and (ii) regular personnel; and if he will make a statement. [171442]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: The average tour length for troops deployed to Iraq, for both Territorial Army and Regular Army personnel, since 1 May 2003, is approximately five to seven months, while the maximum tour length is six months.
  329W
  A small number of TA personnel have extended their period of mobilisation, and will have undertaken successive tours over the period, which in total will amount to over six months. Where this has occurred, it has been at the individual's own request.

  Operation Telic
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when payments for expenses incurred in financial year 2003–04 relating to Operation Telic will be made to his Department. [172125]

  Mr. Ingram
  The net additional costs of Operation Telic are met from the Reserve in the year in which they fall. Funds to cover these costs are voted by Parliament under Request for Resources 2 in Main and Supplementary Estimates. Final expenditure will be reported in the notes to the Ministry of Defence's Annual Report and Accounts to be published in September.

  Suez Medal
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long it has taken, on average, to process each application for the General Service Medal, Suez Canal Zone, 1951–54. [172367]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 22 April 2004,Official Report, column 663W, to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley).

  The updated situation since then is:

  Service Medal Office

  Applications received

  Royal Navy

  5 November 2003

  Royal Marines

  As they arrive

  Army

  5 September 2003

  RAF

  11 November 2003

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many outstanding claims there are for the General Service Medal for serving in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954. [172368]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 7 May there were 29,153 applications requiring assessment. It is not possible to estimate the total number of claim applications that will be received.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many General Service Medals have been issued for service in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954. [172369]

  Mr. Caplin
  As at 7 May 7,696 medals and/or clasps had been dispatched to veterans or their families.

  Support Vehicle Contract
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will hold discussions with Leyland Trucks on the contract for the supply of the Support Vehicle. [172073]

  Mr. Ingram
  Leyland Trucks withdrew from the competition for the supply of the Support Vehicle in June 2002. This competition is now at an advanced stage and it would be inappropriate to invite their further 330W
  interest. We are confident that the existing competition, involving four bidders, will deliver an operationally effective, value for money solution.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Housing (Stockton, South)
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of how the change in the level of council funding for housing has affected the residents of Stockton South since 1997. [171469]

  Keith Hill
  Since 1997 allocations of capital funding to local authorities for housing purposes have risen consistently by an average of 15 per cent. per annum. This includes the Major Repairs Allowance we introduced in 2001–02 specifically for the improvement of local authority housing stock alongside the Decent Homes Standard that set minimum standards to be met by 2010. Stockton's allocations in the period 1997 to 2003–04 have risen by some 320 per cent. In addition, Arms Length Management Organisation initial resources of £44.5 million are available with a further £8 million to follow to facilitate Decent Homes improvements over the whole of the Stockton borough.

  Increased resources have also been generated through the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and Single Housing Investment Partnerships (SHIP) to target non-decent and non-sustainable housing stock. In the last three years alone £12.7 million has been invested in the local authority housing stock with future investment up to 2010 expected to be £11.45 million.

  In the private sector and as a result of successful SHIP/English Partnerships bids £6.9 million has been secured in addition to £532,000 for renovation grants, home repair assistance, empty homes and damp proofing.

  Coverage Care
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 29 April 2004,Official Report, column 1227W, on Coverage Care, when he expects the matter to be resolved. [172095]

  Yvette Cooper
  I understand that on 28 April 2004 all parties to Gloucestershire county council met in private session to discuss options for the long term continuation of care provision to the county. The council hope that this matter can be resolved by the end of the year.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much he expects to spend in this financial year; how much was spent last year; how much is budgeted next year for writing off outstanding debt of local authorities that transfer housing stock; and from which budget this sum is allocated. [172276]

  Keith Hill
  Payments to meet local authorities' overhanging debt are made where the value of the housing stock transferring is less than a local authority's associated housing debt. £90.9 million was paid in 2003–04. The budget is £616 million for both 2004–05 and 2005–06. The payment reflects the liability the
  331W
  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would otherwise have to pay continuing subsidy on a local authority's housing attributable debt. It is not possible to use this resource for capital purposes.

  Housing (Chorley)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his policy is on the percentage of housing land to be made available for(a) low cost housing and (b) part-rent-part-buy schemes in the Chorley constituency; and what advice he gives to local authorities on the matter. [172334]

  Keith Hill
  This is a matter for local assessment. National planning advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 "Housing" (PPG3) and Circular 6/98, 'Planning for Affordable Housing' makes it clear that each local authority should assess the local need for affordable housing within its area. Policy UR9 of Regional Planning Guidance for the North West gives further advice on the need for affordable housing.

  PPG3 advises that where there is a demonstrable lack of such housing, local planning authorities should include a policy in their development plan seeking affordable housing in suitable housing developments. It advises them to identify sites on which affordable housing will be expected and to indicate the amount of such housing to be sought as a proportion of the overall dwelling provision on a site. Decisions about the amount and types of affordable housing to be provided in individual proposals should reflect local housing need and be a matter for agreement between the local authority and the developer.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has published for consultation proposed changes to the current policies for affordable housing set out in PPG3 and Circular 6/98. The proposed changes re-emphasise the above policy, but also include allowing local authorities to seek affordable housing on smaller sites where this is justified. The changes are designed to help deliver more affordable housing where it is needed, and deliver a better match between a community's housing needs and supply.

  Housing Stock Transfer
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the research evidence showing how housing stock transfer better meets the interests of tenants. [172274]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's housing research report entitled Views on the Large Scale Voluntary Transfer Process—May 2000, examines the degree to which tenants who have transferred from a local authority to a new landlord under a Large Scale Voluntary Transfer scheme are satisfied with their new landlord.

  A copy of the report is available in the Library of the House.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) how many(a) Ordinary Written and (b) Named Day
  332W
  Questions his Department received in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) this parliamentary session, broken down by month; [171187]

  (2) what proportion of Ordinary 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. [171188]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 3 March 2004,Official Report, column 907W. The effective handling of parliamentary questions is an issue to which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and ministerial colleagues attach great importance, endeavouring to reply to all Parliamentary Questions within Parliamentary deadlines wherever possible.

  The information requested is tabled as follows:

  Number of named day PQs tabled to ODPM

  Number of named day PQs answered on time (percentage)

  Number of ordinary written PQs tabled to ODPM

  Number of ordinary written PQs answered within five working days (percentage)

  Parliamentary Session 2002–03

  November 20021

  85

  84.7

  245

  88.2

  December 2002

  60

  91.7

  155

  87.1

  January 2003

  71

  90.1

  237

  65

  February 2003

  27

  85.2

  253

  63.2

  March 2003

  53

  84.9

  258

  63.2

  April 2003

  21

  95.2

  176

  61.4

  May 2003

  34

  88.2

  234

  56.4

  June 2003

  27

  74.1

  253

  73.1

  July 2003

  32

  84.4

  201

  82.6

  September 2003

  16

  31.3

  115

  58.3

  October 2003

  34

  88.2

  170

  88.2

  November 20032

  25

  96

  135

  68.9

  Parliamentary Session 2003–04

  November 20033

  11

  100

  38

  86.8

  December 2003

  32

  90.6

  232

  72.4

  January 2004

  105

  73.3

  393

  85.5

  February 2004

  51

  96.1

  267

  67

  March 2004

  75

  90.7

  320

  72.5

  April 2004

  28

  92.9

  178

  86.5

  1 13 November to 30 November 2002.

  2 1 November to 12 November 2003.

  3 26 November to 30 November 2003.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the planning inspectorate has ensured that value for money was achieved when employing external consultants; and who was responsible for making such value for money assessments. [170045]

  Keith Hill
  The Planning Inspectorate follows standard Government purchasing procedures including best practice guidance issued by the Office of
  333W
  Government Commerce from time to time. Particular care is taken to achieve value for money in the procurement of external consultancy which is always handled by the Agency's specialist procurement unit.

  Public Bodies
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the staff numbers were for 2003 of the(a) Standards Board for England, (b) Advisory Panel on Beacon Councils and (c) Review of the Needs Indices used in the allocation of housing capital resources to local authorities and registered social landlords. [172471]

  Keith Hill
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) The number of staff in post at the Standards Board for England on 31 March 2003 was 105,

  (b) the Advisory Panel on Beacon Councils, an advisory Non-Departmental Public Body, has no staff. Its board of 10 core members and 10 specialist advisors is supported by officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and

  (c) I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 29 March 2004, Official Report, column 1257W.

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he expects the planned re-valuation of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre to be(a) finished and (b) published; and if he will make a statement. [169116]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects the revaluation to be completed later in 2004. The valuation report will not be published, but the valuation amount will be included in the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister's Resource Accounts for 2004–05.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 1 April 2004,Official Report, column 1649W, on regional assemblies, what proportion of the set-up costs of elected regional assemblies he estimates will be (a) premises, (b) wages and salaries, (c) equipment and stationery and (d) other costs for (i) the North East, (ii) the North West and (iii) Yorkshire and the Humber. [169441]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Available estimates, rounded to the nearest 5 per cent. are:

  colspan="4" align-"right">Percentage

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Premises

  10

  5

  5

  Staff and supplies

  35

  20

  25

  Other

  55

  75

  70

  Tourism
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was spent by local authorities in promoting tourism in each of the last 10 years to(a) domestic markets and (b) overseas markets. [172393]
  334W
  MR. Caborn
  I have been asked to reply.

  The only information available, for English local authority net expenditure on tourism, is as follows:

  Amount (£ million)

  1998–99

  75

  1999–2000

  92

  2000–01

  99

  2001–02

  106

  2002–03

  109

  2003–04

  102

  Sources:

  Revenue (Outturn) Forms 1998–99 to 2002–03, and Revenue Account (budget) form 2003–04.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Combined Heat and Power
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the development of combined heat and power in the UK in the last three years. [171031]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: In 2000 we announced a target of achieving at least 10,000 megawatts of Good Quality CHP capacity by 2010 and to developing a Strategy to achieve it. We consulted on a draft Strategy in 2002, reaffirmed our commitment to the target in the February 2003 Energy White Paper and published "The Government's Strategy for Combined Heat and Power to 2010" on 26 April of this year.

  Development of CHP in terms of installed capacity for each of the last three years for which we have figures is: 4,730M We in 2000, 4,753M We in 2001 and 4,742M We in 2002. A figure for 2003 will become available when the annual Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) is published in the summer by DTI.

  Environmental Support
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on progress being made on the introduction of new entry level schemes for environmental support. [168792]

  Mr. Morley
  Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) has been developed in response to recommendations made by the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. The ELS is intended to tackle countrywide environmental problems such as diffuse pollution, loss of biodiversity and landscape character and damage to the historic environment. A pilot scheme has been running in four areas of England since February 2003, and an evaluation of these pilots has confirmed that the scheme is popular with farmers and has the capacity to deliver widespread environmental benefits.

  Following the success of the pilot, Defra intend to launch Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) as part of a new agri-environment scheme called Environmental Stewardship in early 2005. Proposals for the new scheme have recently been submitted to the European Commission for approval. It is proposed that the ELS should be open to all farmers in England and that they

  335W
  will be paid at a flat rate of 30 per ha in return for carrying out a certain amount of environmental management options across their whole farm.

  A parallel Organic Entry Level Stewardship (OELS) is proposed, which will have the same design as the standard Entry Level Scheme but would be tailored towards organic farming systems. It is proposed that organic farmers will receive a higher payment rate of 60 per ha, in recognition of the contribution that organic farming systems make towards increases in soil health and fertility, benefits for biodiversity and wider landscape benefits.

  Entry Level Stewardship and its Organic equivalent will be complemented by Higher Level Stewardship, which is designed to build on the basic Entry Level in order to deliver significant environmental benefits in targeted high priority situations and areas. Further information on Environmental Stewardship will be available once Commission approval has been received. Final details of the new Scheme will be made available immediately prior to the launch in 2005. Application packs will not be available until the launch of the Scheme.

  Flooding
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what assessment she has made of the impact of flash flooding in(a) Worcester, (b) Worcestershire and (c) England and Wales; and if she will make a statement; [170130]

  (2) what advice she has received on the future incidence of flash flooding. [170131]

  Mr. Morley
  I understand the recent flash floods in Worcester resulting from exceptionally intense rainfall equivalent to around a month's rain in just a few hours. This caused extensive highway flooding and some local property flooding. This flooding was from surface runoff and storm sewer/highway drain overflow and not from the main river system.

  Although the Environment Agency (EA) issued a Floodwatch and were operating a local storm balancing system on the Barbourne Brook in Worcester, the wider emergency response to the flash flooding fell for the most part to Severn Trent water and the local highway authority who are primarily responsible for responding to such incidents, the EA will be assisting its partners in the follow up investigation and the review of the storm event.

  The Government recognise the need for Integrated Drainage Plans for urban areas prone to such flooding, and this will be considered as part of Defra's new strategy on flood and coastal erosion risk management. However any assessment on flash flooding would need to take into account detailed knowledge of the drainage systems in the area, the local topography, together with modelling of the effects of different types of event. This information is not generally available and carries a high degree of uncertainty. The EA are in the meantime working with Research Councils and the Flood Risk Management Research Consortium to develop improved modelling and prediction of flooding in urban areas.
  336W
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will estimate how many properties in Cheltenham will be affected by flooding in a once in 100-year event if no bund is constructed at Cox's Meadow; [168387]

  (2) if she will estimate how many properties will be affected by flooding in a once in 100-year event if (a) the Cheltenham Flood Alleviation Project including the bund at Cox's Meadow and (b) the Cheltenham Flood Alleviation Project approved in 1998 is constructed; [168388]

  (3) if she will publish the results of modelling used to assess the impact of flooding in Cheltenham of a once in 100-year event; [168389]

  (4) if she will make a statement of the expected impact on Cheltenham caused by a once in 100-year flooding event. [168390]

  Mr. Morley
  The final stage of the Cheltenham Flood Alleviation Scheme is currently being considered by Defra for formal approval.

  The Project, including the bund at Cox's Meadow and the Project approved in 1998, was designed to protect over 600 properties from flooding up to, and including, a one in 100 year flood. I understand from the Environment Agency (EA) that with no bund constructed at Cox's Meadow, the majority of the 600 properties identified at risk before the project began would remain vulnerable.

  The extent and impact of the 100 year modelled floods were published in the EA's Environmental Report for the Combined Works Contract dated October 2003. This report is available from Cheltenham Library or the local EA office at Tewkesbury. A summary of the modelling that has been prepared for the EA by their consultant's specifically for the benefit of interested parties and members of the public is also available from the local EA office.

  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assistance her Department has provided to alleviate the risk of flooding in the London borough of Redbridge since 2000. [164878]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has powers to undertake works to manage flood risk on designated "main rivers" while Redbridge borough council has similar powers for "ordinary watercourses" in their area.

  The Agency is undertaking a study into flood risk from the River Roding which is due to report in December 2004. Working with Thames Water (which has responsibility for the drainage system) and the council, the Environment Agency aims to agree a strategy to reduce flood risk in the area. Funding of the Environment Agency's Flood defence function will almost entirely be funded by Defra from 1 April 2004.

  Defra has also grant-aided the council for two studies—the Seven Kings Water Hydraulic Study and the Cran Brook Hydraulic Study, both carried out in 2001–02. Our grant amounted to £9,225.00 and £7,425.00 respectively for these two studies. I understand the council plans to apply for grant aid for

  337W
  a further study in 2004–05 into flood risk adjacent to the River Roding in the Chigwell Road and Roding Lane South areas.

  In addition the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister supports the borough's own flood defence expenditure through the local government funding system.

  Flood Defence
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the written statement of 20 April 2004,Official Report, columns 7–8WS, on the flood defence finding review, what other substantial reforms to improve accountability and effectiveness will be introduced in the next 12 to 24 months as part of the Government's development of a long-term strategy on flood defence. [171516]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government intend to consult on the proposed content of a new strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England during summer 2004. The final strategy will have a long-term delivery plan from 2005 onwards.

  Background information on the scope of the strategy and updates on progress are available via http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy.htm

  Government Funding (Animals)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what Government funding was allocated to zoos in 2003–04. [169947]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department's spending on issues connected with zoos in 2003–04 totalled £36,708.76. This covered funding of the Zoos Forum (the Government's advisory body on zoos issues); publicity material relating to zoo policy (including a Defra Circular on the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 following amendments to that Act) and a research study on the operation of the Zoo Inspectorate.

  In addition the Department donated £50,000 to 21st Century Tiger (a partnership between London Zoo and a non-governmental organisation called Global Tiger Patrol) to undertake tiger conservation projects in the wild.

  These figures do not include the Department's staff costs for officials working on issues relating to zoos or spending by local authorities in respect of their statutory role under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will broaden the duty of care provisions under section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to encompass prosecution for dumping of household waste. [169983]

  Mr. Morley
  A review of section 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which sets out the framework for the current duty of care regime, began in March this year. The terms of reference for this review 338W
  are currently being finalised, though it is expected that the review will consider the issue of householders and household waste.

  It is currently a criminal offence under section 33 of the 1990 Act for a householder to dispose of household waste outside the curtilage of his or her property other than in accordance with a waste management licence.

  Illegal Imports (Animals/Endangered Species)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to stop the illegal import of(a) animals and (b) endangered species into the United Kingdom. [169855]

  Mr. Morley
  Most commercial consignments of live animals must be imported into the UK via a Border Inspection Post (BIP) where import checks are carried out by a veterinarian. The only BIPS approved to check live animals in the United Kingdom are at Gatwick, Glasgow, Heathrow, Luton, Manchester, Prestwick and Stansted airports. There are no live animal BIPS at UK seaports.

  Rabies susceptible mammals, including some commercial consignments, may be imported into specified ports and must be pre-licensed and moved directly from the port of entry to an approved quarantine establishment by an authorised carrying agent. The carrying agent submits a report to Defra to state that the animal has been delivered to the quarantine premises.

  As an exemption to quarantine, cats and dogs may also enter under the Pet Travel Scheme. The animal must enter using an approved transporter on an approved route where the transport company is responsible for checks on the animals documents for compliance with the rules of the Scheme. If an animal is entering on an unapproved route then they are licensed into quarantine.

  It is illegal to import rabies susceptible mammals into the UK without a licence issued by the Government. The penalties for not complying are detention of the animal in quarantine at the owners' expense, re-export or destruction. The person responsible is also liable to prosecution and/or imprisonment.

  Accompanied pet birds have to be pre-licensed and under go quarantine under the supervision of a veterinarian at the place of destination.

  Outside border inspection posts enforcement responsibility for ensuring that animals are not introduced illegally rests with the local authority. The State Veterinary Service (SVS) also take action when they receive information that animals have been illegally imported.

  HM Customs and Excise have a presence at all points of entry and if they find live animals they detain or seize (as appropriate) and inform the local Divisional Veterinary Manager of the SVS.

  The "Washington" Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, more commonly known as CITES, aims to protect certain plants and animals by regulating and monitoring

  339W
  their international trade to prevent it reaching unsustainable levels. My Department acts within the UK as the UK CITES Management Authority.

  As part of our efforts to stop the illegal import of endangered species a dedicated team of Customs officers is located at Heathrow airport and they are recognised worldwide as a "centre of excellence".

  Furthermore, we are continuing to contribute to the National Wildlife Crime Intelligence Unit, to help counter serious national and international wildlife crime, including the import of endangered species.

  Landfill Directive
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 10 March 2004,Official Report, column 1534W, on meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister on compliance with the Landfill Directive, on what dates meetings were held; and what was is discussed on each occasion. [168371]

  Mr. Morley
  As stated in the answer of 10 March 2004,Official Report, column 1534W, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has many meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss all manner of topics. However, while there have been exchanges of correspondence between my right hon. Friend and the Deputy Prime Minister on Landfill Directive compliance issues, there has not been a formal meeting to discuss this matter specifically.

  Pharmaceutical Crops
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the use of pharmaceutical crops. [167830]

  Morley
  'Pharmaceutical crops' is a term used for plants that have been genetically modified so that they contain proteins or other chemicals that may be used for the treatment of disease in humans or animals. Such plants are regulated as all other GMOs, and must be kept under contained conditions as required by the legislation on the contained use of GMOs. Release of such crops into the environment requires consent under the deliberate release legislation.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research into bio-pharmaceutical crops she has commissioned in the last five years; whether this research was carried out outdoors; and what plans her Department has to commission further research. [167831]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has not commissioned any specific research in this area.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from companies proposing to plant genetically modified food crops for commercial scale drug production. [167833]

  Mr. Morley
  We have not yet received any representations from companies proposing to plant genetically modified food crops for commercial scale drug production.
  340W
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the Government's policy on pharmaceutical crops differs from its policy on other genetically modified crops. [167835]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's policy on genetically modified organisms applies to any GM crop whether intended for pharmaceutical use or other purposes.

  Recycling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the tonnage of household recycling was in 2002–03 of the 10 local authorities in England that achieved the(a) highest and (b) lowest rates for household recycling in 2002–03. [169772]

  Mr. Morley
  Provisional results from Defra's 2002–03 Municipal Waste Management Survey indicate that the tonnage of household waste recycled and composted by the local authorities in England that achieved the 10 highest and lowest rates for household recycling and composting in 2002–03 (as measured by the Best Value Performance Indicator dataset for 2002–03), is as presented in the following table:

  Local authority

  Type of local authority1

  Tonnage of household waste recycled and composted in 2002–032

  Daventry District Council

  WCA

  16,132

  Lichfield District Council

  WCA

  17,428

  Wyre District Council

  WCA

  11,312

  Melton District Council

  WCA

  6,001

  Isle of Wight District Council

  UA

  18,823

  St. Edmundsbury District Council

  WCA

  14,258

  Windsor and Maidenhead Borough Council

  UA

  19,009

  Forest Heath District Council

  WCA

  7,444

  Eastleigh

  WCA

  10,759

  Chiltern District Council3

  WCA

  7,870

  Dorset County Council3

  WDA

  55,658

  Kettering District Council

  WCA

  1,412

  North Tyneside Council

  UA

  3,735

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  WCA

  2,778

  Corby District Council

  WCA

  928

  Tower Hamlets London Borough

  UA

  2,684

  Bolsover District Council

  WCA

  1,030

  Hackney London Borough

  WCA

  2,426

  Sunderland City Council

  UA

  2,718

  Barking and Dagenham London Borough

  WCA

  2,090

  Liverpool Metropolitan Borough Council

  WCA

  3,320

  1 The Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) and Unitary Authority (UA) recycling rate includes all recycling in the area, i.e. the amount recycled by the authority through its own civic amenity sites plus the amount recycled by its constituent collection authorities through bring or kerbside collection schemes. Waste Collection Authorities' (WCA) rates do not take account of waste deposited at civic amenity sites for recycling or disposal.

  2 The tonnage of household waste sent for recycling and composting by each local authority is not collected with the Best Value Performance Indicator dataset. The tonnages given are collected through the Municipal Waste Management Survey 2002–03.

  3 Joint tenth place.

  Sewers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the population in their domestic premises in Greater London has access to(a) mains sewerage systems, (b) unadopted sewers, (c) sewers connected to a private treatment facility and (d) septic tanks. [168943]

  Mr. Morley
  Detailed information on the number of properties served by various types of sewerage system is not available. However, estimates do exist.

  (a) I have been informed by Thames Water that the vast majority of properties in the Metropolitan London area are connected to the foul water sewerage system. I understand that virtually every property has the opportunity to connect to the public sewerage system under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991.

  (b) Nationally around 40 per cent. of properties connect to public sewers via unadopted sewers. (This is assuming 'unadopted sewers' mean all private sewers i.e. they are not adopted by the relevant sewerage undertaker). Separate data for Greater London are not available.

  (c) Nationally around 10 per cent. of properties are estimated to be connected to completely private systems. This includes those connected to private treatment facilities, septic tanks and cesspools. Separate data for Greater London are not available.

  (d) No data are available on the number of properties with a septic tank, as distinct from other forms of private sewage treatment, either nationally or for Greater London.

  Ship Dismantling (Teesside)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will place in the Library a copy of the environmental assessment underlying the decision that dismantling of the US ghost ships on Teesside is now the preferred environmental option; what views have recently been expressed on the matter by the Environment Agency; on what date her view was reached; and if she will make a statement. [169857]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]: The Government position remains as stated to the House on 22 April 2004, Official Report, column 435. Four US ships are currently docked in Graythorp dock near Hartlepool. Applications are due to be submitted for the necessary permissions for dismantling to take place at this location, and an associated Environmental Impact Assessment is being prepared. The applications will need to be considered by the relevant authorities. In the meantime, dismantling work is prevented, and the ships are subject to regular inspection by the Environment Agency.

  Substitute Fuels Protocol
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures have been taken to consult the public over proposed amendments to the Environment Agency's Substitute Fuels Protocol. [169924]
  342W
  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is undertaking a 12 week consultation on its proposals to revise the Substitute Fuels Protocol for use on cement and lime kilns, in accordance with Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. Responses are invited by 18 June 2004. The consultation document has been sent to a variety of stakeholders and published on the Environment Agency's website. The Agency has engaged with the environmental trade press to encourage coverage of the consultation in relevant magazines and journals.

  In preparing the list of consultees for direct mailing, the Agency has included national organisations such as trade associations, Government agencies, local organisations and members of the public with an interest in this subject.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received to extend the consultation period for amendments to the Environment Agency's Substitute Fuels Protocol. [169925]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has not received any representations to extend the consultation period.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will extend the consultation period for amendments to the Environment Agency's Substitute Fuels Protocol. [169926]

  Mr. Morley
  The consultation period, of 12 weeks, has been set in accordance with the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on Written Consultations. The Environment Agency considers that the 12-week period is appropriate in this case. The Agency has consulted on amendments to the Substitute Fuels Protocol on several consultations in the past.

  Sustainable Development
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on(a) the positions taken by her delegation at the 12 Commission on Sustainable Development in New York and (b) the outcome of that meeting. [172020]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: The Twelfth UN Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD 12) met in New York from 19 to 30 April to review progress towards implementation of the Millennium Development Goals and World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) commitments on water, sanitation and human settlements. Over 100 Ministers attended the ministerial segment (28 to 30 April) including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself, along with senior representatives of the major UN and other international institutions. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan addressed the opening session.

  The UK delegation, led by the Secretary of State, played a leading role at CSD 12, in concert with EU partners, in identifying obstacles to progress and examples of best practice. Amongst the priorities we identified were: incorporation of water, sanitation and

  343W
  human settlements issues in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers and national Sustainsable development strategies; integrated water resource management plans to be in place by 2005; innovative financial mechanisms, such as the UK's proposed International Finance Facility; promotion of small-scale local initiatives and partnerships; and improved coordination between UN agencies and with international financial institutions.

  CSD 12 raised the profile of these issues and stimulated inclusive and interactive debate by all parties. The Chairman's Summary of the ministerial segment recognises that we are not yet on track to meet the targets, identifies the main obstacles faced and picks up on most of the UK's priorities. It also sets out a number of challenges to be addressed in the second year of the cycle on water, sanitation and human settlements, culminating at CSD 13 in May 2005, which has the task of agreeing the policy responses needed to get back on track with these international targets.

  Two Tree Island
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) which councils and bodies are responsible for monitoring pollution on Two Tree Island in the constituencies of Castle Point and Southend West; [170825]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the risk to children on Two Tree Island of the accidental ingestion of dust or soil; [171527]

  (3) what the cost was of the Halcrow Report into Two Tree Island; and what steps have been taken to publicise the report's conclusions; [171528]

  (4) whether it is safe for the public to consume (a) vegetables and (b) fruit grown on Two Tree Island; [171529]

  (5) what estimate she has made of the cost of stopping the old Two Tree Island waste dump polluting the environment; [170829]

  (6) what assessment she has made of the potential and actual impact on (a) bird life, (b) marine life and (c) mammals of the pollutants within and seeping from the old Two Tree Island waste dump; [170830]

  (7) which areas of land on Two Tree Island may be subject to contamination from leakage from (a) old landfill and (b) old sewage works; [171530]

  (8) when repair work to Two Tree Island's sea wall was first identified as necessary; and when that work will commence; [171531]

  (9) if she will give advice to (a) walkers and (b) bathers regarding the pollutants in and seeping from the old Two Tree Island waste dump; [170831]

  (10) if she will list the health hazards to (a) walkers and (b) bathers around and on Canvey Island and Two Tree Island resulting from pollutants from the old Two Tree Island waste dump; [170832]

  (11) if she will list the toxic substances (a) within and (b) seeping into the Thames and surrounding areas from the old Two Tree Island waste dump; and if she will make a statement; [170833]

  344W

  (12) what assessment she has made of the extent of leakage of pollutants from the old Two Tree Island waste dump; [170834]

  (13) if she will make a statement on the Halcrow Report into environmental problems associated with Two Tree Island in the Castle Point constituency; [170835]

  (14) what investigations have been undertaken by the Environment Agency into leachate seeping into the Thames from Two Tree Island. [171532]

  Mr. Morley
  The local authorities, that is Southend borough council and Castle Point borough council, are responsible for preventing pollution from this landfill site as it was closed before 1990. In this case, the local authority is also the landowner and is responsible for the sea defences.

  I understand that Southend borough council commissioned a consultant, Halcrow, in 2001 to assess the risks associated with the sea defence failure at Two Tree Island and to prepare a management strategy. Following wide consultation with relevant bodies, including the Environment Agency, a report was produced that considered the options. The local authorities involved are considering action in light of the recommendations made in the report.

  Questions about the pollution risks and the assessment of any health impacts associated with this landfill site are a matter for the local authorities.

  Warm Front
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in South Ribble have benefited from the Warm Front and Home Energy Efficiency Schemes. [171278]

  Mr. Morley
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as Warm Front. Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 1,800 households in South Ribble received assistance from the Scheme.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Oldham, West and Royton have benefited from the Warm Front and Home Energy Efficiency Schemes. [170881]

  Mr. Morley
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as Warm Front. Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 3,600 households in Oldham West and Royton received assistance from the Scheme.

  Water Report
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether her Department intends to hold a public consultation on the recommendations of the Report commissioned by her Department from PricewaterhouseCoopers on the future structure of the Consumer Council on Water and the future of WaterVoice organisations. [169478]
  345W
  Mr. Morley
  A wide range of groups were consulted by PricewaterhouseCoopers during their study of the organisational and regional structure of the Consumer Council for Water, including water industry representatives, consumer organisations, and WaterVoice members and staff.

  The Government do not intend to carry out a further consultation. The priority now is to work towards a successful establishment of the Consumer Council for Water in October 2005 based on the consultants' report and to seek to minimise the uncertainties for WaterVoice and its staff.

  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost to her Department has been of commissioning the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the structure of the Consumer Council on Water and the future of WaterVoice organisations. [169479]

  Mr. Morley
  The PricewaterhouseCoopers study of the organisational and regional structure of the Consumer Council for Water cost £93,261.41.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Processing
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets are in place for the length of time taken to process asylum claims; when these targets were introduced; and which Minister in his Department approved the setting of these targets. [166557]

  Mr. Browne
  The principal target for processing asylum claims made in 2003–04 is to decide and serve 75 per cent. within two months. This was an element of target 7 of the Home Office Public Service Agreement (PSA) covering the period 2003–04 to 2005–06. The PSA targets were agreed between my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and formed the basis for the Home Office's funding settlement for SR2002.

  The technical notes were published on 25 March 2003, and this was announced by Written Ministerial Statement on 25 March 2004, Official Report, column 55WS, by the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Elliot Morley). The notes are held on the Home Office website and can be accessed at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/inside/aims/index.html. The relevant section is on p20. Latest published performance figures against this target indicate that 80 per cent. of applications, received between April and September 2003, were decided and served within two months.

  Body Armour
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of ballistic protection provided by(a) HG1 and (b) HG1A body armour. [172356]
  346W
  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: HG1 and HG1A are body armour protection levels defined in a Home Office body armour standard. Both HG1 and HG1A afford the same ballistic protection. They both provide protection against standard ammunition fired from short-barrelled handguns. In the case of HG1A a back face deformation of the armour to a maximum depth of 44mm is allowed and in the case of HG1 this maximum deformation is reduced to 25mm. The back face deformation is a measure of the trauma that would be inflicted.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he was informed(a) that Highmark Manufacturing Co Ltd. had changed the specification of its KCW223 model of body armour and (b) that the body armour used by some police forces did not meet the protective HG1/KR2 classification of the original tender. [172357]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: Highmark did not change the specification of the armour. In mid 2001 it incorporated a material that had been cured in a different way. They did not inform the Home Office of this change. It has now been established that the fully cured material affords a lower ballistic trauma protection level than the partially cured material. The Home Office was informed of the problem in February 2004 and established its extent in March 2004. All affected forces have been told what action they should take, and the manufacturers are providing upgrade packs to return the armour to the specified protection level.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(a) which police forces and (b) how many police officers are using body armour supplied by Highmark Manufacturing Co Ltd. that does not meet the protective HG1/KR2 specification of the original tender. [172358]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: The police forces in England and Wales using KCW223 model of body armour supplied by Highmark Manufacturing Co Ltd. are Avon and Somerset constabulary, Cheshire constabulary, Cumbria constabulary, Devon and Cornwall constabulary, Dorset police, Durham constabulary, Greater Manchester police, Hampshire Constabulary, Lancashire constabulary, Leicestershire constabulary, North Wales police, South Wales police, West Midlands police and West Yorkshire police. 30,000 models of this armour have been supplied and the manufacturers are supplying upgrade packs to return the armour to its original HG1/KR2 level (where required).

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long police forces have been using body armour supplied by Highmark Manufacturing Co Ltd. that does not meet the protective HG1/KR2 specification of the original tender. [172359]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: In mid 2001, Highmark Manufacturing Co Ltd. started using a material that makes up part of the construction of the armour model KCW223 which was supplied to police forces. This material had been cured in a different way to material previously used. This resulted in the armour in having a reduced ballistic (trauma) protection level in

  347W
  terms of the HG1/A specification and a slightly reduced stab protection level that placed it just below the KR2 level in some carriers and just above KR2 in others.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long police forces were using HG1A body armour before it was approved by his Department; and what action his Department is taking to ensure that police forces are issued with the certification of body armour they specify at tender. [172360]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: The Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) of the Home Office produces a body armour standard. HG1A is a body armour protection level, which was introduced in early 2002. PSDB approved test houses test body armour to the current PSDB standards and the results are published in the Manual of Ballistic and Stab Resistant Body Armour maintained by PSDB. When body armour is tested at a PSDB test house the manufacturer is asked to provide a Declaration of Construction that details the material used in the manufacture of the armour along with a detailed description of the construction of the armour. Any model of armour tested is assigned an identification number that uniquely identifies it and the test sample is retained by PSDB. This procedure is designed to ensure that all armour bearing a particular model number that has met a PSDB defined protection level, which is subsequently supplied by the manufacturer, is of the same construction as the original test armour.

  Care Custody System
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Care Custody computer system to be fully operational throughout England and Wales. [170722]

  Caroline Flint
  The current plan proposes that the Custody and Case Preparation software applications will be installed and ready for service in all 43 Police Forces by October 2005 and that Forces will have the systems in full operational use by March 2006.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether(a) the Came Custody computer system will contain all data held in England and Wales regarding an individual and (b) the information will be limited to locally-held data. [170723]

  Caroline Flint
  As currently designed the bulk of the Custody and Case Preparation information will be held locally within the force area and only core data and that information required to be recorded on the PNC will be available nationally.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what timescale targets he intends to set for the input of data into the Care Custody system regarding custody decisions, bail and court decisions. [170724]

  Caroline Flint
  The current requirement established by the Association of Chief Police Officers and monitored by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, (HMIC), stipulates that the following 348W
  timeliness performance indicators are required to be met by the Police for entry onto the Police National Computer:

  Arrest and Charge

  1. Initial key details of arrestee and charge—90 per cent. within 24 hours of arrest.

  2. Full entry—90 per cent. within five days

  3. Once compliance with 1 and 2 is obtained then a staged improvement to 90 per cent. within 24 hours for full entry.

  Bail

  1. Police bail 100 per cent. within 24 hours Court Case Results—Police Entered.

  2. 100 per cent. entered within 72 hours of the result from the court coming into Police possession.

  Court Case Results—Court Entered 1.

  100 per cent. within 24 hours.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he intends to reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, dated 19 February, with regard to Wajid Shamsul Hasan; [167260]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter to him from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 25 March with regard to Mr. Amanah Ullah. [172254]

  (3) when he intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 30 March with regard to Ms S.A. Ntonga. [172255]

  (4) when he intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 30 March with regard to Mr. Cristian Cornel Peres. [172256]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 11 May 2004.

  Drugs
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings Ministers have had with their counterparts from(a) Sweden, (b) Greece, (c) Belgium, (d) Denmark, (e) Finland, (f) Spain, (g) the USA, (h) Portugal, (i) Italy, (j) New Zealand, (k) Ireland, (l) Canada, (m) Jamaica, (n) the Netherlands, (o) Switzerland, (p) France and (q) Germany on drug abuse in the past two years. [171622]

  Caroline Flint
  Over the past two years, in addition to the regular contacts we have with European colleagues in the Council of Ministers and with other counterparts at other international meetings, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met counterparts from Greece, Belgium, Denmark, the United States, Italy, Ireland, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany and France; my predecessor as Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office with responsibility for drugs issues, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), met his counterparts from Ireland. Jamaica and France; I have met my counterparts from Jamaica and the Netherlands. As a matter of major concern to Home Affairs and Justice Ministers across the world, drugs will have featured in most of these discussions. Home Office Ministers also have ready
  349W
  access to drug policies and practice in those countries through published reports from and about them and through advice from officials and others who keep in close touch with developments.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public funds were spent on tackling drugs misuse in Oldham, West and Royton in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2003–04. [170957]

  Caroline Flint
  Breakdown of financial allocation to local constituencies is not available to the Home Office. Funding is allocated to Drug Action Team (DAT) areas, in this case Oldham Drug and Alcohol Action Team (DAAT).

  The period 1997–98 pre dates the Government's current National Drug Strategy. Expenditure across all appropriate agencies in the area at this time is estimated to have been £977,350. This figure is based on locally held information for the period 1998–99 and has been supplied by Oldham DAAT.

  In 2003–04 the total drugs allocation for Oldham was £1,697,123. In order to ensure consistency figures supplied are based on funding streams associated with the National Drug Strategy and are readily verifiable. These funding streams are specifically targeted at tackling the harm caused to individuals, families and communities by the misuse of drugs. Other mainstream funding is made available at a local level, this varies and both in amount and origin as a result it is not possible to provide robust financial information.

  2003–04

  £

  Partnership Capacity

  69,259

  Treatment Pooled Budget

  1,016,000

  Through Care After Care Pump Priming

  35,000

  Building Safer Communities1

  386,069

  Young people

  190,795

  Total

  1,697,123

  1 Contains non-drug elements.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public funds were spent on tackling drugs misuse in South Ribble in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2003–04. [171656]

  Caroline Flint
  Breakdown of financial allocation to local constituencies is not available to the Home Office. Funding is allocated to Drug Action Team (DAT) areas, in this case Lancashire DAT.

  In 1997–98 (pre-dating National Drugs Strategy) funding available to Lancashire DAT area totalled £670,000.

  In 2003–04 the total drugs allocation for Lancashire was £6,015,000. In order to ensure consistency, figures supplied are based on funding streams associated with the National Drug Strategy and are readily verifiable. These funding streams are specifically targeted at tackling the harm caused to individuals, families and communities by the misuse of drugs. Other mainstream funding is made available at a local level; this varies both in amount and origin, as a result it is not possible to provide robust financial information.
  350W

  2003–04

  £

  Partnership capacity

  118,000

  Treatment pooled budget

  3,980,000

  Through care after care pump priming

  35,000

  Building safer communities1

  1,147,000

  Young people

  735,000

  Total

  6,015,000

  1 Contains non-drug elements.

  Emergency Services
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many administrators were involved, and at what cost, in each police authority, to deal with the paperwork resulting from emergency police vehicles captured on speed cameras contravening speed limits. [170733]

  Caroline Flint
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  European Communities Association Agreement
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Ministers in his Department were informed of the letter from the UK Vice Consul in Bulgaria to the Home Office Business case Unit, of 20 November 2002, regarding the operation of the European Communities Association Agreement scheme. [166558]

  Mr. Browne
  The operation of the ECAA scheme, including letters to the Home Office about it, is covered by the investigation which Ken Sutton is undertaking of the operation of the ECAA scheme for Bulgaria and Romania. I do not wish to pre-empt the investigation by commenting on the issues before it is completed.

  Explanatory Notes
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions the Department did not make explanatory notes available on the day a Bill was published in the last two years; and what steps are being taken to ensure that this does not occur in future. [165897]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  This has happened on only one occasion in the last two years. The guidance issued to Bill teams makes clear that "Explanatory Notes" must accompany the Bill and this is also reflected in the training they receive.

  Forensic Science Service
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the outline business case and financial analysis of the privatisation of the Forensic Science Service will be published. [171397]

  Caroline Flint
  It is not intended to privatise the Forensic Science Service, but to develop the organisation as a public private partnership (PPP). The outline business case currently being prepared will look in detail at how to optimise the performance and economic prospects of the PPP and will include a
  351W
  financial analysis of the impact of the proposed change of status. We expect to be able to announce the results of the work on the outline business case by July.

  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times since July 2003 he has met trade unions representing the Forensic Science Service workforce to discuss the future of the Service. [171759]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: Ministers last met formally with the Forensic Science Service trade union representatives on 20 October 2003. Since then there have been a number of helpful meetings at official level.

  Immigration (Northern Ireland)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have been held between his Department and the Police Service of Northern Ireland regarding immigration irregularities in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) south Belfast. [158610]

  Mr. Browne
  UK Immigration Service (UKIS) has an office in Belfast and there is regular contact between the Police Service for Northern Ireland (PSNI) and UKIS staff. At operational level, the police refer details of potential immigration offenders, and UKIS staff work with them to investigate illegal working allegations and other similar issues. At a more strategic level there is a local Immigration Organised Crime group, chaired by PSNI, with delegates from UKIS, the police and the Garda National Immigration Bureau, Dublin, which meets regularly to discuss matters relating to immigration crime in Northern Ireland (including cross border issues).

  Apart from routine day-to-day contact in respect of immigration offenders throughout Northern Ireland, South Belfast has not been the subject of any special discussions in respect of immigration irregularities.

  North London Mosque
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the policing of street preaching outside North London Central Mosque and (b) monitoring the compliance of views expressed in that preaching with the law. [169785]

  Caroline Flint
  The Commissioner of the Police for the Metropolis tells me that the activities outside the Finsbury Park Mosque are monitored by the Metropolitan police who have a duty to ensure public safety and to prevent crime and disorder. It is an offence to use threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent or likelihood to stir up racial hatred. The police will take action where appropriate.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 4 May 2004,Official Report, column 1398W, on road traffic offences, if he will list the centres at which information about points on licences is recorded. [171914]
  352W
  Caroline Flint
  Information about the number of points on the licences of individual motorists is recorded on the database maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

  Speed Camera (Grape's Hill)
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the total value of fines levied as a result of the speed camera at Grape's Hill in Norwich from its installation until its removal. [171745]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: Information on the value of fines made at specific speed camera locations is not collected centrally.

  Tetra
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) of 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 354W, on Tetra, if he will set out details of the comprehensive programme of work on Tetra health issues; and what institutions are carrying out this work. [171915]

  Caroline Flint
  Following the publication in May 2000 of the Stewart Report on Mobile Phones and Health, we took expert advice from the National Radiological Protection Board's independent Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) on the health and safety aspects of TETRA technology.

  The AGNIR experts confirmed that it was unlikely that the specific features of TETRA technology could pose a risk to health and suggested a number of areas where further research would be useful. These suggestions have been taken forward as follows:
  The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) is assessing the effects of TETRA exposure on various types of cells. Dstl concluded that TETRA has no effect on calcium exchanges in cells. Further work on epileptiform activity and cognitive performance is underway.
  Imperial College is carrying out a national health monitoring study of police users of Airwave.
  The University of Birmingham and the University of Manchester are looking into patterns of work of Airwave users.
  Microwave Consultants Limited are measuring Specific Absorption Rates (SARs) from TETRA equipment.
  The National Radiological Protection Board have completed further work on modelling SARs.
  The Radiocommunications Agency (now Ofcom) checks emission levels from TETRA base stations.

  In addition, we are funding TETRA research as an adjunct to the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme. Studies funded under this arrangement are selected and managed by the MTHR Programme Management Committee. As part of this adjunct programme, the Burden Neurological Institute in Bristol is examining possible effects of microwave radiation on the electrical activity of the brain.
  353W
  These extensive studies have shown no evidence of any particular risk to health from TETRA.

  Fuller details of the research programme are available on the Home Office website at: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/tetra.html.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Environmental Performance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission if he will place in the Library a copy of the review of environmental performance, which the Commission has commissioned. [171511]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The Report will be placed in the Library once it has been considered by the Board of Management.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Infant Deaths
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on the progress of the Attorney-General's review into infant deaths following the Cannings Judgment. [171552]

  The Solicitor-General
  I would refer the hon. Member to the Attorney-General's statement, 5 May 2004,Official Report, House of Lords, column WS55.

TREASURY

  Cancer
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the change in the incidence of cancer in each region since the Chernobyl nuclear accident. [171927]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Patsy Calton, dated 12 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning what assessment has made of the incidence of cancer in each region since the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

  The Chernobyl nuclear accident occurred on 28th April 1986. The attached table gives the incidence of all cancers in England, from 1986 to 2000 (the most recent year for which data are available), by Government Office Region.

  Changes over time in the number of cancers registered are affected by many factors unrelated to the Chernobyl accident. These include historic change in smoking patterns, increased testing and screening for specific cancers (e.g. prostate, breast, cervix), and improved ascertainment by regional cancer registries.
  354W

  Directly age-standardised1 rates per 100,000 population of newly diagnosed cases of all cancers2 to residents3 of England, by Government Office Region, 1986–2000

  Englan d

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Midlands

  1986

  321

  345

  335

  332

  313

  1987

  328

  333

  333

  334

  324

  1988

  337

  344

  338

  341

  324

  1989

  337

  351

  344

  338

  322

  1990

  339

  360

  346

  343

  318

  1991

  340

  353

  354

  344

  333

  1992

  349

  351

  360

  354

  347

  West Midlands

  East of England

  London

  South East

  South West

  1986

  326

  321

  308

  312

  305

  1987

  328

  330

  326

  323

  323

  1988

  347

  338

  339

  329

  334

  1989

  340

  330

  342

  332

  333

  1990

  345

  327

  340

  336

  337

  1991

  350

  321

  338

  334

  335

  1992

  356

  326

  347

  346

  355

  England

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  East Midlands

  1993

  348

  360

  354

  352

  350

  1994

  352

  359

  374

  355

  346

  1995

  353

  349

  379

  354

  337

  1996

  351

  373

  379

  354

  354

  1997

  359

  373

  368

  364

  344

  1998

  357

  394

  374

  360

  345

  1999

  360

  395

  373

  356

  353

  2000

  361

  393

  375

  373

  355

  West Midlands

  East of England

  London

  South East

  South West

  1993

  357

  322

  336

  350

  359

  1994

  346

  328

  342

  352

  358

  1995

  358

  337

  353

  354

  347

  1996

  356

  331

  341

  342

  339

  1997

  349

  345

  372

  359

  354

  1998

  364

  335

  361

  347

  351

  1999

  362

  337

  351

  352

  381

  2000

  361

  338

  355

  355

  365

  1 Using the European standard population

  2 All cancers defined as all malignant cancers excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (International Classification of Diseases Ninth revision (ICD-9) codes 140–208, excluding 173; ICD-10 codes C00-C97, excluding C44)

  3 Figures relate to cancers recorded by English cancer registries, where the patient was identified as usually resident in England

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Coalminers' Compensation Scheme
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the National Audit Office(a) has made and (b) has been asked to make of the loss to the taxpayer from double charging by solicitors under the coalminers' compensation scheme. [170742]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I am not aware that the National Audit Office (NAO) has made an assessment about solicitors double charging. The NAO sets its own priorities.

  Customs and Excise
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what use of ion scanners is made by HM Customs and Excise. [171619]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise use ion scanners at all main ports and airports in the UK, primarily to detect traces of prohibited Class A drugs in baggage, freight and vehicles. They also use them to train Customs officers from international partner countries in the fight against the illicit drugs trade.

  Departmental Expenditure (Entertainment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the amount spent by his Department on official entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [169008]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to him and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on 24 March 2003,Official Report, columns 60–71W.

  Expenditure on official entertainment for 2002–03 was £137,000. Figures exclude expenditure on major events such as G7 meetings of ECOFIN. 2003–04 figures will be available after finalisation of the annual resource accounts.

  Financial Services and Markets Act
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what plans he has to review the conduct of the scheme operated under section 225 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; [172195]

  (2) if he will order the amendment of the Dispute Resolution section of the Financial Services Authority's Handbook of Rules and Guidance to improve the speed of consideration of determinations; [172196]

  (3) when he expects the review of the Financial Ombudsman Service to report; [172197]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the operation of the Independent Assessor of the Financial Ombudsman Service. [172198]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Financial Ombudsman Service is an independent organisation. In November last year, I announced the two-year review of the operation of the Financial Services and Market Act 2000. As part of that review, I asked the Financial Services Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service to review the circumstances in which the Financial Services Authority takes regulatory action instead of individual cases being determined by the Ombudsman and to consider introducing a process by which firms may appeal against Ombudsman decisions. The Financial Services Authority and the Financial Ombudsman Service plan to publish a joint consultation paper by early June.

  Responsibility for setting timescale targets for the resolution of complaints is a matter for the Financial Ombudsman Service. The Financial Ombudsman Service sets out for consultation annually a draft Plan and Budget of its overall financial and workload targets, including the number of cases it expects to receive and the number it intends to resolve, overall costs,
  356W
  productivity rates, and average timescales within which it aims to resolve cases. Cases that are not resolved within 12 months are monitored by the Board of the Financial Ombudsman Service.

  The role of the Independent Assessor is to carry out a final review of the service provided by the Financial Ombudsman Service, in cases where the consumer remains dissatisfied with the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Independent Assessor can investigative the Ombudsman's process and the behaviour of its staff. Disagreements about the merits of decisions are expressly excluded from his jurisdiction but is authorised to make findings and recommendations for redress in cases where he believes it is justified.

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of Iraq's external debt. [171983]

  John Healey
  The latest IMF estimate suggests Iraq's external debt is approximately US$120 billion.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of Iraq's(a) gross national product and (b) income to the state in 2004–05. [171984]

  John Healey
  In April this year, the Coalition Provisional Authority forecast the Iraqi Government's total revenue for fiscal year 2004 at US$14.5 billion.

  Figures for Iraq's Gross Domestic Product were published in October 2003 by the World Bank and United Nations in their Joint Iraq Needs Assessment. These very preliminary estimates showed GDP for 2004 to be in the range of $15–20 billion.

  IT Equipment
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many businesses in South Ribble have benefited from the 100 per cent. tax exemption for the purchase of computer and internet equipment. [172000]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) on 5 May 2004,Official Report, column 1505W.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in South Ribble in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [171998]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Borrow, dated 12 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in South Kibble. (171998)

  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records, the number of unfilled vacancies notified to Jobcentres in Lancashire West Jobcentre Plus District was 4,730 on average during 1997. This represents only a proportion of all the vacancies available, as not all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.
  357W
  Figures are not available for South Ribble 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 forothers 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.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in Bootle in(a) 1997 and (b) 2003. [172331]

  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. Joe Benton, dated 12 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in Bootle. (172331)

  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records, the number of unfilled vacancies in the Liverpool travel-to-work area was 4,403 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 Bootle 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.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the level of unemployment was in Bootle in each year since 1997. [172330]

  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. Joe Benton, dated 12 May 2004:

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

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

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

  The table below gives the annual average number of JSA claimants for the Bootle constituency for each year since 1997.
  358W

  Number of claimants

  1997

  4,368

  1998

  3,828

  1999

  3,516

  2000

  3,218

  2001

  2,873

  2002

  2,706

  2003

  2,543

WALES

  Advisers/Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department spent on external consultants and advisers in each of the last three years. [171879]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office has spent the following amounts on external consultants and advisers in each of the last three financial years:

  £

  2001–02

  44,650

  2002–03

  6,599

  2003–04

  587

  Health Service Funding
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to his oral answer of 5 May 2004,Official Report, column 1329, on health service funding, if he will list the 10 hospitals which are planned or have been started in Wales. [172347]

  Mr. Touhig
  [hoding answer 11 May 2004]: Since 2001, two hospitals—Neath/port Talbot and St. David's, Cardiff—have been opened.

  Two additional hospitals—the second Rhondda and Tenby hospitals—have completed business case development and received approval

  The following six hospitals are currently going through various stages of business case development:

  Holywell

  Porthmadog

  Blaenau Gwent (Ebbw Vale)

  Caerphilly

  Cynon Valley

  Merthyr Community.

  Nuclear Power Plants (Air Security)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with(a) the Secretary of State for Defence and (b) the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on emergency planning procedures to deal with a serious nuclear incident since the release of information by the Ministry of Defence on 1 May 2004 on incidents involving military aircraft and the Berkeley nuclear installations. [171648]
  359W
  Mr. Touhig
  Further to the answer given to my hon. Friend by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the armed forces on 6 May 2004,Official Report, column 1714W, I can confirm that in the UK, off-site civil nuclear emergency planning has been well established over many years. This includes emergency plans which are prepared for all UK nuclear sites by first tier local authorities under the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001. The emergency response arrangements are regularly tested in a programme of off-site exercises which bring together local and national organisations, and which are followed up both locally and nationally through the DTI-chaired Nuclear Emergency Planning Liaison Group.

  Restricted areas of two nautical miles radius are in place around all major nuclear installations, which apply to both military and civil aircraft.

  The Secretary of State for Wales meets with the Secretary of State for Defence and the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues, including emergency planning.

  Productivity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his policy is for(a) increasing the productivity and (b) cutting the costs of his Department. [172193]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 148W.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department plans to contribute financially to the establishment of the second phase of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [167621]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Environment and Agri-Environment on 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 31W.

CABINET OFFICE

  Panel for Regulatory Accountability
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to his answers of 4 May 2004,Official Report, columns 1444W and 1404–405W, on the Panel for Regulatory Accountability, who the chairman of the Panel for Regulatory Accountability is. [172097]

  Mr. Alexander
  In future, any regulatory proposals likely to impose a major new burden on business will require clearance from the Panel for Regulatory Accountability chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and in his absence my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I will chair panel meetings which consider specific regulatory and policy issues.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many regulatory impact statements have been brought to his attention in the last 12 months, with particular reference to the Evaluation of Regulatory Impact Assessments Compendium Report 2003–04, March 2004, pages 25–26. [171610]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) is a paragraph that can be included in the Cabinet paper or ministerial letter to colleagues seeking collective agreement to a proposal that impacts on business. The Small Business Service can have its view recorded in both the Regulatory Impact Assessment and the RIS. Such correspondence is routinely sent to all members of the relevant Cabinet Committee. As has been the practice under previous Administrations, Cabinet Committee correspondence is exempt from disclosure under Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. All Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) must include an assessment of the impact of the proposal on small firms' except where the proposal solely affects the public services.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) unemployment claimants and (b) job vacancies there were in each region of the UK in each of the last 12 months. [172127]

  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. George Osborne, dated 12 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about unemployed claimants and job vacancies in each region of the UK in each of the last 12 months. (172127)

  The attached Table 1 gives the number of claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance, seasonally adjusted, for each Government Office Region, and for the UK in total, for each of the 12 months up to March 2004.

  The attached Table 2 shows the total numbers of job vacancies in the UK for each month, according to the ONS Vacancy Survey. These vacancy statistics are not available for regions. As these statistics only began in April 2001, they are not yet available on a seasonally adjusted basis.

  Jobcentre vacancy statistics, which used to be available by region, 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.
  361W

  Table 1: Monthly average number of claimants of Jobseeker's Allowance (seasonally adjusted) April 2003—March 2004, UK Government Office Regions

  Thousand

  Government Office Region

  April

  May

  June

  July

  August

  September

  October

  November

  December

  2003

  March

  East Midlands

  59.0

  59.6

  60.2

  59.7

  59.3

  59.3

  59.1

  58.3

  57.4

  Eastern

  58.5

  59.2

  59.4

  58.6

  58.0

  57.8

  57.5

  57.5

  57.0

  London

  172.0

  172.8

  172.8

  171.6

  170.9

  170.5

  170.2

  169.3

  168.6

  North East

  53.6

  54.5

  53.4

  52.5

  52.2

  52.0

  51.3

  50.8

  50.0

  North West

  112.9

  113.9

  113.4

  112.1

  110.6

  110.4

  109.5

  107.7

  105.9

  Northern Ireland

  34.3

  35.0

  35.1

  34.1

  34.5

  34.6

  34.7

  34.3

  34.0

  Scotland

  99.7

  100.3

  100.8

  99.8

  98.6

  99.6

  99.4

  98.6

  97.9

  South East

  75.7

  76.3

  76.5

  76.2

  75.9

  76.2

  76.0

  75.9

  75.3

  South West

  48.8

  49.6

  49.9

  49.1

  48.4

  48.1

  47.6

  46.7

  45.8

  Wales

  45.5

  45.7

  45.6

  45.0

  44.3

  43.6

  43.2

  42.7

  42.1

  West Midlands

  95.3

  95.8

  95.6

  94.9

  94.6

  94.3

  94.2

  93.6

  93.1

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  84.6

  85.8

  85.7

  84.0

  82.9

  82.7

  81.9

  80.1

  78.4

  UK

  939.9

  948.5

  948.4

  937.6

  930.2

  929.1

  924.6

  915.5

  905.5

  Government Office Region

  January

  February

  March

  2004

  March

  East Midlands

  55.6

  54.8

  54.7

  Eastern

  56.3

  56.4

  56.5

  London

  167.2

  166.0

  165.3

  North East

  49.1

  48.2

  47.7

  North West

  103.2

  103.2

  102.5

  Northern Ireland

  33.5

  33.0

  32.5

  Scotland

  96.2

  96.2

  95.9

  South East

  74.5

  74.0

  73.6

  South West

  44.6

  44.0

  43.7

  Wales

  41.5

  41.5

  41.5

  West Midlands

  92.6

  92.1

  91.6

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  77.4

  77.0

  76.7

  UK

  891.7

  886.4

  882.2

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus administrative system.

  Table 2: Monthly number of job vacancies (not seasonally adjusted) UK, April 2003 to March 2004

  Thousand

  Month/year

  Number of vacancies

  2003

  April

  564.5

  May

  605.3

  June

  578.8

  July

  568.6

  August

  609.9

  September

  642.7

  October

  651.3

  November

  620.3

  December

  552.0

  2004

  January

  515.9

  February

  622.1

  March

  629.0

  source:

  ONS Vacancy Survey.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he last met members of the Health and Safety Executive; and what was discussed. [168231]

  Jane Kennedy
  [holding answer 28 April 2004]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met with the Director General of the Health and Safety Executive
  362W
  together with the Chair of the Health and Safety Commission on 1 August 2002. He welcomed the Commission and the Executive to the Department, discussed and agreed their strategic priorities and arrangements for them to meet regularly with the Minister of State for Work.

  My right hon. Friend also met with Deputy Director General (Policy) on 13 November and 18 November 2003. They discussed implementation of European legislation in the UK.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) when the Jobcentre Plus Provider Liaison Group was formed; [168842]

  (2) who the members are of the Jobcentre Plus Provider Liaison Group; [168843]

  (3) what the main (a) function and (b) purpose is of the Jobcentre Plus Provider Liaison Group; [168844]

  (4) what the select on process is for the membership of the Jobcentre Plus Provider Liaison Group; [168845]

  (5) how often and where the Jobcentre Plus Provider Liaison Group meetings take place. [168846]

  Jane Kennedy
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. George Osborne, dated 12 May 2004:

  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has asked me to reply to your questions concerning the Jobcentre Plus Provider Liaison Group. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.

  The inaugural meeting of the Jobcentre Plus Provider Liaison Group was held on the 6th September 2002.

  The Jobcentre Plus Provider Liaison Group's membership includes representatives from several of our largest work-based private sector providers, together with providers in the voluntary and community sector, smaller private providers and Further Education establishments. In addition, membership includes the Association of Learning Providers (ALP), a trade body for the work-based sector who represent approximately 30% of Jobcentre Plus providers. The Group is supported by a small secretariat from Jobcentre Plus. Full membership of the Group is set out in Annex 1.
  363W
  The purpose of the Group is to provide a forum in which providers are consulted on changes to policy and operational processes. In practice this gives them the opportunity to comment upon policies from their perspective as organisations that deliver these policies. The Group enables Jobcentre Plus to obtain the views of providers from a wide background and should help ensure that our business can be delivered more effectively and efficiently.

  There is no formal selection process. In order to ensure the arrangements are manageable, the Group has a membership of approximately 20. However, we do try to be inclusive as possible, and membership is potentially open to each of our providers. In setting up the group we attempted to ensure that a range of providers was represented. In addition to our inviting a number of the largest providers, each Jobcentre Plus Region was requested to nominate a local provider, to ensure that the Group offers views from smaller providers. Some Jobcentre Plus regions also hold their own meetings of local provider groups where there are region-specific issues to discuss.

  The Group meets on a regular basis, usually bi-monthly, and meetings are held in Sheffield.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Annex 1: Jobcentre Plus Provider Group Membership

  Contact

  Provider

  David Bailey

  Action for Employment

  Steve Marsland

  Action for Employment

  Pat Taylor

  Personnel Evaluation Consultants

  George Allon

  BTCV

  Roger Cole

  Pelcombe Training

  Stephanie Baslington

  Rathbone

  Janet Pibworth

  Seetec

  Jim McIntosh

  Shaw Trust

  Teresa Jolly/Colin Kearney

  Sheffield City Council

  George Baines

  Standguide

  Jim Gambles

  Standguide

  Martin Dunford

  TBG learning

  Dawn Marsh

  The Training Network Group

  A Townson

  Bournemouth and Poole College

  Gerard Irwin

  Reed Co. UK

  Sian Woolson

  Dash Training Ltd

  Diane Prosser

  Dash Training Ltd

  Sharon Cooke

  Bethany Group

  Sarah Cooke

  DHP enterprises

  David Cameron

  Scottish Council for voluntary organisations

  Sarah Knight

  Instant Muscle

  Paul Warner

  ALP

  Adrienne Nolan

  WACG LMD Skills and Int

  Beth Simpson

  DFES

  Peter Jordan

  LSC

  David Williams

  TD management Services

  Jill Valentine

  UFI

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 23 April 2004,Official Report, column 709W, on pension forecasts, how many (a) employers and (b) pension providers participated in the service in each year since its introduction. [171100]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The number of employers and pension providers who participated in the combined pension forecast service, in each year since the combined pension forecast service was introduced is contained in the following table.

  Employers

  Pension providers

  2002 (up to)

  5

  2

  2002–03

  7

  —

  2003–04

  64

  2

  364W
  In 2004–05 to date a further 59 employers have agreed to participate.

  The table shows two pension providers, however an earlier answer provided on 5 June 2003, Official Report, column 546W, stated that four providers were participating.

  The difference is accounted for by:
  Countrywide Assd Caspil and Countrywide Assd Vax (listed as separate providers in the original reply) have now merged into a single organisation.
  Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society was incorrectly described as a provider and has now been correctly classified as an employer.

  Sure Start Maternity Grant
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many mothers in South Ribble have made use of the Sure Start maternity grant. [172142]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested, the available information is in the tables.

  Sure Start maternity grants for Preston Social Fund District

  Applications

  Awards

  2000–01

  1,276

  1,106

  2001–02

  1,536

  1,305

  2002–03

  1,836

  1,531

  2003 (April)

  152

  95

  Sure Start maternity grants for area covered by Lancashire West Jobcentre Plus District

  May 2003 to March 2004

  Applications

  4,866

  Awards

  3,710

  Notes:

  1. South Ribble Parliamentary Constituency used to be part of Preston Social Fund District. In May 2003, Preston Social Fund District was combined with Blackpool Social Fund District and parts of South West Lancashire and, Lancaster and South Cumbria Social Fund Districts to form Lancashire West Jobcentre Plus District. The data for the two areas is not comparable.

  2. Sure Start Maternity Grants were introduced on 27 March 2000. The very small number of cases for 1999–2000 have 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 of her partner.

  Source:

  DWP Social Fund Policy, Budget and Management Information System.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  9. Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development, what support is being provided for the rebuilding of Iraq. [172243]

  Hilary Benn
  At the Madrid Donors' Conference in October last year, the Government announced a total UK pledge of £544 million towards the reconstruction effort in Iraq from April 2003 to March 2006.
  365W
  DFID has now committed over £278 million for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to Iraq. This includes £70 million for the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq, managed by the World Bank and the United Nations. We are also supporting Iraqi government policies and reforms that benefit the poor, and, in the south of Iraq, helping to restore infrastructure and develop the region's links with central government in Baghdad.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on current levels of(a) power generation, (b) water provision and (c) infrastructure construction in Iraq; and what steps have been taken to maintain provision of these services when contractors leave the country prematurely. [171420]

  Hilary Benn
  The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) reports that average electricity production is in the region of 4,000 megawatts (MW), approximately the same level 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's power generation target for 1 June is 6,000 MW.

  It is estimated that immediately after the 2003 conflict coverage of water services was 60 per cent. of the urban and 30 per cent. of the rural populations. Considerable work has taken place since then to improve the quantity, quality and reliability of water services to the population. There are no complete statistics on current coverage, but informal estimates suggest that, in the south, supply has increased by 10 to 15 per cent. since May 2003. By the summer of 2004, water quality and volume in Basra is expected to have exceeded preconflict levels.

  A total of US$32 billion was pledged for the reconstruction of Iraq at the Madrid Donors' Conference in October 2003. Very significant sums are now being committed to specific projects for the reconstruction of power and water infrastructure and in a wide range of other sectors including health, education, transport, irrigation, telecommunications, housing and oil production.

  The maintenance of essential services is to a very large extent undertaken by Iraqis rather than by foreign contractors. However, it is clear that some reconstruction projects may be delayed as a result of restrictions imposed by the present security situation on the ability of contractors and development agencies to operate normally throughout the country.

  Development Financing
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development, if he will make a statement on mechanisms for financing development. [172244]

  Hilary Benn
  In January 2003 HM Treasury and the Department for International Development (DFID) launched a proposal for an International Finance Facility (IFF). The IFF is designed to "frontload" aid to help meet the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The IFF has the following advantages; it provides the additional 366W
  resources necessary to help achieve the MDGs, making funds available for education, health, economic development, debt relief and building trade capacity; it is the only feasible proposal at the moment which would deliver these resources; it locks in the political commitment of donors to Monterrey pledges and it provides the predictability and critical mass of aid needed for simultaneous and sustainable investment in developing systems across sectors, tackling the causes rather than the symptoms of poverty.

  Commission for Africa
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development, if he will make a statement on the future programme of the Commission for Africa. [172245]

  Hilary Benn
  Following first meeting of the Commission on 4 May, consultation and outreach for submissions to the Commission's work will run from now until October, and consultation on the emerging conclusions of the Commission's work will then follow more detailed consultation plans will be posted on the Commissions website when it is up and running at the end of May.

  The next meeting of the Commission will be in October, and the final meeting in early 2005 before the launch of the report around March/April 2005.

  Sudan
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what assistance his Department is making available this financial year to Sudan. [172246]

  Hilary Benn
  I have allocated £35 million to Sudan for this financial year, in anticipation of a comprehensive peace agreement to end the civil war there. The Africa Conflict Prevention Pool has allocated a further £3.5 million. Last week I announced a further £10 million in response to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, Western Sudan. Hence, £48.5 million are potentially available for Sudan this financial year.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the development of irrigation systems in Ethiopia. [172247]

  Hilary Benn
  Dependence on rain-fed agriculture contributes to the high levels of vulnerability and chronic food insecurity found in Ethiopia. Less than 5 per cent. of the country's arable land is currently irrigated. The Government of Ethiopia recognises the need for appropriate forms of irrigation that will benefit smallholders as well as commercial farmers, in its poverty reduction strategy. Irrigation is an important component of the Government's Water Sector Development Programme. In addition, the Government are undertaking a large programme to promote rainwater harvesting at the smallholder farm level.
  367W
  DFID supports such initiatives through assisting the development of Government's overall rural development strategies and financing implementation of the country's poverty reduction strategy with direct budget support.

  Malawi
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Malawi. [172248]

  Hilary Benn
  The harvest that has just been completed will be the principal determinant of the need for humanitarian action in Malawi over the next year. Preliminary reports suggest a lower harvest than last year's bumper crop, but with major shortfalls restricted to a few areas. In order to assess more accurately the 2004 harvest and its impact on food security and household vulnerability, the Malawi Government, donors and NGOs are undertaking a series of surveys. The results of these studies will be available by the end of May.

  Development (School Involvement)
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what support his Department is giving to projects designed to strengthen school involvement in raising awareness of development issues. [172249]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is committed to ensuring that every child is educated about development issues, so that they can understand the key global considerations that shape their lives. DFID works closely with the four education ministries across the UK to ensure that the content of what is taught in schools is enriched by the inclusion of global perspectives.

  DFID's Enabling Effective Support initiative supports the development of locally owned strategies to achieve comprehensive high quality support to teachers for the delivery of the global dimension in the curriculum and wider school life. Each year some 70 per cent. of DFID's Development Awareness Fund supports projects under this initiative. In 2003–04 the Fund allocated over £3.8 million to 43 projects including the production and promotion of resources for schools; Teacher Education projects; and the Global School Partnerships programme that supports links with schools in developing countries. In 2004–05 the Fund will support 33 projects at a projected cost of £4 million.

  Africa
  Ann McKechin
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development what recent discussions he has had with the new Commission for Africa regarding the debt burden on Africa. [172240]

  Hilary Benn
  The first meeting of the Commission for Africa agreed that the debt burden in Africa will be an important issue for the Commission's work. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Trevor Manuel—the South African Finance Minister—and Ralph Goodale—the Canadian Finance Minister—will lead this work.

  Angola
  Mr Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to assist the Government of Angola in preparing for forthcoming elections. [172083]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Angola has not yet set a date for the next elections, indicating that 14 steps, including conclusion of the new constitution and re-establishment of the Electoral Commission, are necessary before an election can take place.

  DFID is supporting the electoral process. One of the key aims of our Country Engagement Plan for Angola is "a political system which allows all people to influence state policy and practice". Hence DFID is working closely with the international community and Angolan civil society in developing a strategy to support the forthcoming elections. Specifically, DFID is funding a large-scale programme to help civil society, the media and political parties to prepare for the elections. Through this project DFID envisage providing assistance on technical processes such as election monitoring, although details have yet to be agreed.

  Once the date for the elections is set, DFID would anticipate working with other members of the international community to do more. DFID is also willing to consider supporting nationwide consultations on the new constitution. As of yet, there have been no clear indications on how the Government intends to carry out this process and how donors can best support it.

  Mr Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what efforts have been made by his Department in the last two years to work with civil society in Angola on transparency issues; and what results have been achieved. [172082]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID completed its first Country Engagement Plan for Angola in September 2003. One of the three outcomes highlighted in the Plan is "government systems for raising and using resources which are transparent and give priority to poverty reduction". Since then DFID has made significant progress on developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy on transparency in Angola. This includes encouraging Angola to participate in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), contributing to the World Bank's Public Expenditure Management and Financial Accountability Review (PEMFAR), and assisting in development of a G8 Anti-corruption and Transparency (ACT) programme. We have also followed negotiations between the Government of Angola and the IMF on a new staff monitored programme for which greater fiscal transparency is a key pre-condition.

  With respect to civil society in Angola, DFID is one of several donors contributing to the Transparency Coalition set up by the international NGO World Learning in September 2003. The coalition consists of six different national NGOs who are working together to raise awareness and disseminate information on

  369W
  transparency issues throughout the country. The coalition recently put forward a proposal, which DFID has agreed to fund, to analyse and make accessible in layman's terms the complex and very technical Angolan National Budget (OGE). This should allow Angolan civil society to more actively participate in debates on the annual budget process. DFID has also participated in a new forum established by the National Democratic Institute (NDI) in Luanda to look at transparency issues. Through this forum, donors help keep civil society informed on developments in transparency at the political level.

  Much of this transparency work is still in its early stages and it will take some time before we see the full effects. It is worth noting however, that one positive result is already evident. Within the Angolan media there is a more open and animated discussion on transparency issues and civil society has been actively participating in this.

  Births
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the latest proportion is of births assisted by skilled birth attendants in each of the countries covered by his Public Service Agreement target. [172453]

  Hilary Benn
  The latest figures available on the proportion1 of births attended by skilled birth attendants for the countries covered by our Public Service Agreement are set out in the following table.

  1 The percentage of deliveries attended by personnel trained to give the necessary supervision, care and advice to women during pregnancy, labour and the post natal period, to conduct deliveries on their own, and to care for new borns.

  Asia

  Number

  Afghanistan

  no data available

  Bangladesh

  13

  Cambodia

  34

  China

  70

  India

  42

  Indonesia

  56

  Nepal

  12

  Pakistan

  20

  Vietnam

  70

  Sub-Saharan Africa

  Congo, Dem. Rep.

  no data available

  Ethiopia

  10

  Ghana

  44

  Kenya

  44

  Lesotho

  60

  Malawi

  55

  Mozambique

  44

  Nigeria

  42

  Rwanda

  31

  Sierra Leone

  42

  South Africa

  84

  Sudan

  86

  Tanzania

  36

  Uganda

  38

  Zambia

  47

  Zimbabwe

  73

  Children
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations he has received about the role of child-to-child clubs in Kenya in highlighting the phenomenon of female genital mutilation in Kenya. [171699]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has received no such representations. However, our support for reproductive healthcare and safe motherhood includes work aimed at reducing the incidence—and eventual elimination—of female genital mutilation in Kenya.

  Occupied Palestinian Territories
  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State, Department for International Development pursuant to the statement of 29 April 2004,Official Report, column 372WH, on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, when he expects his Department to publish the country assistance plan for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. [172088]

  Hilary Benn
  Following extensive consultations with a wide range of partners in the UK, Palestine and Israel the Secretary of State has now approved the Country Assistance Plan. We expect formal publication to be in June and a printed copy will be placed in the Library of the House. An electronic version will be available on the DFID website shortly.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the statement of 29 April,Official Report, column 372WH, on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, what funding and support the negotiations support unit in the Occupied Palestinian Territories receives from his Department. [172089]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has committed a total of £9.2 million to support the Palestinian Negotiation Support Unit (NSU). This funding covers the period 1999 to 2006. To date £5.25 million has been disbursed. This provides highly professional legal, policy and communications advice to help Palestinians develop detailed policy positions on complex issues in preparation for and during, permanent status negotiations. NSU's professionalism is widely praised, including by Israeli and US negotiators. We believe that the NSU's work represents an effective use of taxpayer's money.

  Tony Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the statement of 29 April,Official Report, column 372WH, on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, what funding and support the Palestinian civil police (a) has received and (b) is planned to receive from his Department; and how many people have been recruited to the civil police force as a result. [172090]

  Hilary Benn
  In 2003 DFID provided £700,000 for police vehicles to help increase the efficiency and visible presence of the Palestinian Civil Police. A DFID funded Police Adviser is currently working with the Palestinian Police and Ministry of Interior to assess the type of assistance that would most effectively help to build capacity within the Civil Police. This assistance is likely
  371W
  to be in the form of technical assistance, training and equipment. It is too early to say what impact this will have on police recruitment.

  Pipeline Revenues
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what safeguards are in place to ensure that revenues received by the countries through which the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline runs will receive will not be used to finance regional conflicts. [172416]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The BTC pipeline has the potential to deliver substantial economic benefits to Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey and it will strengthen regional co-operation, developing new economic and political links between the three host countries. All the international parties involved in the BTC pipeline (including BTC Co., EBRD and IFC) are keen to make sure that the revenues generated by the project do not exacerbate regional tensions. Mitigation measures are already in place, including an IMF approved oil fund in Azerbaijan, a commitment by BP to publish what it pays to the host Governments and support by the World Bank and IMF on budgeting and public expenditure management. Furthermore, Azerbaijan is in the first wave of countries to begin to implement the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). The EITI aims to increase the transparency of payments by extractives companies to Governments, as well as the transparency of revenues received by those host countries. Increasing transparency is a key component to reducing poverty, corruption, and the potential for conflict. The UK Government are helping Azerbaijan implement EITI, whereby BTC revenues are channelled through the State Oil Fund to ensure that the people of Azerbaijan benefit. We are also in discussions with the Government of Georgia on the possibility of their involvement in the EITI.

  Sexual and Reproductive Health
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) when he will report progress on the Millennium Development Goal for the reduction in the proportion of 15 to 24-year-old pregnant women with HIV; [171676]

  (2) when data will be available for the measurement of his Department's targets on HIV/AIDS policy in Africa. [171683]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The data for monitoring progress towards the target for a reduction in the proportion of 15 to 24-year-old pregnant women with HIV from a 16 per cent. prevalence rate is collected by the United Nations programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). UNAIDS will publish their Report on the Global HIV/AIDS Epidemic containing this data in Summer 2004.

  The data will enable us to update progress towards DFID's Public Service Delivery target for HIV/AIDS (as stated above) in 16 key African countries. It will be published in the Department's Autumn Performance Report later in the year.

  Small Arms
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the progress of the National Small Arms Action Plans in Southern African countries. [171677]

  Hilary Benn
  Under the joint DFID/FCO/MoD Global Conflict Prevention Pool Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) Strategy the UK Government have been supporting, since February 2003, a programme to conduct in-depth assessments of small arms issues. The aim is to develop and implement National Action Plans (NAPs) in four East and Southern African countries to address the problem of the proliferation and illicit trafficking of SALW. The NGOs Saferworld and SaferAfrica are undertaking the work together with national Governments and local civil society organisations in Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia and Uganda.

  This process is most advanced in East Africa where a draft NAP is with the Kenyan National Security Council for approval. In the Southern African states of Mozambique and Namibia the process is not as advanced. In Namibia the preparatory phase commenced in late 2003 and the mapping process only began last month. In Mozambique the process has been delayed due to a variety of local circumstances, and the timetable is currently being re-assessed.

  Although no formal assessments have yet been undertaken due to the preparatory nature of the work in Southern Africa, DFID is committed to evaluating what progress has been made and the effectiveness of the National Action Plans overall at the appropriate stages in the process. The NAPs will be regularly reviewed through on-going reports from the field and by undertaking more formal assessments as part of on-going programme management. An external review of the programme in East Africa is planned for June and this will guide future evaluations of the work in Southern Africa.

  Sustainable Development
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made on his Department's sustainable development strategy. [165431]

  Hilary Benn
  The International Development Act (2002) makes it clear that development assistance is"assistance provided for the purposes of furthering Sustainable Development…"
  It is also generally recognised that poverty reduction is a necessary prerequisite for achieving Sustainable Development. For this reason, DFID does not have a stand-alone Sustainable Development Strategy but rather considers Sustainable Development to be integral to the Department's work.

  DFID leads on four specific areas in the UK's implementation of the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI) agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002.
  Water and Sanitation.
  Integration of environmental considerations into Poverty Reduction Strategies.

  373W
  Access to clean energy.
  (Together with the Treasury) Financing for development.

  DFID has completed a review of its water related activities and prepared a Water Action Plan reaffirming the importance of water resource management, supply and sanitation to poverty reduction.

  DFID, along with other Departments, has been contributing to the consultation process currently underway to develop a new UK Sustainable Development Strategy. DFID shares the lead on developing the international dimensions of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy with the Foreign Office.

  At a recent consultation meeting held during the UN Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) organised to solicit the views of international agency representatives on the UK's Sustainable Development track record, DFID and the UK were praised for leadership in developing a better understanding of the links between poverty and environment. DFID's work has emphasised the importance of prudent environmental management to achieving poverty reduction and the other Millennium Development Goals.

  DFID'S lead role in developing policy and implementation guidance on national strategies for sustainable development/poverty reduction strategies was also cited as an outstanding contribution to international Sustainable Development progress.

  DFID's programmes with developing country partners are shaped by the priorities of those countries, what other donors are doing and where value can be added. These priorities are set out in developing countries' own development plans. DFID has been working with developing country partners to ensure sustainable development considerations underwrite these strategies if they are to be effective.

  In addition to meeting the UK's own domestic obligations as signatories to various multilateral environmental agreements, the UK assists developing countries meet their own commitments.

  For example, climate change is considered to be a key development issue because it is poor people and developing countries that are most vulnerable to its adverse impacts. DFID and other Departments, in partnership with developing countries, are considering options for a global carbon dioxide emissions reduction regime including the necessary incentive to encourage a transition away from carbon intensive economies.

  DFID has made good progress towards the targets set out in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. This framework relates to the impact of our offices on the environment. DFID has published delivery plans, used alternatively fuelled vehicles, re-cycle more than 40 per cent. of our waste, purchase more than 50 per cent. green electricity and paper with a 75 per cent. recycled content. DFID is also one of the few departments to meet the water usage targets.
  374W
  DFID's current building project at our office in East Kilbride achieved a Bream award with an "excellent" environmental rating and we have conducted an audit of local habitat and species. DFID has also built volunteering into our staff development planning.

  Zimbabwe
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many representations his Department has received in 2004 on political manipulation of EU-funded food aid by the Zimbabwean Government; and when his Department will publish the results of the investigation announced in February into the alleged misappropriation of UK and EU aid; [171350]

  (2) how many representations his Department has received in 2004 on UK and EU aid to Zimbabwe not being spent for humanitarian purposes; [171351]

  (3) how many formal meetings his Department had in April with the World Food Programme regarding food aid to Zimbabwe; and whether the Zimbabwean Government's refusal of food aid formed part of discussions. [171352]

  Hilary Benn
  The risk of politicisation of humanitarian assistance, particularly food aid, has been regularly discussed in Parliament and with our international partners. As a result. significant emphasis is placed on monitoring incidents of political interference in the provision of humanitarian assistance.

  Humanitarian assistance provided by the European Union and UK to Zimbabwe is channelled through UN agencies and NGOs. In collaboration with those agencies, DFID operates a policy of zero tolerance towards political interference—including political manipulation of aid—in humanitarian operations. The UN and DFID's NGO partners have procedures in place for those affected to report irregularities. Any such incidents are quickly identified, reported and followed up, including by suspending food distribution where appropriate. As a result of these measures, there has been minimal interfernce with international assistance. DFID and other donors and agencies also use the media when appropriate to publicise our activities and to explain the extent of donor support to Zimbabwe during the present crisis.

  My reply to the hon. Member of Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 15 March 2004, Official Report, column 25W, set out the position on the report by the European Court of Auditors on the effectiveness of EC aid to Zimbabwe. There was no DFID announcement of a further investigation.

  UK programmes in Zimbabwe provide both humanitarian assistance and support for the fight against HIV/AIDS. EC programmes provide humanitarian assistance and support for a range of social programmes. The EC and DFID have well established systems in place to ensure that humanitarian assistance reaches those for whom it is intended. DFID has not received any representation in 2004 on misuse of either UK or EC humanitarian assistance.
  375W
  The DFID office in Zimbabwe is in close contact with the World Food Programme (WFP) and meets regularly with WFP, NGOs and other donors to discuss issues affecting WFP's operations.

  The Government of Zimbabwe's decision not to make an immediate appeal to the United Nations for general food distributions is of concern to the humanitarian community. Although the Government of Zimbabwe appear confident of a good harvest there is considerable divergence of views on the crop forecast. The Government also remain unwilling to discuss with the international community what stocks they hold, and what volume of grains they expect to import to meet any deficit in domestic supply. Without an appeal WFP will face difficulty in planning, securing donor funding for and implementing emergency operations beyond the coming months when existing agreements and stocks will run out. DFID will continue to monitor the situation closely in collaboration with WFP and other partners.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the British negotiating position was with regard to the recent European Union discussions on the subject of lifting the EU arms embargo to China. [172510]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) on 29 March 2004,Official Report, column 1147W.

  Clemency Pleas
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on behalf of how many British citizens he has made pleas for clemency, broken down by country, since 1997. [172584]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not keep statistics on clemency pleas. But I refer the hon. Member to http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/KFile/report2001.pdf for details on our clemency policy, which was amended in 2001.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter of 12 December 2003, from the hon. Member for Aylesbury, on behalf of Mrs. R. H. of Aylesbury, refs GU100/49991 and CON/6487, acknowledged by UK Visas on 14 January. [166017]

  Mr. Mullin
  My noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean replied on 4 May.

  Green Minister
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what work his Department's Green Minister has undertaken in the last 376W
  three months in that capacity; and what meetings his Department's Green Minister has attended in the last 12 months in that capacity; [171806]

  (2) 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; [171807]

  (3) what steps he is taking to promote the delivery of sustainable development within Government; [171808]

  (4) what progress has been made with his Department's Sustainable Development Strategy. [171809]

  Mr. Rammell
  As the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) Green Minister, I participate fully in ENV(G) Committee activity. I took part in the launch of the consultation on the new UK Sustainable Development Strategy on 21 April this year. I will attend a Royal Parks presentation and discussion in St. James's Park in June to explore how sustainable development relates to the strengths of Government departments.

  I am a member of the cabinet committee of Green Ministers. FCO officials attend pre-ENV(G) meetings co-ordinated by the Sub-Committee of Green Ministers. However, exemption 2 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information precludes me from divulging the details of cabinet committee business or attendance at meetings. The committee has helped the FCO and other Departments to consider how Government policies can best contribute to sustainable development.

  As part of our commitment to Sustainable Development in Government the FCO has implemented an Environmental Management Systems (EMS) across its main London Offices which is certified to environmental standard ISO14001. This covers 78 per cent. of UK based staff and a further 20 per cent. of staff will be covered by an extension to our rural site at Hanslope Park in late 2004. The EMS promotes sustainable development principles in our day-to-day operations. The FCO is working with Defra, DFID and DTI to ensure that international issues are integrated into the new UK Sustainable Development Strategy. The FCO worked with DFID, Defra and DTI to organise a consultation event in New York on the back of the Commission on Sustainable Development 12 on international issues. A further consultation event will be organised in London in July.

  The FCO's Strategy (UK International Priorities A Strategy for the FCO, December 2003 Cm 6052) establishes 'sustainable development, underpinned by democracy, good governance and human rights' as one of its eight international priorities.

  The Strategy will cover a range of economic, social and environmental issues. It will identify specific actions that the FCO can take through multilateral and bilateral processes and organisations. For example, the strategy will identify how the FCO is working through UN and related international bodies, trade, finance and investment bodies, the EU, G8, the Commonwealth, international partnerships, bilateral action through our posts and programme funds and the UK's Overseas

  377W
  Territories. The Strategy will also set out how the FCO is managing its Estate sustainably. Country action plans will also be developed in conjunction with posts and other stakeholders. We are working closely with other government departments, external stakeholders including the Sustainable Development Commission. We aim to complete the Strategy by autumn 2004.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government first indicated that the country of source for the uranium source in Africa by Iraq was Niger. [168284]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) stated in February 2003 that papers passed to the Agency concerning Iraqi attempts to procure uranium from Niger appeared to be forgeries.

  The Government made clear at that time that it had further evidence to support the claim made in its September Dossier that Iraq had sought to procure uranium from Africa.

  The first direct indication that we believed the source to be Niger was made in oral evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 27 June 2003. The evidence is available on the UK Parliament website at: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/813/3062707.htm.

  Japan
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reopen discussions with Japan under Article 26 of the 1951 Peace Treaty; and if he will make a statement on the status of those who were British passport holders in 1945 who have not received compensation payments from the Government. [171392]

  Mr. Rammell
  This issue is currently under discussion between my Department and the MOD. I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Middle East
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Road Map for peace; and what role the Government is playing in the initiative. [171811]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are committed to progress towards peace in the Middle East based on the Quartet's roadmap. We are in close contact with both parties and Quartet members (UN, US, EU and Russia) about the political process. The 4 May Quartet statement sets out a balanced approach to encouraging progress. It closely reflects our views on priorities. Since its publication my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has met his Israeli, Palestinian and Egyptian counterparts to discuss next steps.

  At a practical level, we are working to help the Palestinian Authority to fulfil its roadmap obligations on security. Although results so far are encouraging, the lack of progress on Phase One of the roadmap, since its publication in April 2003, has been disappointing. Israel
  378W
  should implement a settlement freeze and remove the settlement outposts erected since March 2001. The Palestinian Authority should undertake sustained, targeted and effective operations against terrorists. Both parties and the international community must work to regain the momentum.

  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of(a) Israeli and (b) Palestinian people to promote a peaceful settlement; and if he will make a statement. [171885]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met both the Israeli Foreign Minister and the Palestinian Foreign Minister on 5 May 2004. The Government are committed to a Quartet roadmap-based peace process. As the Foreign Secretary told both Ministers, both sides need to put an end to violence and take the steps needed to rebuild basic levels of confidence and hope. We are pleased that the Quartet met on 4 May, and welcomed their statement setting out a balanced and constructive way forward. The Quartet reaffirmed the importance of the roadmap, and the need for both parties to meet their obligations under it.

  Nuclear Non-Proliferation
  LIew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress at the Preparatory Committee meeting for the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Review Conference being held at the United Nations in New York. [171651]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Third Session of the Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) for the 2005 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in New York concluded on 7 May. The key procedural issues were agreed and this will enable all the necessary preparations for the 2005 Review Conference to go ahead. This outcome met the United Kingdom's main objective for this PrepCom.

  The major issues of how to deal with nuclear proliferation and tackle compliance with States' non-proliferation obligations were fully discussed and the United Kingdom presented its ideas and views on these issues in a series of detailed statements. The UK gave full accounts of the practical steps we have taken towards nuclear disarmament and made a presentation on the verification of nuclear disarmament, dealing with the issue of warhead dismantlement.

  The United Kingdom also distributed Publicity Material entitled "Making a Safer World" setting out our proposals on countering the proliferation of WMD and the initiatives we have taken; our record on nuclear disarmament; and how we ensure compliance with non-proliferation obligations.

  We are now looking forward to working with other States Party and the President-designate of the Review Conference, Ambassador Duarte of Brazil, as he carries out his consultations in the period running up to the Conference in May 2005. It is the role of the Review Conference to take decisions on all issues and recommendations, and the UK will continue to play a major role in strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

  Nuclear Proliferation
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to promote new legislation to tackle nuclear weapons proliferation and the involvement in it of UK citizens and corporations operating from abroad; and if he will make a statement. [171923]

  Mr. MacShane
  Current legislation provides for the criminalisation of involvement in nuclear weapons proliferation by UK citizens or corporations including when operating from abroad. The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which came into force on 14 December 2001, strengthened then existing legislation controlling chemical, nuclear and biological weapons. It introduced equivalent offences to those contained within the Chemical Weapons Act 1996 in respect of biological and nuclear weapons, and introduced a new offence of assisting or inducing certain weapons-related acts overseas. In the nuclear field these are:knowingly causing a nuclear weapon explosion;
  developing, producing, or participating in the development or production of, a nuclear weapon;
  having a nuclear weapon in (his) possession;
  participating in the transfer of a nuclear weapon; or
  engaging in military preparations, or in preparations of a military nature, intending to use, or threatening to use, a nuclear weapon.

  The Act applies to acts outside the United Kingdom when they are carried out by United Kingdom nationals, Scottish partnerships and bodies incorporated under the law in any part of the United Kingdom, Channel Islands, Isle of Man or any colony. We will keep under review the need for any further legislation.

  Tackling the threat posed by the spread of weapons of mass destruction remains a top priority for the UK, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his Statement to the House on 25 February 2004, Official Report, columns 46–49 WS. The UK was instrumental in getting Security Council agreement to UNSCR 1540, passed on 28 April 2004. The UNSCR addresses a current gap in international law in addressing the problem of WMD proliferation by non-state actors and is a concrete example of the Security Council responding to a threat to international peace and security. It makes clear that all states have a responsibility to take steps to prevent WMD proliferation, and places legally binding obligations on all states of the UN under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (threats to international peace and security).

  Overseas Recruitment
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what formal assistance his Department's overseas offices offer to UK-based recruitment agencies in the recruitment of education workers; and how many departmental staff are dedicated to offering such assistance. [170986]

  Mr. Mullin
  No staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are specifically dedicated to the activity of assisting with the recruitment of education workers. The commercial and other services of overseas 380W
  Posts of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are open to eligible UK-based recruitment agencies as to other eligible UK businesses or organisations.

  Paper Recycling
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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(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. [171814]

  Mr. Rammell
  Targets for Sustainable Development in Government, including the DEFRA paper quick wins, are communicated within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) as part of our Environmental Management System.

  Our purchasing function is currently pursuing a new contract for 100 per cent. recycled copying paper. Until March 2004 we were purchasing 100 per cent. recycled paper but due to a mill closure we have recently been purchasing 80 per cent. recycled content paper in order to ensure continuity of supply.

  Our Publication and Print Services teams within the FCO have been issued with guidance on the recycled content target for print publications. From May this year the teams have set a minimum recycled content of 75 per cent. post consumer waste for publications.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Sudan concerning(a) peace negotiations in the south of the country and (b) Darfur. [171389]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friends, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development, and I discussed these and other issues with the Sudanese Foreign Minister during his visit to London on 11 May.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the peace process in Sudan. [171827]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Sudan peace talks continue in Naivasha, Kenya, under the auspices of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development. The UK Special Representative last visited Naivasha on 7–8 May. The parties are hopeful that a framework peace agreement will emerge very soon.

  Timber
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department plans to contribute financially to the establishment of the second phase of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [167629]
  381W
  Mr. Rammell
  As timber procurement policy is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Environment and Agri-Environment (Mr. Morley) on 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 31W.

  United Arab Emirates
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the United Arab Emirates; and what plans there are for future ministerial visits to foster(a) business links and (b) cultural relations. [168568]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on 16–17 March. He met the Crown Prince and Deputy Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and the UAE Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. They discussed bilateral and regional issues. We welcome this opportunity to strengthen our relationship with the UAE.

  Foreign engagements for the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers are kept under constant review. It is not our practice to announce such visits until they are firm. Because of the unpredictable nature of world events, final decisions on overseas visits are often not possible until very shortly before the day of travel.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Morocco encouraging co-operation with the Sahrawis. [172100]

  Mr. Rammell
  We regularly discuss the situation in Western Sahara with our contacts at all levels in the Moroccan Government. Most recently, my noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean discussed Western Sahara with the Moroccan Minister of Interior Mr. Sahel when he visited London on 28 April.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the UK will press for an increase in the UN presence in the Western Sahara. [172104]

  Mr. Rammell
  United Nations Security Council Resolution 1541 which was adopted unanimously on 29 April 2004 calls on the Secretary-General to provide an evaluation of the mission size necessary for the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara to carry out its mandated tasks, with a view towards possible reduction, in his next report due before 31 October 2004. Pending these results the Government have no current plans to call for an increase in the UN presence in the Western Sahara.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances have been given by the Moroccan Government regarding the safety of inhabitants of the Western Sahara. [172105]
  382W
  Mr. Rammell
  Ministers and Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials regularly raise with all parties to the Western Sahara dispute their responsibilities in the search for a fair and lasting solution to that dispute which allows for the self-determination of the people of Western Sahara.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government is taking to encourage Morocco to resolve the territorial dispute in Western Sahara. [172107]

  Mr. Rammell
  We continue at Ministerial and official level to urge Morocco to engage constructively with the UN Secretary General's personal envoy, James Baker III, concerning the Peace Plan for Western Sahara, to reach a solution that is acceptable to all parties and allows for self-determination for the people of Western Sahara.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Expenditure (Entertainment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what his latest estimate is of the amount spent by his Department on official entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [169000]

  Mr. Lammy
  Expenditure by both Officials and Ministers on entertainment for the financial year 2003–04 was £79,050 (£64,718—covers costs related to Ministers and the Lord Chancellor, and £14,332—costs related to Officials), in 2002–03 was £43,378, in 2001–02 was £44,730, in 2000–01 was £60,768, in 1999–2000 was £71,166 and in 1998–99 was £45,087.

  Information on previous years and the current year is not readily available.

  FOI Requests
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what charges will be made for information requests under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [172103]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Freedom of Information Act provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations to determine what fee may be charged. Draft fees regulations were published in 2000. A working group has been considering changes to these regulations and final regulations will be brought forward by the Government in time for being in effect on 1 January 2005.

  Mental Incapacity Bill
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the judgement given in the European Court of Human Rights on 9 March in the Glass v. the UK case for the draft Mental Incapacity Bill. [172448]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Glass v.s. UK case relates to a child, whereas the draft Mental Incapacity Bill does not apply to persons under the age of 16.
  383W
  However, the draft Mental Incapacity Bill proposes a statutory framework for decision-making on behalf of adults without capacity. The draft Bill stresses the importance of consultation with those engaged in caring for the person before making a decision. This would ensure that all professionals involved in making such decisions are aware of their roles and responsibilities. The Bill also proposes to introduce a new specialist and accessible Court of Protection, which would help to resolve such disputes when they arise in relation to adults without capacity.

  Ministerial Visits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list visits made by each Minister in the Department between December 2003 and April 2004, broken down by(a) date, (b) constituency visited and (c) cost. [171558]

  Mr. Lammy
  The number of visits undertaken by Ministers in my Department are as follows:

  Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor

  Constituency

  Cost (£)

  19 December 2003

  Middlesbrough

  638.60

  2004

  9 January

  Belfast South

  1,529.70

  29 January

  Birmingham, Edgbaston

  483.85

  30 January

  Derby North

  483.85

  20 February

  Edinburgh Central

  758.76

  2 March

  Manchester, Blackley

  1,043.63

  12 March

  Harrow East

  1—

  12 March

  Oxford West and Abingdon

  584.86

  19 March

  Watford

  1—

  26 March

  Southwark Crown Court1—

  2 April

  Button Coldfield

  334.00

  16 April

  Worcester

  1—

  19 April

  Leicester South

  1—

  30 April

  Leeds North East

  763.71

  30 April

  Bradford West

  763.71

  1. No additional costs incurred aside from the normal cost of running the Ministerial car

  Lord Filkin

  Constituency

  Cost (£)

  11 December 2003

  Cardiff Central

  792.91

  12 December 2003

  Manchester Central

  514.81

  2004

  9 January

  Cambridge

  1—

  23 January

  Kettering

  1—

  18 February

  Belfast South

  696.44

  6 March

  Harrogate and Knaresborough

  620.64

  26 March

  Harrogate and Knaresborough

  620.64

  2 April

  Loughborough

  1—

  22 April

  Nottingham South

  504.00

  1 No additional costs incurred aside from the normal cost of running the Ministerial car

  Christopher Leslie

  Constituency

  Cost (£)

  12 December 2003

  Shipley

  1—

  2004

  5 February

  Reading

  78.00

  6 February

  Liverpool

  466.92

  6 February

  Central Manchester

  96.00

  20 February

  Sheffield

  198.63

  22 March

  Manchester

  347.15

  22 March

  St. Helens

  1—

  22 April

  Birmingham

  354.00

  1 No additional costs incurred aside from the normal cost of running the Ministerial car

  384W

  David Lammy

  Constituency

  Cost (£)

  25 February 2004

  South Dorset

  370.95

  21 April 2004

  Manchester Central

  679.45

  1 No additional costs incurred aside from the normal cost of running the Ministerial car

  Referendums
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the total cost has been of holding referendums in the UK since 1997. [172045]

  Mr. Leslie
  The total estimated cost of holding referendums in the UK since 1997, excluding Mayoral Referendums, is £9,600,000. The breakdown of costs is:

  1997 Welsh Assembly Referendum £2,300,000.

  1997 Scottish Parliament Referendum £4,350,000.

  1998 Northern Ireland Good Friday Agreement Referendum £1,450,000.

  1998 Greater London Authority Referendum £1,500,000.

  30 Mayoral Referendums have also been held under the Local Government Act 2000. The figures for the cost of these referendums are not held centrally and have therefore not been included in the total.

  Unmade Roads
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs who owns the unmade road at the bottom of Gordon Avenue and Harold Street in Queenborough, Isle of Sheppey. [171384]

  Mr. Lammy
  Land Registry currently holds information on the ownership of almost 19.5 million registered titled in England and Wales. This information is routinely made available to everyone, on the payment of small fee.

  Land Registry processed over four million such requests in 2002–03, over 99 per cent. of which were processed within two working days of receipt. Methods of application for land registration services, and the fees payable, are prescribed by statute and it would be inappropriate for these to be circumvented by a Parliamentary Question.

  I have asked the Chief Land Registrar to write to my hon. Friend setting out the options for acquiring this information.

PRIME MINISTER

  Advisers/Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister how much his Office spent on(a) external consultants and (b) special advisers in each of the last three years. [172341]

  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. For the cost of external consultants for 2001–02 and 2002–03, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) gave to the hon.
  385W
  Member for North East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on 22 March 2004, Official Report, column 561W. Final figures for 2003–04 are not yet available.

  For special advisers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 15 January 2004, Official Report, column 836W to 837W.

  GEC
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the dates of meetings he held with representatives of GEC in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999, broken down by subjects discussed. [173001]

  The Prime Minister
  I have meetings with a wide range of organisations and individuals. As with previous Administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such meetings under exemptions 2 and 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Iraq
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his statement of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 21, on Iraq and the Middle East peace process, whether the employment of civilian (a) contractors and (b) interrogators in Abu Ghraib prison forms part of the political and military strategy in Iraq. [172052]

  The Prime Minister
  President Bush and I have both made clear, any abuse of human rights, torture or maltreatment of civilians in Iraq is wholly unacceptable and all cases will be investigated fully.

  The employment of civilian contractors and interrogators in Abu Ghraib prison is a matter for the US authorities. As has been made clear, three UK military personnel worked in Abu Ghraib between January and April of this year to assist in the gathering of information important to the Coalition's aim of establishing stability in Iraq.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received from hon. Members, and when, concerning maltreatment of Iraqi detainees by US forces. [172663]

  The Prime Minister
  As far as I am aware, as at Monday 10 May I had received one letter from one hon. Member on 30 April 2004, to which I have replied. As at Monday 10 May I had also received four written Parliamentary Questions from my hon. Friend, the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson).

  President Bush and I have both made clear, any abuse of human rights, torture or maltreatment of civilians in Iraq is wholly unacceptable and all cases will be investigated fully.

  Productivity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is for(a) increasing the productivity and (b) cutting the costs of his Office. [172180]
  386W
  The Prime Minister
  For these purposes, my office is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 10 May 2004.Official Report, column 148W to 149W.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  All-terrain Vehicles
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to increase safety measures for the use of all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles; and if he will make a statement. [171766]

  Angela Smith
  There are no plans to increase safety measures for the use of all-terrain vehicles and motorcycles.

  These vehicles are primarily intended for off-road use, particularly for agricultural/forestry purposes or leisure use. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) provides advice on the safe use of these vehicles, sometimes known as quad bikes or all-terrain cycles, for example on such issues as training, protective clothing and equipment, maintenance and safe driving methods. Free leaflets can be downloaded from the HSE website: www.hse.gov.uk.

  The design and construction of these vehicles do not normally meet the requirements for unrestricted road use unless they are modified to comply with regulations on construction, use and lighting. Moreover, for such vehicles to be licensed for unrestricted road use they must also comply with the requirements of the EC Directive (92/61/EC) on type approval for motorcycles.

  Drivers of these vehicles, when on a road, are required to hold an appropriate driving licence and have minimum third-party insurance.

  Asbestos
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the buildings occupied by his departmental and agency staff which require(a) remedial work on and (b) removal of asbestos; what this work will cost; what budgets are available for this work for (i) 2004 and (ii) 2005; and what budget is available for future asbestos surveys. [159652]

  Mr. Pearson
  The following buildings occupied by staff of the 11 departments of the Northern Ireland Administration and its agencies have been identified as requiring remedial work or removal of asbestos.

  Ballymena County Hall

  Twickenham House, Ballymena

  18 Castlewellan Road, Banbridge

  6/8 Scarva Street, Banbridge

  Churchill House, Belfast

  Castle Buildings, Stormont Estate

  Ladas Drive, Belfast

  Health Estates, Belfast

  Fermanagh House, Belfast

  Netherleigh, Belfast

  56/58 Ann Street, Belfast

  20 College Gardens, Belfast

  387W

  Hampden House, Belfast

  Inniskeen House, Enniskillen

  Commonwealth House, Belfast

  State Building, Belfast

  Stormont Estate Sub Station

  Courier HQ, Stormont

  Gate Lodge, Prince of Wales Ave, Stormont

  Victoria Hall, Belfast

  Craigantlet Buildings, Stormont

  Boiler/Greenhouse, Stormont

  1 Davey Street, Carrickfergus

  8 Artillery Road, Coleraine

  36 Thomas Street, Dungannon

  15 East Bridge Street, Enniskillen

  Castle Barracks, Enniskillen

  45 Pound Street, Larne

  4–6 Killane Road, Limavady

  14 Asylum Road, Londonderry

  Valencia Place, Newcastle

  8 East Street, Newtownards

  4 Glenford Way, Newtownards

  32 Devenney Road, Omagh

  42 Kings Street, Magherafelt

  86 Main Street, Limavady

  1A Belt Road, Londonderry

  9 Robert Street, Newtownards

  7/9 Conway Square, Newtownards

  19 Mountjoy Road, Omagh

  20 Derry Road, Strabane

  Greenmount Campus (Main) (39 buildings)

  Greenmount Campus (Abbey Farm) (4 buildings)

  Greenmount Campus (Glenwherry) (8 buildings)

  Loughry Campus (39 buildings)

  Enniskillen Campus (10 buildings)

  Veterinary Sciences Division (12 buildings)

  Newforge (14 buildings)

  Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Owned/Leased) (15 buildings)

  Craigavon Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  Omagh Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  Armagh Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency

  Training Centre at Felden

  There are no separate budgets for all asbestos-related remedial or removal work, costs are contained within the annual maintenance budgets. No specific budgets have been set aside for future asbestos surveys.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of buildings occupied by(a) staff of the Department and (b) staff of the Department's executive agencies have been surveyed for the purpose of identifying the presence of asbestos prior to the implementation of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. [159660]

  Mr. Pearson
  Central Procurement Directorate (CPD) acting on behalf of Office estates and Building standards Division (OBD) of the Department of Finance and Personnel has surveyed 94 per cent. of the buildings within the office estate to identify the presence of asbestos.
  388W
  Of the specialised buildings under the control of the various Departments 91 per cent. have been surveyed for the presence of asbestos.

  It has not been possible to distinguish between buildings occupied by staff of the Department and staff occupied by the Department's agencies.

  Contaminated Land
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons part 3 of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 has not yet been brought into operation; and if he will make a statement. [172370]

  Angela Smith
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave on 21 April 2004,Official Report, columns 562–63W.

  Domestic Rates
  Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost to(a) his Department, (b) the Northern Ireland Rate Collection Agency, (c) the Northern Ireland Valuation and Lands Agency and (d) local authorities was of administering domestic rates in Northern Ireland in the financial years (i) 2001–02 and (ii) 2002–03; and what the estimated costs are for the financial years (A) 2003–04 and (B) 2004–05. [169955]

  Mr. Pearson
  It is not possible without incurring disproportionate cost to disaggregate the administration of domestic rates from non-domestic rates. The figures in table 1 as follows, are the direct costs, including non-cash, of administering all rates in relation to(a) the 11 departments of the Northern Ireland Administration (b) the Northern Ireland Rate Collection Agency and (c) the Northern Ireland Valuation and Lands Agency. Information is not readily held in relation to (d) local authorities and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1

  £000

  Outturn

  Estimate

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  (a) Core Departments1

  n/a

  n/a

  743

  768

  (b) Rate Collection Agency

  7,505

  7,328

  8,914

  10,223

  (c) Valuation and Lands Agency

  6,679

  5,731

  6,504

  7,555

  1 Core Departments include the cost of policy development.

  Educational Psychologists
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding he will make available to assist local authorities in the transition from a one year course to a three year doctorate for training educational psychologists. [171757]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Department for Education and Skills is currently considering the proposals made by the British Psychological society for a three-year doctorate for the training of educational psychologists.
  389W
  The Department of Education has been in discussion with the Queen's University of Belfast and the five Education and Library Boards about the implications for Northern Ireland if these revised arrangements are adopted.

  A Northern Ireland decision on the matter will be taken in light of local needs and the resources available to the Department for future years.

  Employer Training Pilots
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Northern Ireland has been included in the Employer Training Pilots. [171716]

  Mr. Gardiner
  There are Employer Training Pilots running in 20 designated areas in England only. These are a HM Treasury initiative and at present there are no indications that they will be extended to Northern Ireland. However, the aims of the Pilots are closely allied to the Department for Employment and Learning's strategic objectives for workforce development. Department officials are therefore monitoring developments on the implementation of the Pilots particularly in regard to their effectiveness and value for money.

  Farming
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to assist the farming community in Northern Ireland to promote greater availability of home grown produce to consumers. [172065]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and Invest Northern Ireland continue to work closely with processors in providing financial and technical support to ensure they are in a position to supply the retail multiples. There has also been liaison with the multiples to encourage them to increase trade with Northern Ireland suppliers. In addition the Farmers' Market Initiative, which concerns direct selling to consumers, has received funding under Leader and assistance has been granted to the Northern Ireland Festival of Food and Drink which seeks to promote the uptake of local produce.

  Ice Hockey
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to promote the development of amateur ice hockey in Northern Ireland. [171926]

  Angela Smith
  Since 2001–02 a total of £4,150 has been provided, via the Sports Council for Northern Ireland, to the governing body for ice hockey in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Ice Hockey Association (NIIHA), to help it promote the development of both professional and amateur ice hockey in Northern Ireland. In addition, the Sports Council is providing ongoing advice and guidance to a range of organisations involved in the promotion and 390W
  development of amateur ice hockey in Northern Ireland. These include individual clubs, local authorities, the NIIHA and the Northern Ireland Ice Hockey Federation.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Sports Council for Northern Ireland officially recognises any body governing ice hockey. [172079]

  Angela Smith
  At present the Sports Council for Northern Ireland officially recognises the Northern Ireland Ice Hockey Association (NIIHA) as the body governing ice hockey. I understand, however, that the NIIHA decided last year to reconstitute. Following this decision, the Sports Council entered into discussions with representatives of ice hockey in Northern Ireland in relation to the possibilities of official recognition for an alternative governing body for the sport. These discussions are still on-going and, until they are concluded, the Sports Council will continue to recognise NIIHA as the body governing ice hockey.

  Illegal Fuel
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the amount of illegal fuel smuggled into Northern Ireland in 2003. [169932]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  In Northern Ireland, it is not possible to distinguish between the proportion of non UK duty-paid fuel accounted for by legitimate cross-border shopping and the proportion accounted for by cross-border smuggling and the misuse of rebated and low-tax fuels supplied for non-road use. Customs' latest estimates of the overall revenue loss both from legitimate cross-border shopping and from all forms of oils fraud, including smuggling, in Northern Ireland in 2000, 2001 and 2002 are set out in HM Customs and Excise's Annual Report and Accounts (HC 52) published in December 2003.

  Customs' estimates for 2003 will be included in their Annual Report and Accounts for 2003–04.

  Members' Salary/Allowances
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total(a) salary and (b) allowances available to an hon. Member who is also a Member of the Northern Ireland Legislative Assembly are. [172092]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  With regard to the hon. Members' salaries and allowances, I refer the hon. Lady to the House of Commons Information Factsheet M5— "Members pay, pensions and allowances", a copy of which is available for the Information Office of the House and online at http://www. parliament.uk/document/upload/M05.pdf.

  A Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly (MLA) who is a member of either House of Parliament will have their salary payable as an MLA reduced by two thirds, presently to £10,606. MLAs' allowances are payable in respect of their duties as Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and are not reduced if an MLA is also

  391W
  a Member of either House of Parliament. The allowances which MLAs may claim in respect of those duties are:

  Office Cost Allowance—not exceeding £48,000 in any year

  Travel Allowance

  Subsistence Allowance

  Disability Allowance—not exceeding £10,000 in any year

  Travel Allowance—employees

  Staff Pensions and Redundancy Allowance

  Temporary Secretarial Allowance.

  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the budget was for casework of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in each year since its formation. [168166]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has provided me with the following details:

  Amount (£)

  1999–2000

  75,000

  2000–01

  75,000

  2001–02

  100,000

  2002–03

  115,000

  2003–04

  100,000

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has supported on behalf of individuals in each year since its formation. [168167]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has provided me with the following details:

  Cases

  1999–2000

  11

  2000–01

  15

  2001–02

  7

  2002–03

  10

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was of each case supported by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission in each year since its formation. [168168]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has provided me with the following details:

  Amount (£)

  1999–2000

  126,520

  3,000

  7,527

  128,179

  6,545

  7,500

  750

  375

  3,750

  1,700

  176

  392W

  Amount (£)

  2000–01

  18,047

  165,700

  3,967

  411

  100

  110

  250

  176

  470

  235

  1,469

  2001–02

  180,000

  429

  117

  350

  800

  940

  625

  2002–03

  1,087

  500

  180

  294

  15,400

  5,500

  300

  220

  1,175

  470

  2003–04

  15,000

  7,500

  18,300

  7,500

  863

  3,500

  7,500

  824

  588

  2,500

  1,270

  794

  1,335

  1,370

  5000

  1,935

  1 Where a cost is marked incomplete, the case is either still ongoing or final costs have not been submitted. Similarly where the number of cases supported does not tally with the number of case costs listed, costs have not yet been submitted. It should also be noted that the costs associated with a case can be spread over several years and accrued accordingly in the annual accounts.

  Case costs vary as some are simply legal opinion or an intervention to the Court while other cases have been supported to the Court of Appeal, House of Lords or the European Court of Human Rights.

  Patient Exemption Fraud
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards meeting the targets for the reduction of patient exemption fraud in each Northern Ireland Health Board area; and what further targets have been put in place. [171796]

  Angela Smith
  The target for the reduction of patient exemption fraud is set at Northern Ireland, rather than at an individual Health Board, level.
  393W
  2004–05 Priorities for Action sets a Northern Ireland target for patient fraud exemption of a 45 per cent. reduction from the 1999–2000 level by 31 March 2005. The Department remains committed to the achievement of this target.

  The most recent available results are in respect of 2002–03, which showed a reduction in the level of estimated patient fraud of around 37 per cent. compared to 1999–2000 levels.

  Planning Policy
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the development of out-of-town supermarkets in Northern Ireland. [172033]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of the Environment (NI)'s policy on out-of-town development is set out in Planning Policy Statement 5—Retailing and Town Centres, published in June 1996. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  The Department for Regional Development (NI) has commenced work on a review of PPS 5 and aims to publish a draft for consultation in the autumn. A copy of this will then be placed in the Library.

  Plastic Bullets
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the effects of using(a) tasers and (b) other devices in place of plastic bullets. [171754]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Association of Chief Police Officers is currently conducting a trial of the taser in five police forces. The fourth report of the NIO-led Steering Group published on 29 January provided a summary of the initial review of the trial and of the independent assessment of the medical implications on the use within ACPO guidelines of the taser. That medical assessment was set out more fully in the Steering Group's third report, published in December 2002.

  The NIO-led Steering Group has assessed the potential of a wide range of commercial products as potential alternatives to the current L21A1 baton round but none to date have met the criteria for an acceptable, effective and less lethal option. The reports of the Steering Group set out the findings of the assessments in detail.

  The fourth report also described the progress that the Government have made in developing two alternatives—the attenuating energy projectile and discriminating irritant projectile.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total cost to public funds was of departmentally-related public bodies to which public appointments are made in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [170489]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  With the exception of 2003, the information on the cost of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in Northern Ireland is available in the 394W
  'Public Bodies' publication produced annually by the Cabinet Office. The last five editions are available in the Library.

  Information on the cost of NDPBs for financial year 2002–03, which was not include in the Public Bodies 2003 publication, was compiled in December 2003. I have placed a table detailing these costs in the Library.

  There are other bodies to which public appointments are made but that information is not held centrally.

  Rugby
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support the Government will provide to ensure the development of Ravenhill Rugby Ground to enable it to meet current standards. [170245]

  Angela Smith
  The Government have already provided, through the Sports Council for Northern Ireland's Interim Safe Sports Grounds Scheme, £559,981 to the Ulster Branch of the Irish Rugby Football Union to support essential health and safety works at Ravenhill Rugby Ground. We are also currently engaged in discussions with the Ulster Branch about a wide range of issues facing Rugby in Northern Ireland, including the further development of Ravenhill Rugby Ground and the possibility of additional Government support. Until the present discussions are concluded, it would be inappropriate to comment on whether and to what extent additional Government support might be provided to enable the Ground to meet current standards.

  School Travel
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what the total amount of funding allocated to develop school travel plans in Northern Ireland in each of the last three years was; and how much funding has been allocated for further development; [172007]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the safe routes to schools pilots that are being developed; when the final assessment report on the safe routes to schools pilots will be published; and if he will make a statement. [172010]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of Roads Service (Dr. Malcolm McKibbin) has written to the hon. Lady directly in response to these questions.

  Letter from Dr. Malcolm McKibbin to Lady Hermon, dated 11 May 2004:

  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me to respond to your recently tabled Parliamentary Questions about funding allocated to develop school travel plans in Northern Ireland and what assessment has been made of the six safe routes to schools pilots that are being developed.

  You will be aware that, as proposed by the Regional Transportation Strategy 2002–12, Roads Service has been working to address the issue, of the 'school run', given its impact on morning traffic congestion, through the "Safer Routes to Schools" initiative with the aim of encouraging more children to walk, cycle and use public transport for their journey to school.

  The Department of Education, the Department of the Environment Road Safety Team and other agencies are working alongside Roads Service in this project. The following six schools are currently participating in the initiative:

  395W

  St. Joseph's College, Belfast;

  Oakwood Integrated Primary School, Dunmurry;

  Wallace High School, Lisburn;

  St. Anthony's Primary School, Craigavon;

  Parkhall College, Antrim; and St. Brigid's College, Londonderry.

  This is the first time a schools initiative to promote sustainable modes of transport in response to a traffic congestion issue has been undertaken in Northern Ireland. Measures at the six schools are mainly exploratory and at different stages of development. The overall aim is to assist each school in developing a travel plan, which sets out a package of measures for reducing the number of car trips made to school. Where appropriate, Roads Service will subsequently introduce improvements to the roadway such as installing pedestrian facilities and traffic calming measures to facilitate children who may want to walk, cycle and use public transport. Additionally, other measures such as cycle shelters and lockers are provided by the Department of Education inside the schools premises.

  To get the school travel initiative started, Roads Service and its partners have spent nearly £85,000 over the last three years (2001/02-£ nil, 2002/03-£48,391, 2003/04-£36,253) on assisting development of travel plans for the participating schools. The funding was used to investigate existing infrastructure and facilities at the schools, examine accident data, undertake surveys to establish baseline school travel information and pay for the training of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator who was appointed to champion the initiative in the schools. This work was followed by the preparation of draft travel plans, which were given over to the schools to take ownership of and develop in line with the ethos of the school and its thinking on the sustainable transport concept. No specific funding has been allocated yet for the further development of travel plans as resources are being concentrated for the time being on the pilot group of six schools. However, it is intended, as part of the next stage of the initiative, to develop a practical support package that encourages other schools to engage in the travel plan process.

  The improvements to the infrastructure and facilities at each of the pilot schools will be completed this financial year. While we will undertake a preliminary assessment at the end of the school year 2004/05 of how successful these measures have been, initial work including installation of cycle shelters at the schools has had very positive results and generated an increase in cycling among pupils for the school journey. It is anticipated that the planned infrastructure work to the road network adjacent to the schools should have equal effect in facilitating and encouraging more children to use sustainable modes of transport.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Sport Governing Bodies
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are applied by the Sports Council in recognising a governing body for any sport when there is more than one potential candidate. [172078]

  Angela Smith
  The Sports Council for Northern Ireland applies the policy criteria adopted by Sports Councils across the United Kingdom in recognising a governing body for any sport. This states that only one body will be recognised per sport. In addition, in recognising a body, criteria are applied under the headings of constitution and management, structure and organisation, promotion of the activity, safety and impact. When there is more than one potential candidate for any sport, the decision is based on which body best meets these criteria.

  Sporting Venues
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support he is providing to ensure that Casement Park remains a venue for Gaelic games. [172285]

  Angela Smith
  I have already provided, through the Sports Council for Northern Ireland's Interim Safe Sports Grounds Scheme, £150,000 to the Antrim County Board of the Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) to help ensure that Casement Park remains a venue for Gaelic Games. The Sports Council has also recently begun discussions with the Ulster Council of the GAA, which is responsible for the overall development of Gaelic sports in Northern Ireland, about the future capital priorities for Gaelic games including those relating to Casement Park. Until these discussions are completed it would not be appropriate to comment on what additional support might be provided to ensure that Casement Park remains a venue for Gaelic Games.

  Translink
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many new buses were purchased by Translink for use in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [172062]

  Mr. Spellar
  Translink advise that buses purchased in the last five years are as detailed as follows.

  Buses purchased

  2003–04

  193

  2002–03

  17

  2001–02

  52

  2000–01

  41

  1999–2000

  124

  Women's Aid Helpline
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether funding will be provided to ensure the continued operation of the Women's Aid 24-hour helpline; and if he will make a statement. [171760]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is liaising with NI Women's Aid and I have met with the organisation regarding the projected funding deficit for 2004–05 in respect of their helpline. When all considerations have been determined a decision will be made and it is hoped that this matter will be resolved as a matter of urgency.

TRANSPORT

  Aylesbury Southern Distributor Road
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of whether the proposed Aylesbury southern distributor road should(a) be a dual carriageway, (b) be on an embankment and (c) have grade separated junctions. [172166]
  397W
  Mr. Jamieson
  None. The Secretary of State has not received a proposal for delivery of the Aylesbury southern distributor road so is not undertaking any assessment.

  However, we anticipate that the local authority will submit proposals in due course to deliver this scheme.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of the Aylesbury southern-distributor road proposed in the Cross-Government Statement on the draft Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-regional strategy;how it is planned that the road should be funded; and what his current estimate is of the timescale for the project. [172167]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State has not received any proposals relating to the Aylesbury southern distributor road and, therefore, has made no estimate of the cost.

  It is for the Local Authority to bring forward specific proposals for a suitably phased scheme for funding under the Local Transport Plan process, taking into account developer contributions.

  The indicative timescale for this scheme is set out in the draft Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub regional strategy.

  Bus Partnership Forum
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what activities have been undertaken by the Bus Partnership Forum; and how often it has met in each year since its creation. [171938]

  Mr. McNulty
  I Chair the Bus Partnership Forum, which brings together senior representatives of the bus industry and local government, and first met in July 2002. Since then the Forum has met a further three times, January and July 2003 and on 23 February 2004.

  Through the work of a number of task and finish groups and the official level steering group, the Forum is tackling problems that may hinder further growth in the industry and is identifying practical solutions. Achievements to date include:
  publication of a report on understanding customer needs;
  agreeing a code of practice on service stability (limiting the number of timetable changes made per year) for local implementation;
  publication of a CD-ROM resource pack on bus priorities;
  publication of model agreements on joint ticketing schemes as a way of encouraging further schemes;
  and commissioning the first national survey of bus punctuality, with a view to establishing realistic standards and targets.

  Further work is in progress on performance monitoring and integrated ticketing and a report on innovative transport and social inclusion issues is due in the summer of 2004.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) expenditure and (b) administration costs of the Bus Partnership Forum were for each year since 1997. [171972]
  398W
  Mr. McNulty
  The forum was established in July 2002. The cost of administering the Forum is negligible and is met from the existing budgets of the constituent organisations. No additional public expenditure has been incurred from the work of the Forum over and above that already planned for in existing research and consultancy programmes.

  Bus Stops
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of bus stops in(a) rural and (b) urban areas outside London have real time bus information. [171973]

  Mr. McNulty
  In April 2002, DfT awarded £20 million supplementary credit approval (SCA) to support 19 local authorities (LA) and passenger transport executives (PTE) in providing real time information (RTI) on their local bus services. The SCA programme ended at the end of March 2004. It has been used to support the provision of:

  over 2,600 buses equipped to provide RTI

  nearly 1,300 at-stop signs now providing RTI

  12 new or extended websites

  seven new or extended SMS services.

  The transport direct team (TDT) is currently working on a national database of bus stops and public transport interchange points. Bus stops are recorded by LA, rather than by rural and urban areas. The information provided below is therefore broken down into PTEs and shire counties. PTEs are amalgamations of adjacent urban LAs, and as such have been used as an indication of urban areas. Shire counties have been taken to represent rural areas. The TDT database holds a total of 277,363 bus stops in England, of these 65,954 are in the PTEs outside London and 191,760 in the shire counties.

  In late 2003, a survey of bus real time information capability in English local authorities, recorded 361 at stop RTI signs in the PTEs outside London, and 2,067 at stop RTI signs in the shire counties. In addition to signs, there are "virtual stops", which provide bus real time information through short messaging service (SMS). The total number of stops equipped with this capability is: 22,639 in the PTEs and 3,933 in the shire counties.

  PTEs (excl. London)

  Shire counties

  No bus stops

  65,055

  194,632

  RTI signs

  361

  2,067

  SMS capability

  22,639

  3,933

  Total RTI

  23,000

  6,000

  Total percentage

  35.4

  3.1

  Note:

  Table 1: RTI enabled bus stops for shire counties and PTEs.

  For PTEs outside London, the percentage of bus stops capable of providing RTI to passengers is 35.4 per cent. For the shire counties the percentage is 3.1 per cent. This figure is skewed towards the PTEs due to the large number of stops that have SMS capability. For at stop signage only, the figures are 0.5 per cent. for PTEs and 1.1 per cent. for shire counties.

  Car Sharing
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much funding has been given by his Department, and its predecessors, in each year since 1997 towards the(a) development and (b) promotion of (i) car clubs, (ii) car sharing and (iii) the Carplus scheme. [172292]

  Mr. McNulty
  Car sharing was featured as part of the Government's sustainable development campaign, 'Are Your Doing You Bit' prior to 2000. For example, as part of the programme, the Department's predecessor DETR contributed setting up costs of £150,000 to establish the Edinburgh City Car Club in 1999.

  Building on this the Department has been promoting car sharing through its published guidance and initiatives on work place and schools travel plans and by funding bursary schemes.

  Since 1999 the Department has been supporting the Carplus car club advisory service with the following annual grants:

  1999—£37,000

  2000—£38,000

  2001—£103,000

  2002—£53,000

  2003—£60,000

  2003—£60,000

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the average occupancy of motor vehicles for each year since 1997. [172335]

  Mr. McNulty
  Occupancy figures for cars and light vans for Great Britain from the National Travel Survey are as follows:

  1997—1.60

  1998—1.59

  1999—1.59

  2000—1.59

  2001—1.59

  2002—1.58

  Figures for 2003 are not yet available.

  Crime Prevention
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress of the Government's strategy for crime prevention on public transport. [171889]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government are raising the profile of public transport crime as an issue which needs to be addressed by a partnership approach between operators, local authorities, the police, Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), and other interested parties.

  Examples of effective partnership working include the work of the National Route Crime Group to reduce the risks posed by acts of trespass on railway property and associated acts of vandalism. This and other local and national initiatives have led to a 32 Per cent. reduction of vandalism on the railways in 2002–03. The Secure Stations Scheme encourages train operators to work with other organisations to improve the 'whole journey'
  400W
  experience of rail passengers. Currently approximately two thirds of all overground rail journeys and one half of all London Underground journeys involve passengers starting or finishing their journey at a Secure Station. The Safer Travel on Buses and Coaches Panel is looking at ways to combat assaults, anti-social behaviour and vandalism on vehicles and property. The Panel has recently produced practical guides to protect bus and coach crews.

  The British Transport Police (BTP) also play a vital role in keeping Britain's railways safe and secure, and pleasant to use. The Force works closely in partnership with those who manage the railway, staff and tenants, and local police forces. BTP covers crime from serious violent and sexual offences to pick-pocketing and car crime. It also takes a lead in combating the anti-social behaviour that can impact so much on those who use and work on the railway. Other examples of the spreading of crime prevention good practice include a toolkit on reducing crime on public transport, and good practice case studies to improve personal security in bus travel. Department for Transport guidance (to be issued this summer) to local transport authorities on giving greater emphasis to accessibility issues within Local Transport Plans will encourage authorities to adopt a partnership approach with CDRPs, local partners in the health, education and welfare to work sectors, and the local community to address crime and the fear of crime issues as one way of improving people's ability to access jobs and key services.

  Delegated Examiner Tests
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what the inspection and supervisory regime is for(a) institutions and organisations and (b) individuals who carry out delegated examiner tests; [171939]

  (2) which institutions and organisations carry out delegated examiner tests on behalf of the Driving Standards Agency; and how many candidates (a) entered tests and (b) were successful, broken down by institution and organisation; [171940]

  (3) what the procedure is for permission to be given for delegated examiner tests to take place. [1719711

  Mr. Jamieson
  A number of organisations are authorised to carry out driving tests for their staff. The organisations are fire brigades, police forces, the Ministry of Defence and some bus companies. The bus companies have to hold a Public Service Vehicles operator's licence.

  The Secretary of State for Transport has to be satisfied that these organisations make proper arrangements for conducting tests and keeping proper records, before granting his approval to the appointment of the examiners who may conduct the tests.

  Before being appointed, the examiners have to successfully complete the same four week training course that examiners employed by the Driving Standards Agency are required to undertake.
  401W
  The Agency is responsible for the subsequent supervision of the standards of the examiners, which involves quarterly supervision visits to the organisations to check that tests are conducted and assessed to the required standard.

  The number of tests conducted by the fire and police authorities and bus companies last year, and the pass rates have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Equivalent figures for the Ministry of Defence are not available.

  Driving Test Centres
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which driving test centres have refused to accept candidates because of a lack of capacity at the centre within(a) nine weeks, (b) 12 weeks and (c) more than 12 weeks of a practical test appointment being requested; [171967]

  (2) what estimate his Department has made of the number of people who will seek a driving test in 2004–05; [171968]

  (3) what the average waiting time is for practical driving tests for (a) cars, (b) motorcycles, (c) large goods vehicles and (d) passenger carrying vehicles, broken down by test centre. [171970]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Candidates are able to book driving tests with the Driving Standards Agency by phone, by post or online via the internet. They can also amend their appointment by phone or post to seek an earlier or later date, so appointment availability at individual test centres continually varies. No applicant for a driving test is refused an appointment.

  The Agency has a national target for the average annual waiting time for a practical car driving test in England, Scotland and Wales of six weeks. The national average waiting time at the end of April for car tests was 9.2 weeks. Against the national average waiting time target for a motorcycling test of four weeks, the waiting time was 4.6 weeks. Against the national average waiting time target for a lorry or bus driving test of three weeks, the waiting time was 4.9 weeks.

  The latest information about appointment availability for each type of test, at each test centre has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  In order to reduce the current high waiting times for tests in Great Britain the Agency recruited 283 new driving examiners in the last financial year and plans to recruit a further 330 in the coming year. An extra 7.30 am test slot is being added to weekday programmes in some test centres and tests are now offered on Sundays. The Agency is deploying as many driving examiners as possible from Scotland to the London and South East area to tackle the problem of high waiting times there. In the context of its Business Plan for 2004–05, I have set the Agency a target to bring national waiting times for a car driving test down to six weeks by January 2005.

  The Agency estimates that it will handle 1,563,000 applications for practical car driving tests in 2004–05. The current pass rate for the practical car driving test is 43 per cent., so the applications will include a number from candidates who have been unsuccessful at a previous test attempt—some of whom will delay
  402W
  reapplying for a further test for over a year. Taking these factors together suggests that between 670,000 and 940,000 people will be making applications in the coming year.

  Home Zone Challenge
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which local authorities applied for funding under the Home Zone Challenge scheme; and how much each authority received. [171974]

  Mr. McNulty
  A table has been placed in the Libraries of the House which lists the 110 authorities that applied for funding and their respective maximum allocations.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department have put in place to ensure that money given under the Home Zone scheme(a) achieves value for money and (b) meets the original conditions of the bid. [171975]

  Mr. McNulty
  The payment of grant through the Home Zones Challenge is subject to terms and conditions which form an agreement for funding the work programme submitted by the authority in its original bid. The terms and conditions set out the requirements relating to value for money and changes, if significant, to the work programme. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Secretary of State has appointed a consultant to assist with the management of the Home Zones Challenge, to monitor progress of the schemes and to disseminate good practice. Local authorities are required to provide quarterly finance and progress reports and the schemes are reviewed regularly at regional meetings. Authorities are visited on occasion by officials from the Department and/or the management consultant to review individual schemes.

  Light Rail
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department has taken to encourage(a) local authorities, (b) private sector bodies and (c) organisations and institutions involved in light rail to share best practice. [171946]

  Mr. McNulty
  The departmental officials meet regularly with scheme promoters and hold seminars from time to time to disseminate best practice and encourage dialogue between promoters. The Department has also part funded Leeds University's Institute of Transport Studies 'Consult Database' a web-based tool designed to disseminate best practice in local transport planning.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which light rail systems that share road space with road traffic have priority over road traffic; [171949]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the percentage of proposed new light rail systems that will run across surfaces shared with road vehicles; and if he will make a statement; [171950]

  (3) what percentage of current light rail networks run along surfaces shared with road vehicles. [171951]
  403W
  Mr. McNulty
  It is for the promoters to assess the appropriate level of sharing and traffic priority, in the light of local circumstances. All the current and proposed light rail systems have sections of street-running and some degree of priority at junctions.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate his Department has made of the amount of heavy rail track still in use that would be suitable for shared use by light rail systems; and if he will make a statement; [171952]

  (2) sport how many kilometres of track are shared by light rail and heavy rail vehicles. [171953]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are currently about 13 kilometres of track that is shared by light rail and heavy rail vehicles. The Department has made no assessment of the amount of the existing heavy rail network that could be shared with light rail services. However, The Passenger Transport Executive Group on Light Rail is currently looking at the feasibility of more sharing of track between light and heavy rail services and will be presenting their finding to the Department in due course.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what common safety and operational regulations are applied to heavy and light rail projects concerning dangers to pedestrians and motorists. [171955]

  Mr. McNulty
  A number of regulatory provisions apply to both heavy and light rail systems. These include: the Level Crossings Act 1983; the Railways and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations 1994: the Railways (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994, and the Railway Safety (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 1997. All are relevant statutory provisions under The Health and Safety at Work Etc Act 1974.

  The measures necessary to meet these provisions reflect scheme specific risk, and so will vary depending on the nature and characteristics of the rail system concerned.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which local authorities have indicated to his Department that they are actively considering building tram and light rail systems. [171961]

  Mr. McNulty
  Nottingham City and Nottinghamshire county councils, Hampshire county council and Portsmouth city council, Blackpool borough council, along with all the Passenger Transport Executives have indicated to the Department that they are actively considering light rail proposals.

  Local Transport Schemes
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the 19 major local transport schemes referred to on page 19 of his Department's Annual Report 2003; and how much funding each received. [171937]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is no reference to major local transport schemes on page 19 of the Department for Transport's 2003 Annual Report. The new major 404W
  schemes approved in the 2002 annual local transport settlement, along with their funding allocations, are listed in the table as follows:

  £ million

  Norwich Interchange

  9.8

  A43 Corby Link Road

  12.7

  Nottingham City Centre Scheme

  11.8

  North Middlesborough Accessibility Improvements

  10.9

  Sunderland Central Route

  9.1

  North Manchester Business Park

  20.2

  Merseytram Line 1

  170

  Wigan Inner Relief Route

  19.5

  Ashton Northern Bypass Stage2

  7.7

  A5 8 Blackbrook Diversion

  7.9

  A57 Cadishead Way

  19.9

  Warrington Bus Interchange

  6.4

  A228 Leybourne and West Mailing Corridor Improvement

  19.9

  Ryde and East Wight Gateway

  5.6

  A24 Ashington to Southwater

  19

  A24 Horsham—Capel Improvement

  38.6

  Mereoak Roundabout

  6.3

  Walsall Town Centre Transport Package

  11.3

  Reighton Bypass

  6.6

  Motorway Bridges
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many unused and obsolete bridges are in place over motorways in England and Wales; if he will list their locations and who is responsible for each of them; and how many are scheduled for(a) repair and (b) removal or demolition. [172044]

  Dr. Howells
  There are 11 unused bridges in place over motorways in England for which the Highways Agency is responsible. Bridges over motorways in Wales are the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales. The location of the bridges in England is shown in the following table.

  Location

  Status

  Ml Junction 26 and Junction 27 (midway) near Greasley

  Scheduled for removal

  M23 near Hooley (2 bridges)

  Possible removal pending the outcome of the preferred scheme for the M23/A23 Hooley junction improvement

  M1 Dry Culvert Crossing near Shepshed

  —

  M40 Great Pinley accommodation bridge near Warwick

  —

  Ropple Rail Overbridge on the M50

  —

  A46 Budbrooke Lodge Farm near Warwick

  —

  M5 near Puriton, Somerset

  —

  M25 Junction 5 Sevenoaks

  —

  M1 near Luton

  —

  M45 south of Rugby

  —

  M1 Junction 26 and Junction 27 (midway) near Greasley

  —

  Network Rail
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether(a) he, (b) other Ministers in his Department and (c) departmental officials have met representatives of Network Rail to discuss the industrial dispute with the RMT Union. [171223]

  Mr. McNulty
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Transport met the Chairman, Chief Executive and other senior Network Rail officers on 27 April and this issue was one of the items discussed. Departmental officials have also had contacts with Network Rail on this issue.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) 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; [171189]

  Ordinary written

  Named day

  Number and percentage1 answered within five sitting days

  Numbered tabled Number Percentage1 answered on date specified

  Numbered tabled

  Number

  percentage1

  Number tabled

  Number

  Percentage1

  2002–03 session

  November 20022

  199

  184

  93

  109

  84

  77

  December 2002

  205

  201

  98

  57

  44

  77

  January 2003

  342

  295

  86

  65

  46

  71

  February 2003

  217

  201

  93

  20

  14

  70

  March 2003

  308

  234

  76

  45

  38

  84

  April 2003

  197

  186

  94

  27

  21

  78

  May 2003

  233

  216

  93

  35

  24

  69

  June 2003

  248

  214

  86

  43

  34

  79

  July 2003

  214

  209

  98

  29

  25

  86

  August 2003

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  September 2003

  183

  177

  97

  24

  20

  83

  October 2003

  258

  231

  90

  54

  44

  82

  November 20033

  181

  174

  96

  29

  26

  90

  Total

  2,785

  2,522

  91

  537

  420

  78

  2003–04 session

  November 20034

  71

  62

  87

  6

  6

  100

  December 2003

  191

  168

  88

  52

  34

  65

  January 2004

  247

  202

  82

  73

  45

  62

  February 2004

  196

  169

  86

  50

  41

  82

  March 2004

  286

  261

  91

  62

  52

  84

  April 2004

  165

  148

  90

  23

  14

  61

  Total

  1,156

  1,010

  87

  266

  192

  72

  1 Rounded to the nearest percentage point.

  2 13 November to 30 November 2002.

  3 1 November to 20 November 2003.

  4 26 November to 30 November 2003.

  Public Transport (Wirral, South)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many rural bus services in Wirral, South are supported by rural bus grants. [172691]

  Mr. McNulty
  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant (RBSG) is paid to local transport authorities, in the case of Wirral, South this is the Merseyside Passenger Transport Executive (PTE). It is for the authority to decide which
  406W
  (2) what proportion of (a) Ordinary Written Questions to his Department were answered within five sitting days of tabling and (b) Questions for a Written Answer on a named day received a substantive answer on that day in (i) the 2002–03 parliamentary session and (ii) this parliamentary session, broken down by month. [171190]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ministerial colleagues and I endeavour to reply to parliamentary questions within the required deadlines wherever possible. At 5 May 2004, the Department for Transport had answered 4,744 written questions tabled since 13 November 2002, the beginning of the 2002–03 Parliamentary Session. This comprised 3,941 written ordinary questions (90 per cent. of which were answered within five sitting days) and 803 named day questions (76 per cent. of which were given a substantive answer on the specified date). The following table shows the monthly breakdown.

  services should be supported with the grant. We understand from the PTE that one rural bus service in Wirral, South is provided by RBSG.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of priority bus lanes have been created in Wirral, South since 1997. [172692]

  Mr. McNulty
  There is one priority bus lane in Wirral, South 0.2miles long on the southern carriageway of the New Chester Road (B5136). It was created in 1997.

  Rail Franchises
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what costs have been incurred by the Strategic Rail Authority in respect of the tendering process for the Integrated Kent Franchise; and what the anticipated final costs are. [171224]

  Mr. McNulty
  Expenditure by the SRA of approximately £1.8 million has been incurred to date on the tendering of the IKF and the total cost is expected to be £3.85 million.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether a public sector comparator will be undertaken to establish whether South Eastern train passenger services could be provided more economically and efficiently than under a franchise agreement if the service were to be run through South Eastern Trains. [171225]

  Mr. McNulty
  Under the provisions of the Railways Act 1993, as amended by the Transport Act 2000, the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is able to act as operator of last resort for any railway franchise but only on a temporary basis. Section 30 of the Act gives the SRA powers to"secure the provision of services until such a time as they begin to be provided under a franchise agreement".
  The Act reflects the Government's policy that passenger train services should be operated by private companies. It does not provide powers to the SRA to take such services
  "back into the public sector"
  on a permanent basis.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether(a) Ministers and (b) officials from his Department have met representatives of the (i) Stagecoach Group and (ii) other private train operators and consortiums in relation to the proposed Integrated Kent Franchise. [171226]

  Mr. McNulty
  No. The franchising process is a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) which holds regular discussions with both existing and prospective franchise operators as part of discharging its duties.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has received a report from the Strategic Rail Authority on the discussions that have taken place between the Chair of the Authority and the Stagecoach Group in relation to the Integrated Kent Franchise. [171227]

  Mr. McNulty
  No. Any such discussions are a matter for the Strategic Rail Authority.

  Railway Crimes
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many crimes were(a) reported and (b) subsequently led to a conviction (i) on trains, (ii) at stations and (iii) on railway property in each year since 1997. [171906]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided the following information on the total number of crimes reported and the total number of detections since 1998; information is not readily available for earlier than 1998. A split between trains,408W
  stations and other railway property is not available. Prosecutions and convictions are a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Table 1: England and Wales

  Total crime

  Total detections

  Detection rates (percentage)

  1998–99

  107,769

  35,916

  33

  1999–2000

  110,604

  33,614

  30

  2000–01

  103,198

  30,183

  29

  2001–02

  104,292

  23,647

  23

  2002–03

  119,333

  24,225

  20

  2003–04

  123,463

  26,400

  21

  Table 2: Scotland

  Total crime

  Total detections

  Detection rates (percentage)

  1998–99

  10,324

  3,676

  36

  1999–2000

  9,794

  2,882

  29

  2000–01

  9,859

  3,250

  33

  2001–02

  9,452

  2,918

  31

  2002–03

  10,323

  2,694

  26

  2003–04

  9,860

  3,081

  31

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many individuals working on the railways have been the victim of a crime while at work in each year since 1997. [171907]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided the following information on numbers of railway staff who have been victims of crime while at work since 1999; information is not readily available for earlier than 1999.

  Railway staff—victims of crime while at work

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  1999–2000

  3,437

  235

  2000–01

  3,571

  236

  2001–02

  3,715

  231

  2002–03

  4,283

  264

  2003–04

  4,518

  391

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many acts of vandalism were reported on railway property in each year since 1997. [171908]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided the following information on acts of vandalism for both Incidents and Offences recorded since 1998; information is not readily available for earlier than 1998.

  Table 1: Acts of vandalism—Incidents

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  1998–99

  7,835

  999

  1999–2000

  8,531

  1,091

  2000–01

  8,592

  1,063

  2001–02

  9,424

  1,153

  2002–03

  8,667

  1,059

  2003–04

  11,720

  1,094

  409W

  Table 2: Acts of vandalism—Offences recorded

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  1998–99

  5,738

  835

  1999–2000

  6,013

  813

  2000–01

  5,783

  753

  2001–02

  5,499

  531

  2002–03

  5,903

  599

  2003–04

  7,989

  563

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many crimes were committed in railway stations in each year since 1997. [171909]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided the following information on crimes committed at stations, in station car parks, on railway lines and on other railway land since 1999; information is not readily available for crimes committed solely on stations or for earlier than 1999.

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  1999–2000

  83,449

  8,336

  2000–01

  78,526

  8,217

  2001–02

  79,110

  7,969

  2002–03

  86,791

  7,968

  2003–04

  89,229

  7,544

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) train and (b) station staff were attacked in each year since 2000. [172337]

  Mr. McNulty
  The British Transport Police (BTP) have provided the following information on crimes committed against railway staff while on duty:

  Total number of crimes committed

  1999–2000

  1,297

  2000–01

  1,340

  2001–02

  1,436

  2002–03

  1,921

  2003–04

  2,273

  The figures supplied represent the total number of assaults against railway staff; a split between train and station staff is not available.

  Railways
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects that the Strategic Rail Authority will have developed the November 2005 Performance Trajectory with the train operating companies and the National Task Force. [171400]

  Mr. Darling
  The National Task Force (which includes representatives of the ORR, SRA, train operator owner groups and Network Rail), on behalf of the rail industry, has developed a performance trajectory to help them measure progress on industry efforts to improve rail performance. The National Task Force will review the trajectory in October 2004.
  410W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he expects the Strategic Rail Authority to achieve delivery of the Train Operating Company operational performance trajectory projections for November. [171401]

  Mr. Darling
  The Strategic Rail Authority believes that the increased focus on improving operational performance will enable the train operating companies to continue an upward performance trend between now and November 2004.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the railway and land sites which have been identified by the Strategic Rail Authority as being suitable for disposal since 2002. [171403]

  Mr. Darling
  Since the end of 2002, the Strategic Rail Authority has identified 36 sites as suitable for disposal. The table lists the sites.

  Location

  Site description

  Alloa

  Site of former crossing at Hilton Road Whinhill

  Aylesbury

  Railway club and sports ground Perm Road

  Banbury

  Fields by Woodford closed line

  Banbury

  South end of closed line in Woodford Halse

  Bexhill

  Former Galley Hill sidings

  Brize Norton

  Part of former Fairford branch

  Cassington

  Part of former Fairford branch

  Castlethorpe

  Former goods yard

  Challow

  Former station yard

  Colchester Town

  Lower Yard, Magdalene Street

  Corby

  Land at Cottingham Road

  Dunstable

  Land at Skimpot Road/Jeans Way

  Elstree

  Former goods yard

  Exeter

  Former goods yard

  Exeter

  Land and building (Red House)

  Exeter

  Tan Lane former goods yard

  Formby

  Andrew's Lane

  Frome

  Former east goods yard

  Glasgow

  Eastfield Depot

  Goring-by-Sea

  Land south of railway

  Greenhithe

  Land by station

  Haltwhistle

  Alston branch

  Hullavington

  Former goods yard

  Horwich

  Land at site of former railway works

  Hunslet

  Land between Ivory Street and Jack Lane

  Kincardine

  Plot of land beneath electricity pylon

  Kings Lynn

  Land at Extons Place

  Lechlade

  Part of former Fairford branch

  Liverpool, James Street

  Moor House

  Melrose

  Leaderfoot Viaduct

  Reddish

  Former depot, Wayland Road

  Shoreham-by-Sea

  Land at Queens Place

  Tunbridge Wells

  Former goods yard

  Walsall

  Land off Littleton Street West

  Watford

  Wiggenhall Road

  Wivelsfield

  Land at Rockery Lane

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he envisages the full restoration of passenger rail services between Coventry and Nottingham. [171505]

  Mr. McNulty
  The change in service will be permanent. The decision to curtail direct services is aimed at better matching services to demand and improving performance. This was determined under the
  411W
  Strategic Rail Authority's "Midland Main Line/East Midlands Route Utilisation Strategy", on which they consulted last year. Passengers will be able to travel from Nottingham to Nuneaton, from where a shuttle service will operate to Coventry.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education Services (South Ribble)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what public funding has been spent on adult(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in South Ribble in each of the last five years. [171707]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: The estimated total spend on Skills For Life (the Government's strategy for literacy, language and numeracy needs of all post-16 learners from pre-entry level up to and including level 2) and on Key Skills (essential skills of communication, application of number and information technology), from April 2001 to July 2003, in the Lancashire Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area is set out in the following table:

  £000

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  April 2001 to July 20011

  3,370

  1,270

  August 2001 to July 2002

  6,577

  1,857

  August 2002 to July

  7,815

  1,948

  1The figures for April to July 2001 include costs incurred from August 2000 on learning aims continuing into April 2001.

  From the information available to the LSC it has not been feasible to obtain estimates at constituency level or separate figures by subject without incurring disproportionate cost. Likewise it has not been feasible to obtain comparable figures for periods before April 2001 when the Skills for Life strategy was launched and the LSC was formed, but information shows it was considerably less than at present.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many and what percentage of 11-year old pupils in South Ribble reached Level 4 in(a) mathematics and (b) English in each of the last seven years; [171660]

  (2) how many and what percentage of pupils in South Ribble reached the (a) mathematics and (b) English standard in each of the last seven years. [171662]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have given to the hon. Member of Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on 10 May 2004,Official Report, column. 34W.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in South Ribble on the last date for which figures are available; and what steps he is taking to reduce them. [171708]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: Information on teacher vacancies is not available by constituency as it is collected at local education
  412W
  authority level. In January 2003, the latest information available, there were 40 full-time teacher vacancies in Lancashire local education authority.

  Like other areas, since 1997 South Ribble has benefited from the initiatives that the Government has put in place to recruit and retain teachers and to increase the number of staff supporting them in schools. Since 1997, the number of full-time equivalent regular teachers in maintained schools in the former Lancashire LEA area has risen by 390, from 11,870 to 12,260 in 2003. Over the same period, the number of full-time equivalent school support staff in the area has grown by 2,870 from 3,620 to 6,490 in 2003.

  Adult Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of progress in meeting his Department's target to improve adult literacy and numeracy skills. [169738]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 4 May 2002]: Skills for Life is the national strategy for improving the adult literacy, language (English for Speakers of Other Languages—ESOL) and numeracy skills needs of all post-16 learners, from pre-entry level up to and including Level 2. It aims to help create a society where adults have the basic skills they need to find and keep work and participate fully in society thereby increasing the economic performance and social cohesion of the country.

  Following the launch of Skills for Life in March 2001, we have made significant progress towards our Public Service Agreement target of achieving 1.5 million adults with better basic skills by 2007.

  We are confident that we have met our milestone of 470,000 achievements by July 2003. We are also on track to meet our interim target of 750,000 achievements by 2004. In terms of participation, from April 2001 to July 2004 an estimated 2.1 million learners will have taken up 4.3 million Learning and Skills Council (LSC) funded basic skills learning opportunities.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what public funding has been spent on adult(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in Cambridgeshire in the last five years. [170842]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated total spend on Skills For Life (the Government's strategy for literacy, language and numeracy needs of all post-16 learners from pre-entry level up to and including level 2) and on key skills (essential skills of communication, application of number and information technology), from April 2001 to July 2003, in the Cambridgeshire Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area is set out in the table.

  £000

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  April 2001 to July 20011

  610

  389

  August 2001 to July 2002

  2,354

  577

  August 2002 to July 2003

  4,376

  345

  1The figures for April to July 2001 include costs incurred from August 2000 on learning aims continuing into April 2001.

  413W
  It has not been feasible to obtain comparable figures for periods before April 2001 when the Skills for Life strategy was launched and the LSC was formed, but information shows it was considerably less than at present.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what public funding has been spent on adult(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in Oldham West and Royton in each of the last five years. [170908]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated total spend on "Skills For Life" (the Government's strategy for literacy, language and numeracy needs of all post-16 learners from pre-entry level up to and including level 2) and on Key Skills (essential skills of communication, application of number and information technology), from April 2001 to July 2003, in the Greater Manchester Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area is set out in the following table:

  £000

  Basic skills

  Key skills

  April 2001 to July 20011

  8,925

  2,598

  August 2001 to July 2002

  15,369

  3,586

  August 2002 to July 2003

  27,258

  4,210

  1 The figures for April to July 2001 include costs incurred from August 2000 on learning aims continuing into April 2001.

  From the information available to the LSC it has not been feasible to obtain estimates at constituency level or separate figures by subject without incurring disproportionate cost. Likewise it has not been feasible to obtain comparable figures for periods before April 2001 when the Skills for Life strategy was launched and the LSC was formed, but information shows it was considerably less than at present.

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many residents of Liverpool, Walton have secured apprenticeships in each year from 1997 to 2003. [166964]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Modern Apprenticeship data are not available at parliamentary constituency level. The table shows the number of learners to have completed their modern apprenticeship framework in the Greater Merseyside LSC area in 2001/02 and 2002/03. Some learners gain an NVQ, but do not complete the rest of their framework—these are also shown separately in the table. Comparable data for the years prior to 2001/02 are not available due to changes in the way data are collected.

  Leavers achieving the whole framework

  Leavers achieving NVQ only

  Total achievers1

  2001/02

  1,300

  900

  2,200

  2002/03

  2

  1,800

  900

  2,800

  1 Totals may not equal sum of columns due to rounding

  2 2002/03 figures are provisional

  Source:

  LSC Individualised Learner Record

  414W
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many residents of West Lancashire have undertaken apprenticeships in each of the last five years. [171492]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not available at parliamentary constituency level. Nor is the information available on a consistent geographical basis over the last five years. However, the following table shows the number of starts on modern apprenticeships in the Lancashire LSC area between April 2001 and the end of July 2003, as well as the number of starts from April 1998 to March 2001 in the two TECs that amalgamated into Lancashire LSC—ELTEC and LAWTEC.

  Time period1

  TEC/LSC

  Advanced MA

  Foundation MA

  April 1998 to March

  ELTEC

  1,000

  400

  1999

  LAWTEC

  1,600

  100

  April 1999 to March

  ELTEC

  800

  1,100

  2000

  LAWTEC

  1,900

  1,800

  April 2000 to March

  ELTEC

  900

  1,300

  2001

  LAWTEC

  1,800

  2,100

  April 2001 to July

  Lancashire

  1,900

  4,100

  2002

  LSC

  August 2002 to July

  Lancashire

  1,500

  3,300

  2003

  LSC

  1TECs reported the figures in financial years. LSC reports figures in academic years. The first LSC 'year' was 16 months in order to bring the financial year figures into line with academic years.

  Sources:

  TEC Management Information.

  LSC Individualised Learner Record.

  Care NVQ
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places are available on the NVQ level 2 court to study care(a) in England and (b) broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [171008]

  Alan Johnson
  Information on the number of available places to study National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) is not held centrally. However, the following table shows the numbers of enrolments on NVQ level 2 care courses in England in (i) Learning and Skills Council (LSC) funded further education (FE) and (ii) LSC funded work, based learning for young people (WBLYP), broken down by region in 2002–03.

  Enrolments on NVQ work based learning 2 care courses in LSC funded further education (FE) and for young people (WBLYP) in England by region: 2002–03

  Region

  FE1

  WBLYP

  Total2

  North East

  1,900

  1,500

  3,400

  North West

  3,800

  3,400

  7,100

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2,300

  2,300

  4,500

  East Midlands

  3,000

  1,400

  4,400

  West Midlands

  3,900

  1,900

  5,800

  East of England

  1,500

  1,800

  3,300

  Greater London

  2,700

  700

  3,300

  415W

  Enrolments on NVQ work based learning 2 care courses in LSC funded further education (FE) and for young people (WBLYP) in England by region: 2002–03

  Region

  FE1

  WBLYP

  Total2

  South East

  2,700

  2,100

  4,800

  South West

  3,700

  2,000

  5,700

  England2

  25,300

  17,000

  42,400

  1 FE figures are provisional.

  2 totals may not add up due to rounding.

  Source:

  Individualised Learner Record.

  Departmental Work
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what work his Department's Green Minister has undertaken in the last three months in that capacity; [166782]

  (2) what meetings his Department's Green Minister has attended in the last 12 months in that capacity; [166783]

  (3) if he will list the meetings at which his Department has been represented regarding the delivery of sustainable development across Government as co-ordinated by the Ministerial Sub-committee of Green Ministers. [166784]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As Green Minister for the Department for Education and Stills I meet regularly with other Government Departments, Non-Government Organisations and external partners to take forward the Sustainable Development agenda. For further information on my Department's progress on Sustainable Development I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given today to question 166786.

  It has, however, 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.

  Education Circulars
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the circular documents that were sent by(a) the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, (b) Ofsted and (c) his Department to (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003; and how many pages each document contained. [167560]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following pages show the documents that were sent, including the number of pages, during the period 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003 from(a) the Department for Education and Skills (b) the Office for Standards in Education and (c) the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to (i) primary schools and (ii) secondary schools.

  In total, 34 documents were sent to all primary schools and 41 documents were sent to all secondary schools in the period from the Department for Education and Skills.
  416W
  Nine documents were sent to all primary schools and 17 documents were sent to all secondary schools in the period from the Office for Standards in Education, and a total of 22 documents were sent to all primary schools and 21 documents were sent to all secondary schools in the period from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

  Where a document has been sent to all primary and all secondary schools it will appear in the totals for both primary and secondary above. Details of each document and how many pages each contained have been placed in the Library.

  Annex A: Documents sent from the Department for Education and Skills to all primary and secondary schools between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003

  Primary schools

  Pages

  January

  NLNS refresher pack

  26

  Spectrum

  10

  Languages for all: Languages for life

  25

  Sure Start

  9

  KS2 letter from Stephen Twigg

  2

  February

  Raising standards and tackling workload

  32

  Spectrum

  12

  Introduction to e-communications

  2

  Building schools for the future

  20

  March

  Early Years Headcount

  3

  Write here: write now

  2

  Spectrum

  20

  Survey of absences in school

  5

  April

  Notification of move to e-payment system

  2

  Spectrum

  16

  May

  Spectrum

  16

  Excellence and Enjoyment

  50

  June

  Spectrum

  28

  Threshold payments

  1

  Safeguarding children from abuse

  30

  September

  Implementation Review Unit: poster

  1

  Implementation Review Unit: publicity leaflet

  2

  Data collection by type of special educational needs

  10

  Schoolteachers pay and conditions document 2003

  180

  Travelling to school: flyer on sustainable school transport

  1

  Guidance under S133 of the Education Act 2002

  14

  Spectrum 67

  22

  October

  Spectrum 68

  12

  Pupil achievement tracker (CD-ROM)

  1

  Performance management support materials

  1

  Research topic paper on the impact of parental involvement in children's education

  6

  November

  Speaking, listening, learning: working with children in Key stages 1 and 2

  152

  Spectrum 69

  12

  December

  Spectrum 70

  12

  Secondary schools

  January

  Spectrum

  10

  Languages for all: languages for life

  25

  417W

  Annex A: Documents sent from the Department for Education and Skills to all primary and secondary schools between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003

  Primary schools

  Pages

  February

  Peter Housden letter re e-batch

  2

  14–19 Outcome Pack

  10

  Raising standards and workload

  32

  A new specialist system

  50

  Specialist system TSE

  2

  KS3 targets

  2

  Spectrum

  12

  Building schools for the future

  20

  March

  Spectrum

  16

  Survey of absences in schools

  5

  National non stat spec—careers

  30

  Protecting children from abuse

  5

  April

  12th youth cohort study

  5

  Notification of move to e-payment system

  2

  Spectrum

  16

  May

  Spectrum

  16

  June

  Safeguarding children from abuse

  30

  Threshold guidance

  1

  Spectrum

  28

  September

  Implementation Review Unit: poster

  1

  Implementation Review Unit: publicity leaflet

  2

  Data collection by type of special educational needs

  10

  Schoolteachers pay and conditions document 2003

  180

  Travelling to school: flyer on sustainable school transport

  1

  Guidance under S133 of the Education Act 2002

  14

  Education maintenance allowances (EMA)—guidance leaflet

  6

  Principles underpinning the organisation of 16–19 provision (summary)

  8

  Spectrum 67

  22

  October

  Spectrum 68

  12

  Research topic paper on the impact of parental involvement in children's education

  6

  Performance management support materials

  1

  Pupil achievement tracker (CD ROM)

  1

  November

  Direct communication with young people

  20

  KS3 National Strategy: Targeting level 5 and above—teaching responses to reading

  122

  KS3 National Strategy: Year 9 booster kit—English 2003

  170

  Spectrum 69

  12

  KS3 National Strategy: GCSE booster pack

  76

  Future of higher education: changes to student finance

  8

  December

  Spectrum 70

  12

  Notes:

  1. There were no circular documents sent to schools in July or August 2003.

  2. 'Spectrum' is the DfES monthly catalogue of publications, and source of information and news of interest to schools.

  Annex B: Documents sent from the Office for Standards in Education to all primary and secondary schools between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003

  Date

  Schools

  Pages

  Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools: Standards and Quality in Education

  418W

  Annex B: Documents sent from the Office for Standards in Education to all primary and secondary schools between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003

  Date

  Schools

  Pages

  2001–02

  5 February 2003

  All

  106

  Area Inspection Framework Consultation

  10 February 2003

  Secondary

  22

  Good assessment in secondary schools

  3 March 2003

  Secondary

  41

  Key Stage 3 Strategy: Evaluation of second year

  14 March 2003

  Secondary

  32

  Writing in English as an Additional Language at Key Stage 4 and Post-16

  17 March 2003

  Secondary

  74

  Curriculum 2000: Implementation

  21 March 2003

  Secondary

  27

  Bullying: Action taken in secondary schools

  25 March 2003

  Secondary

  33

  Framework for Inspecting Schools (May 2003)

  30 May 2003

  All

  57

  Excellence in Cities and EAZs: management and impact

  2 June 2003

  Secondary

  78

  Key Stage 4: towards a flexible curriculum

  10 June 2003

  Secondary

  53

  The School Sports Co-ordinator Programme: Evaluation of Phases 1 and 2, 2001–03

  16 June 2003

  All

  40

  Leadership and Management of Schools: What Ofsted inspections tell us

  27 June 2003

  All

  48

  Boys' achievement in secondary schools

  11 July 2003

  Secondary

  58

  The education of six-year-olds in England, Denmark and Finland

  23 July 2003

  Primary

  63

  Area Inspection Framework

  22 September 2003

  Secondary

  22

  The education of asylum-seeker pupils

  22 October 2003

  All

  38

  Handbook for Inspectors—Inspection of Connexions Partnerships

  18 November 2003

  Secondary

  89

  Provision and support for traveller pupils

  9 December 2003

  Primary

  21

  National Literacy and Numeracy Report 2003

  9 December 2003

  Primary

  66

  Leadership and management: managing the school workforce (leaflet)

  16 December 2003

  All

  4

  Annex C: Documents sent from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to all primary and secondary schools between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003

  Date

  Schools

  Pages

  KS1 and KS2 standards report

  January 2003

  Primary

  2

  KS3 standards report

  January 2003

  Secondary

  2

  Foundation Stage Profile (+ order form)

  January 2003

  Primary

  2

  A-level circular

  January 2003

  Secondary

  1

  Using mathematics to raise achievement

  January 2003

  All

  1

  KS1 audit

  January 2003

  Primary

  1

  Citizenship Key stages 1–4 Guidance on assessment recording and reporting

  February 2003

  All

  1

  New perspectives on spoken English in the classroom

  February 2003

  All

  1

  419W

  Annex C: Documents sent from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to all primary and secondary schools between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003

  Date

  Schools

  Pages

  Introduction or revised VCEs postponed to September 2005

  March 2003

  Secondary

  1

  Checklist and packing sheets for Key Stage 2 tests 2003

  March 2003

  Primary

  2

  Checklist and packing sheets for year 7 progress tests 2003

  March 2003

  Secondary

  2

  Checklist and packing sheets for Key Stage 3 tests 2003

  March 2003

  Secondary

  2

  Drugs, alcohol and tobacco

  March 2003

  All

  1

  Update to the exemplar scheme of work for ICT at Key stages 1 and 2

  April 2003

  Primary

  1

  KS1 Test circular 2003 with HDF

  April 2003

  Primary

  3

  Test dates for 2004

  May 2003

  All

  1

  Diagnostic software CD-ROM

  June 2003

  All

  1

  2003 KS2 level threshold tables

  July 2003

  Primary

  2

  2003 KS3 level threshold tables

  July 2003

  Secondary

  2

  2003 Year 7 level threshold tables

  September 2003

  Secondary

  2

  Work-related learning for all at key stage 4: guidance for implementing the statutory requirement from 2004

  September 2003

  Secondary

  2

  Changes to the Key stage 4 curriculum: guidance for implementation from 2004

  September 2003

  Secondary

  2

  KS1 ARA

  October 2003

  Primary

  2

  KS2 ARA

  October 2003

  Primary

  2

  KS3 ARA

  October 2003

  Secondary

  2

  Year 7/8 ARA

  October 2003

  Secondary

  2

  Religious education and collective worship

  October 2003

  All

  1

  2003 Testbase and implications for Key stages 1, 2 and 3

  October 2003

  All

  1

  School-based assessment video (CD format)—Assessment for learning: Involving pupils

  November 2003

  All

  1

  2004 Key stage 1 statutory tasks for English and mathematics

  December 2003

  Primary

  2

  2004 Key stage 1 statutory tasks for English and mathematics (independent schools)

  December 2003

  Primary

  2

  Table A—Sefton LEA Capital Allocations

  £000

  Type

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05*

  2005–06*

  Additional NDS Grant (615)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  141

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Assistance with AMPs

  —

  —

  39

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Basic L C Vap

  —

  —

  —

  —

  101

  573

  735

  —

  —

  Basic Need

  70

  217

  683

  1589

  2950

  1804

  903

  550

  716

  City Learning Centres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1200

  —

  —

  —

  —

  420W

  Annex C: Documents sent from the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to all primary and secondary schools between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2003

  Date

  Schools

  Pages

  2004 Key stage 1 tasks for English and mathematics and copies of 2003 tests for English and mathematics

  December 2003

  Primary

  2

  Data Handling Toolkit

  December 2003

  All

  1

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what cost estimate his Department has made of the educational maintenance allowance over the next three years. [167989]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Department estimates the cost of the Education Maintenance Allowance Scheme over the next three financial years to be:

  £ million

  2004–05

  275

  2005–06

  403

  2006–07

  476

  These estimates take account of the phased roll-out to one cohort at a time and the cost of administering, promoting and evaluating the scheme. They take account of new estimates on population of young people and household income distribution.

  Education Services (Bootle)
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much public funding has been spent on repairing schools in Bootle in each year since 1997; [172678]

  (2) how much funding each school in Bootle has received from the New Deal for Schools. [172680]

  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 Sefton LEA since 1997–98, in total and by programme, including devolved formula capital grants to each school. Table B shows the schools in the Bootle constituency that benefited from investment through the New Deal for Schools (NDS) programme, which ran between 1997–98 and 2000–01.
  421W

  Table A—Sefton LEA Capital Allocations

  £000

  Type

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05*

  2005–06*

  Class Size initiative

  —

  359

  659

  186

  525

  137

  —

  —

  —

  Condition

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1842

  2794

  3665

  —

  —

  Devolved Formula

  —

  —

  —

  2043

  1677

  2556

  3990

  2763

  —

  Modernisation (Primary)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1174

  —

  Modernisation LEA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Modernisation LEA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  943

  1534

  2113

  2830

  Modernisation VA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  333

  928

  1821

  1070

  NDS1

  836

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS2

  —

  442

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS3

  —

  —

  1862

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDS4

  —

  —

  —

  3628

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Nursery Provision

  —

  —

  —

  66

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  School Labs

  —

  —

  —

  198

  198

  —

  —

  —

  —

  School Security

  76

  95

  96

  96

  67

  58

  —

  —

  —

  School Access Initiative

  30

  70

  150

  210

  348

  429

  650

  385

  383

  Secondary Learning Support

  —

  —

  —

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Units

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Seed Challenge

  —

  —

  —

  196

  220

  373

  370

  367

  —

  Specialist Schools

  —

  —

  —

  100

  —

  200

  —

  —

  —

  Staff Workspace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  76

  156

  —

  —

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  70

  230

  585

  66

  89

  448

  —

  —

  —

  Targeted Capital Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3698

  3999

  —

  —

  Voluntary Aided School Grant

  552

  389

  488

  1003

  1788

  1558

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  1634

  1802

  4562

  9388

  11146

  15980

  16930

  10229

  4999

  Note:

  * Further allocations to be announced

  Table B—NDS Allocations to school in the Bootle Constituency

  £

  School

  Project details

  Grant awarded

  1997–98

  Hillside High School

  Conversion and refit of lab

  LEA wide grant

  1836,000

  St. Winefride's RC Infant School

  Major structural repair due to ground subsidence

  LEA wide grant

  1836,000

  Litherland High School

  Replace felt roof

  LEA wide grant

  1836,000

  The Grange Primary School

  Wet rot repairs and external painting

  LEA wide grant

  1836,000

  1998–99

  Litherland High School

  Heating repairs

  55,850

  Linacre Primary School

  Heating repairs

  61,435

  2000–01

  Hillside High School

  Replace temporary classrooms

  528,513

  Bootle High School

  Boiler replacement package

  Project including 4 schools

  2368,283

  1 For NDS 1 grant was allocated for Sefton LEA wide projects, part of which was used for work at each of 4 schools in the Bootle constituency. The LEA will be able to say how much was allocated to each school.

  2 Allocation shown is the total for package of project within Sefton LEA which included the school shown which is in the Bootle constituency. The LEA will be able to say how much was allocated to the school.

  Further Education
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes he has made to the fee structure for Level 2 courses in further education; and what steps he is taking to ensure the maintenance of employer contributions to those courses. [171422]
  422W
  Alan Johnson
  No changes have yet been made to the fee structure for Level 2 courses in further education institutions. From September this year we will be trialling, in the North East and South East regions, a new entitlement enabling adults in the labour force without a full level 2 qualification to have access to free tuition for their first full level 2 qualification. Where a learner is taking a publicly available course in further education through this entitlement there will be no tuition fee cost to the learner or their employer. We will continue to expect colleges to collect fees from employers for customised provision. From September the Learning and Skills Council's funding assumption that for dedicated provision employers pay above the standard fee assumption for individual learners will be abolished. As outlined in our White Paper '21st Century Skills—Realising Our Potential' we will consult the sector later this year on changes to the fees framework from 2005–06.

  Higher Education (Preston)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent on higher education in Preston in each of the last seven years. [168123]

  Alan Johnson
  The only publicly funded institutions providing higher education in Preston are Preston College and the University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN). The amounts of public funding spent in academic years for which figures are available are shown in the table. Expenditure was by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), and by the Student Loans Company (SLC).
  423W

  £ million

  1997/98

  1998/99

  1999/2000

  2000/01

  2001/02

  2002/03

  2003/04

  HEFCE funding of the University of Central Lancashire2

  33

  37.5

  41

  42

  45

  47.5

  50

  HEFCE funding of Preston College3

  n/a

  n/a

  641

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Total SLC expenditure4

  n/a

  n/a

  21.62

  30.8

  37.11

  40.01

  n/a

  1 Thousand

  2 These figures represent the Basic Teaching and Research Grant. In addition, the University has received an additional £42 million over the seven years for various activities and initiatives, including:Funding for Teaching and Learning; the Collaborative Research Scheme; Higher Education Reach Out to Business and the Community; Restructuring Funds; Inherited Liabilities; Poor Estates; Project Capital; Access Funds; Teachers' Pension Scheme; and New Technology Institutes.

  3 The 1999/2000 figure is the Basic Teaching Grant from HEFCE. Preston College transferred their directly funded student numbers to the University of Central Lancashire from 00/01 and HEFCE do not hold information on the amount of funding passed by UCLAN to Preston College in connection with students studying at the College under their franchise arrangements. Figures for HNC and HND provision funded via the Further Education Funding Council prior to 1999/2000 are not held centrally.

  4 Expenditure by the Student Loans Company includes fees, loans (cash costs) and the Dependants Grant. Data prior to 1999/2000 is 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.

  Learn Direct
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the annual cost to his Department for its contract with Learn Direct is. [170024]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]: The Department currently agrees an annual contract with Ufi/learndirect. However, from August 2004 the LSC will assume responsibility for the planning and funding of learndirect provision, support and development for the learndirect Information and Advice Service and support and development for UK online centres. The Department has therefore agreed a four month contract with Ufi/learndirect the cost of which is £24.972 million.

  The cost is broken down as follows:
  central and development costs for learndirect learning—£19.389 million
  support and development for learndirect Information and Advice Service—£4.083 million
  support and development for UK online centres—£1.5 million

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on success rates of(a) the North London Learning and Skills Council and (b) the Learning and Skills Councils in England on average in the latest year for which figures are available. [170660]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  These are matters for the Learning and Skills Council. Mark Haysom, the Chief Executive will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the reply in the Libraries.

  Level 4 (Bootle)
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of 11 year old pupils in Bootle reached level four in(a) mathematics and (b) English in the last seven years. [171299]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have given to the hon. Member of Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on 10 May 2004,Official Report, column. 34W.

  School Funding
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact of changing the basis of school funding from the periods coterminous with the Government and local government financial years to an academic year. [171768]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]Aligning schools' budgets to the school year would better reflect schools' planning cycles, supporting headteachers and Governing Bodies to make further progress in both schools' financial management and school improvement activities.

  The practicality, time scales and best means of moving to three year budgets aligned to the school year will depend on decisions to be taken about the schools' funding regime for 2006–07 and beyond. The Government will consider what changes are required to the schools' funding regime in light of experience of the measures introduced for 2004–05 and 2005–06 to improve stability in individual schools' budgets. Any changes will be fully discussed with local government and schools representatives.

  School Standards Fund
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what grants for primary and secondary schools have been available through the Standards Fund since its creation; and on what date each was(a) introduced and (b) closed. [171085]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows for each Standards Fund grant supporting schools and pupils: the year in which it was introduced into the Standards Fund, and the final year of operation. The table also show where grants have merged, or where the grant has been transferred to another agency.

  The Standards Fund was created in 1998–99 replacing the previous specific grant programme, Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST). The table also shows which Standards Fund grants continued from the GEST programme.

  Many of the programmes supported through the Standards Fund are for specific time limited projects and programmes to encourage activities to be continued at local level.
  425W
  The Government are considering further rationalisation of specific grants to provide a single grant for schools, to allow them to access improvement projects and programmes according to their own needs and priorities.

  Standard Fund Grants since 1998–99

  Introduced

  Final year

  Baseline Assessment

  GEST

  1998–99

  1998–99

  merged into School Improvement Grant in 1999–2000

  Assessment: Verification Key Stage 1

  GEST

  1998–99

  1998–99

  merged into School Improvement Grant in 1999–2000

  Assessment: Supply Cover

  GEST

  1998–99

  1998–99

  merged into School Improvement Grant in 1999–2000

  Training for Key Stage 2 Teacher Assessment

  GEST

  1998–99

  1998–99

  merged into School Improvement Grant in 1999–2000

  Books for Schools

  GEST

  1998–99

  1998–99

  Specialist Teacher Assistants

  GEST

  1998–99

  1998–99

  National Professional Qualification for Headship

  GEST

  1998–99

  2001–02

  transferred to National College for School Leadership

  Family Literacy

  GEST

  1998–99

  2001–02

  transferred to Basic Skills Agency in 2003–04

  New Deal for Schools Capital Funding

  GEST

  1998–99

  2001–02

  School Effectiveness/School Improvement

  GEST

  1998–99

  2002–03

  Qualifications

  GEST

  1998–99

  2002–03

  Improving Attendance and Behaviour/Social Inclusion

  GEST

  1998–99

  2002–03

  School Security

  GEST

  1998–99

  2002–03

  Drug Prevention and Advice

  GEST

  1998–99

  2003–04

  Special Educational Needs

  GEST

  1998–99

  2003–04

  merged into School Development Grant in 2004–05

  Specialist Schools

  GEST

  1998–99

  n/a

  Effective Use of National Curriculum Results

  1998–99

  1998–99

  Special Educational Needs: Regional Co-ordination Pilot Projects

  1998–99

  1998–99

  Work Related Learning at Key Stage 4

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  merged into School Improvement Grant in 2000–01

  Recruitment Strategy Managers/Local Recruitment Measures

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Energy Management

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Public/Private Partnership Pilots

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  School Leadership: Serving Heads

  1998–99

  2001–02

  transferred to National College for School Leadership

  Induction for Newly-Qualified

  1998–99

  2002–03

  not in operation in 1999–2000 and

  426W

  Standard Fund Grants since 1998–99

  Introduced

  Final year

  Teachers

  2000–01

  Reduction of Infant Class Sizes

  1998–99

  2002–03

  funding transferred to Education Formula Spending baseline

  Out of School Hours Learning/Study Support

  1998–99

  2003–04

  merged into School Development Grant in 2004–05

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  1998–99

  2003–04

  National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies/Primary Strategy

  1998–99

  n/a

  Key Stage 3 Literacy and Numeracy/Key Stage 3 Strategy

  1998–99

  n/a

  Football League Study Support Centres/Playing for Success

  1998–99

  n/a

  Health Education Partnerships

  1998–99

  n/a

  Beacon Schools

  1998–99

  n/a

  National Grid for Learning/Information Communication Technology in Schools

  1998–99

  n/a

  Laptops for Heads of Small Primary and Special Schools

  1999–2000

  1999–2000

  School Asset Management Plans

  1999–2000

  1999–2000

  Working Environment Fund

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Best Practice Research Scholarships

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Support for Parent Governor Representatives

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  merged into School Improvement Grant in 2001–02

  Family Numeracy

  1999–2000

  2002–03

  transferred to Basic Skills Agency in 2003–04

  Administrative Support in Small Schools/Small Schools Fund

  1999–2000

  2002–03

  merged into School Support Staff Grant in 2003–04

  Travellers and Displaced Persons1

  1999–2000

  2002–03

  merged into Vulnerable Children's Grant in 2003–04

  Excellence in Cities

  1999–2000

  n/a

  City Learning Centres

  1999–2000

  n/a

  Small/Excellence in Cities Education Action Zones

  1999–2000

  n/a

  Music Services

  1999–2000

  n/a

  Ethnic Minority Achievement2

  1999–2000

  n/a

  Pilot Partnership Initiatives

  2000–01

  2000–01

  New National Curriculum

  2000–01

  2001–02

  merged into School Improvement Grant in 2002–03

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  2000–01

  2001–02

  New Models for LEA Services

  2000–01

  2001–02

  427W

  Standard Fund Grants since 1998–99

  Introduced

  Final year

  School Laboratories for the 21st Century

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Pupil Support Allowance

  2000–01

  2002–03

  Teaching Assistants

  2000–01

  2002–03

  merged into School Support Staff Grant in 2003–04

  Performance Management Support and Training

  2000–01

  2002–03

  Improving Adult: Pupil Ratios in Reception Classes

  2000–01

  2002–03

  Children of Asylum Seekers

  2000–01

  2002–03

  merged into Vulnerable Children's Grant in 2003–04

  Teenage Pregnancies

  2000–01

  2002–03

  merged into Vulnerable Children's Grant in 2003–04

  Summer Schools for Gifted and Talented Pupils

  2000–01

  n/a

  Excellence Challenge/Aimhigher

  2000–01

  n/a

  Teacher Incentives/Golden Helios

  2000–01

  n/a

  Training Schools

  2000–01

  n/a

  Fresh Start

  2000–01

  n/a

  Devolved Formula Capital for Schools

  2000–01

  n/a

  Seed Capital Challenge

  2000–01

  n/a

  National Grid for Learning: Regional Broadband Consortia

  2000–01

  n/a

  Pupil Learning Credits

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Learning Support Units

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Recruitment and Retention Fund

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Teachers' Sabbaticals

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Welcome Back Bonus

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Grammar/Non-Selective School Partnerships

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Children in Public Care

  2001–02

  2002–03

  merged into Vulnerable Children's Grant in 2003–04

  Sick Children

  2001–02

  2002–03

  merged into Vulnerable Children's Grant in 2003–04

  Key Stage 2 Class Sizes

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Information Management Strategy

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Early Professional Development Pilot Scheme

  2001–02

  2003–04

  School Achievement Awards

  2001–02

  2003–04

  Classrooms of the Future

  2001–02

  2003–04

  428W

  Standard fund Grants since 1998–99

  Introduced

  Final year

  School Improvement Projects/Targeted Improvement Projects

  2001–02

  n/a

  Diversity Pathfinders

  2001–02

  n/a

  Child Protection Co-ordinators

  2001–02

  n/a

  Condition Funding

  2001–02

  n/a

  Targeted Capital Projects

  2001–02

  n/a

  Interactive Whiteboards

  2001–02

  n/a

  Training for Educational Visits Coordinators

  2002–03

  2002–03

  Building the Room for Improvement

  2002–03

  2002–03

  Staff Workspaces

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Learning through Landscapes

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Laptops for Teachers

  2002–03

  2003–04

  merged into ICT in Schools Grants in 2004–05

  Electronic Registration Systems in Secondary Schools

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Behaviour Improvement Programme

  2002–03

  n/a

  Fast Track Payments

  2002–03

  n/a

  Extended Schools

  2002–03

  n/a

  e-Learning Credits

  2002–03

  n/a

  Information Communication Technology Pilot Projects

  2002–03

  n/a

  Primary Foundation Stage Profile

  2003–04

  2003–04

  School Support Staff

  2003–04

  2003–04

  merged into School Development Grant in 2004–05

  School Support Staff: Training and Development

  2003–04

  2003–04

  merged into School Development Grant in 2004–05

  Gypsy-Traveller Achievement Project

  2003–04

  2003–04

  Gifted and Talented Pupils: Sports Grant

  2003–04

  2003–04

  Transforming School Workforce Pathfinder Projects

  2003–04

  2003–04

  Leadership Incentive Grant

  2003–04

  n/a

  Targeted Improvement Grant

  2003–04

  n/a

  Study Support: Quality Development Programme

  2003–04

  n/a

  Primary Behaviour Pilot

  2003–04

  n/a

  Local Education Authority Support for School Workforce Remodelling

  2003–04

  n/a

  Federations

  2003–04

  n/a

  Leading Edge Schools

  2003–04

  n/a

  429W

  Standard Fund Grants since 1998–99

  Introduced

  Final year

  Raising Achievement of African Caribbean Pupils

  2003–04

  n/a

  National Primary Strategy EAL Pilot

  2003–04

  n/a

  Vulnerable Children

  2003–04

  n/a

  Enterprise Learning Pathfinders

  2003–04

  n/a

  Key Stage Language Pathfinders: Recurrent

  2003–04

  n/a

  14–19 Pathfinders

  2003–04

  n/a

  London Challenge Projects

  2003–04

  n/a

  School Development Grant

  2004–05

  n/a

  a combination of eight previously separate grants

  School Travel Advisers

  2004–05

  n/a

  n/a = The grant continues in 2004–05.

  1 Paid as a separate grant outside the Standards Fund prior to 1999–2000.

  Note:

  GEST means that the grant continued from the previous grant regime.

  School Transport
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the cost of reducing the three-mile limit for free travel to secondary schools to two miles; and if he will make a statement. [172026]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We do not collect information which would allow us to make this estimate.

  Post-16 Education/Employment
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of those aged 16 to 18 years are(a) unemployed, (b) in training, (c) in work and (d) in full-time education, broken down by (i) ethnic group and (ii) gender. [171718]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Provisional estimates of 16 to 18-year-olds participating in education, training and employment by gender for the latest academic year, end 2002, are shown in the table:

  Participation in education, training and employment by labour market status and by gender for end 2002

  Percentage Activity

  Females

  Males

  All

  In full-time education

  60

  53

  57

  In training1

  16

  20

  18

  In work (excluding those education and training)2

  14

  16

  15

  ILO Unemployed3

  4

  7

  6

  Inactive4

  5

  3

  4

  Total5

  100

  100

  100

  1 'In training' includes those young people in work based learning (WBL), employer funded training (EFT) and other education and training (OET).
  430W
  2 Some young people in education and training will also be in employment. However. these numbers have not been included in the 'In work' figures.

  3 'ILO unemployed' covers anyone who is out of work and available to start work in the next two weeks, but has either looked for work in the last four weeks or is waiting to start a job they have already obtained.

  4 'Inactive' includes those neither in employment nor ILO unemployed. that is—not active in the labour market.

  5 The totals are calculated from unrounded figures and so may not be the sum of the individual cells.

  Data for 16 to 18-year-olds participating in education, training and employment by ethnic group in England are not published by the Department.

  Sustainable Development Strategy
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made with his Department's Sustainable Development Strategy. [166786]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Sustainable Development Action Plan for Education and Skills was launched in September last year. The action plan has four key objectives: education for Sustainable development (ESD); environmental impact of the DfES and its partner bodies; environmental impact of the education estate; and local and global partnership activity. We are already making progress in several areas against the Action Plan. The following are just some examples.We are supporting subject associations in their work to build on ESD within the curriculum.
  On food in schools, we are working with Defra on guidance for school governor organisations. Through website forums we will invite feedback from school managers, governors and parents and report on Food Procurement Implementation.
  We are working closely with the Department for Transport, and have jointly published "Travelling to School: An Action Plan5" which gives guidance on sustainable school travel.
  Colleges and universities are developing as sustainable organisations, promoting themselves as exemplars and sharing best practice with other institutions.
  The Skills agencies have created an online 'toolkit' to encourage, support and promote best practice throughout the sector.
  Internationally, we are contributing to the drafting of the United Nations strategy on ESD.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 14 and 15-year-olds were studying for vocational qualifications in each year since 2001. [171244]

  Alan Johnson
  Since 2001, the numbers of 15-year-olds entered for General National Vocational Qualifications, either Part One or Full, were as follows:

  Number

  2001

  22,413

  2002

  64,494

  2003

  123,600

  Data on the numbers studying vocational qualifications is not available.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many 14 and 15-year-olds are studying for(a) NVQs and (b) vocational GCSEs. [171245]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department does not collect data on the numbers of 14 and 15-year-olds presently studying NVQs and GCSEs in vocational subjects. Rather the Awarding Bodies makes available data on the numbers of entries and the results thereof for particular qualifications. This information is routinely placed in the House of Commons Library in the autumn.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Parental Leave
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many men(a) requested and (b) received paternity pay prior to 6 April 2003 in each year since 1997, broken down by (i) region and (ii) income. [1712976]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Statutory Paternity Pay was introduced in 2003 for fathers of children born or expected to be born on or after 6 April 2003 and adopters of children placed for adoption on or after 6 April 2003. Statutory Paternity Pay was therefore not paid before 6 April 2003, except to a small number of fathers whose children were born prematurely.

  Some employers will, of course have offered contractual paternity leave and pay to their staff before April 2003. Contractual provision is not recorded centrally but surveys suggest that where this provision was available fathers used it.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many men took(a) parental leave and (b) time off for dependants in each year since 1997 prior to 6 April 2003, broken down by (i) region (ii) income and (iii) length of leave. [171295]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide the information requested since take up of parental leave and time off for dependants are not recorded centrally. However, a recent survey commissioned by the DTI (The Second Work-life Balance Survey: Results from the Employees' Survey, Employment Relations Research Series No. 27) suggests that 4 per cent. of all parents with dependant children took parental leave in the year preceding the survey.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many women have taken(a) ordinary maternity leave and (b) additional maternity leave (i) in each year since 1997 up until April 2003 and (ii) since April 2003, and how many women have taken 52 weeks maternity leave, broken down by region. [171301]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Take-up of maternity leave is not recorded centrally, and the regional figures cannot be provided. It is possible to make an estimate of the 432W
  numbers of mothers taking ordinary maternity leave based on employer returns to Inland Revenue for payment of Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) they recover. Nationally around 300,000 women receive SMP each year. Some of the women will take additional maternity leave, but as SMP is not paid during additional maternity leave, it is not possible to estimate the number taking additional maternity leave.

  In addition, there will be some women who will qualify for maternity leave but not SMP (because they do not meet the earnings criteria) and similarly some who qualify for SMP but not leave (because they are employed earners for the purposes of SMP but not employees in order to qualify for leave).

  British Coal
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Department has been given Treasury approval to retain surpluses payable to it out of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme during the last five years to offset expenditure on liabilities inherited from British Coal. [164382]

  Nigel Griffiths
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 April 2004, Official Report, c.66–67W1: I regret it covered only the three financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04 and I am taking the opportunity to clarify that for the preceding financial years, the position was as set out in the Government's Expenditure plans 2000–01 to 2001–02 (Cm 4611) which was placed in the Libraries of the House, and which stated:
  "These figures include receipts of 50 per cent. of the surpluses in the coal pension funds which are required under the Coal Industry Act 1994 to be paid into the consolidated fund, except in so far as they may be retained to offset expenditure on liabilities inherited from British Coal."

  This reflected the special arrangements agreed between the Department and Her Majesty's Treasury as part of the DTIs CSR to ensure the Department's ability to pay coal health claims as quickly as possible.

  Business (South Ribble)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses have started up in South Ribble since 1997. [172145]

  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 South Ribble), 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 South Ribble and West Lancashire local authorities (which contain the constituency of South Ribble) are shown in the table for the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in autumn 2004.
  433W

  VAT registrations: 1997–2002

  South Ribble

  West Lancashire

  1997

  275

  260

  1998

  300

  245

  1999

  255

  290

  2000

  280

  265

  2001

  240

  285

  2002

  250

  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.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government has taken to help small businesses in South Ribble since 1997. [172146]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Business Link Operator for North and West Lancashire has provided assistance to 2,083 enterprises in the South Ribble constituency since 2001. The Small Business Service (SBS) was set up as an agency of the Department of Trade and Industry in April 2000. Contracts were exchanged with a national network of 45 Business Link Operators (seven in the North West) to provide Business Support to small and medium sized enterprises from April 2001. Before this date Government Support to businesses was provided through Training and Enterprise Councils and the Small Business Service does not have access to this data.

  The type of assistance provided by the Business Link Operator includes pre-starts, start up advice, intensive assists, IT support, Investors In People.

  In addition under the Enterprise Grant Scheme three companies have received offers of grant with a total value of £167,883 since 1997. This scheme has now come to a close from the 1 April 2004.

  Business Regulation
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total(a) staff numbers and (b) resource budget of the Departmental Regulatory Impact Unit has been since its inception. [168611]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information about staff numbers and resource budget of the Departmental Regulatory Impact Unit since its inception could not be ascertained without disproportionate cost. However since 2002 the unit has had an average of six full time staff and for the financial year 2004–05 has a total resource budget of £350,000.

  Businesses (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers in Sittingbourne and Sheppey have benefited from the national minimum wage. [170293]
  434W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for the constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 120,000 people in the South East stood to benefit from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage in April 1999 Between 80,000 and 100,000 people were expected to have benefited from the October 2003 uprating of the National Minimum Wage.

  Care Staff
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Health about the impact of flexible working for carers on the demand for paid care staff. [172001]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My officials are in discussion with all interested Government Departments, including officials from the Department of Health, to explore how flexible working arrangements can help carers. This is part of on-going work which will inform the review of the flexible working law in 2006 and shape future policy. It is too early to consider the implications on the demand for paid care staff.

  As part of this work, we are aiming to hold two roundtables involving employers and individuals who have caring responsibilities, such as those caring for elderly or sick relatives. The roundtables will explore how individuals balance work and caring responsibilities, including how different working patterns suit both carers and their employers. We are discussing the roundtables with the Department of Health and bodies representing carers.

  The Government's work-life balance campaign seeks to persuade all employers of the business case to adopt work-life balance policies and to follow best practice by providing flexible working opportunities across the workforce. This applies equally to those providing paid care as it does to those providing unpaid care.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what definition he will use of the term carer in relation to the planned introduction of the right to flexible working for carers; and if he will make a statement; [170974]

  (2) when plans for the right to flexible working for carers will be implemented; and if he will make a statement. [171009]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government are committed to reviewing the impact of the right to request flexible working and has no plans to extend the provisions of the law until after the review in 2006.

  Currently, the law provides eligible parents of children under 6 and disabled children under 18 with a legal right to apply to work flexibly. An issue that the review will consider, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated should be a priority, is extending the law to wider groups of carers, such as carers of elderly or sick relatives. Definition of terms relating to any extension to the law as an outcome of that review, including carers, will be something that will be addressed at that time.

  Corporate Governance
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many FTSE 250 companies have recruited at least one non-executive director from the not-for-profit sector. [172383]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the change in proportion of non-executive directors of FTSE 250 companies following the publication of the Tyson Report. [172384]

  Jacqui Smith
  As recommended by the Tyson Report, the Department commissioned a study by Cranfield University on the diversity of all directors in FTSE 100 companies. This report has now been presented to my Department. In addition, I have participated in a series of roundtables hosted by leading businesses which debated the issues surrounding diversity in the boardroom in an open and constructive manner. We are currently consulting the Financial Reporting Council and a range of business and other organizations on how best to build on these initiatives and will be making an announcement later in the year.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has for promoting a register of talented candidates from the not-for-profit sector for consideration for non-executive director posts, as recommended in the Higgs Report. [172390]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Higgs Review made a number of recommendations to stimulate the inclusion of a more diverse range of people on company boards. These were taken forward by the Tyson Group, which decided against developing a list of candidates from the non-commercial sector.

  The Government welcome the creation of registers of suitably skilled people, across a range of sectors, to assist companies in identifying potential candidates for non-executive board positions. Such registers should be co-ordinated by the relevant professional or affiliated body.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many FTSE 250 companies publish their recruitment procedures for non-executive directors; and what plans she has to encourage such publication. [172391]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. This is a matter for companies and their shareholders and is a provision of the Financial Reporting Council's Combined Code. The provision applies on a comply or explain basis to all listed companies, and for all board appointments, and came into effect for reporting years beginning on or after 1 November 2003.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to provide a deadline by which FTSE 250 companies should publish their recruitment procedures for non-executive directors. [172392]
  436W
  Jacqui Smith
  This is a matter for companies and their shareholders and is a provision of the Financial Reporting Council's Combined Code. The provision applies on a comply or explain basis to all listed companies, and for all board appointments, and came into effect for reporting years beginning on or after 1 November 2003.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she intends to reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 25 March with regard to Jenny Edwards. [172262]

  Ms Hewitt
  I replied to my right hon. Friend's letter seeking support for the Early Day Motion 576—Corporate Responsibility on 7 May 2004. As outlined in my reply, my Department published draft Regulations on the Operating and Financial Review for consultation on 5 May.

  Electricity Network
  Mr. Laurence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 18 March 2004, Official Report, column 501W, on the electricity network, how many warnings have been issued by National Grid Transco about low levels of spare electricity generating capacity (a) this year and (b) in each of the previous seven years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [172543]

  Mr. Timms
  National Grid have issued the following system warnings as part of normal operations to inform the market that its projected reserve is not fully met:

  Amount of system warnings

  2004

  12

  2003

  13

  2002

  7

  2001

  18

  2000

  41

  1999

  13

  1998

  2

  1997

  1

  1 To date

  Energy Bills
  Jon Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what percentage of households with electricity accounts she estimates the regulator has been successful in enforcing Standard Licence condition (Electricity) 17 in inspecting meters every two years; [171487]

  (2) what percentage of gas accounts she estimates Ofgem has been successful in enforcing Standard Licence condition (Gas) 17 in inspecting meters every two years. [171488]

  Mr. Timms
  Regulation of gas and electricity is the responsibility of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (OFGEM). I understand that the Chairman of the Authority will write to my hon. Friend about the matters he has raised.

  Energy Supply
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with energy companies about the integrity and security of supply; and if she will make a statement. [172544]

  Mr. Timms
  Department of Trade and Industry Ministers hold regular meetings with electricity companies to discuss a wide range of issues, including the integrity and security of energy supplies.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how long the consultation period on the proposals to prohibit the possession of fireworks was. [171594]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The consultation on the emergency Fireworks Regulations 2003 was launched on 5 November and closed on 26 November—making a total of three weeks of consultation.

  Due to the temporary nature of the regulations, they are due to be repealed and incorporated into a comprehensive package of draft measures designed to tackle the misuse of fireworks resulting from supply and use. The consultation was launched on 23 April and will run till 2 July 2004.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers the Insolvency Service's Prosecution Section has to investigate people in breach of(a) disqualification orders and (b) bankruptcy orders. [171614]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Insolvency Service's Prosecution Section (now Criminal Allegations Team) does not have any powers to investigate people who are in breach of(a) disqualification orders and (b) bankruptcy orders.

  Allegations that individuals are breaching their disqualification orders or bankruptcy orders, which are supported by evidence and documentation are referred by the Criminal Allegations Team to the Department's Legal Services Directorate (Prosecutions), where a lawyer reviews the papers and decides on the course of action to be taken. If the lawyer concludes that the matter is suitable for a criminal investigation, an investigation officer is instructed to conduct such investigation and where necessary take witness statements for any prosecution.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many calls have been received by the Disqualified Directors Hotline of the Insolvency Service's Prosecution Section in the last 12 months; how many cases were taken forward by the Legal Services Directorate as a result; and if she will make a statement. [171615]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Disqualified Director's Hotline is now called "the Enforcement Hotline" but the telephone number remains the same.
  438W
  For the period May 2003 to April 2004 there were 807 calls made to the Hotline and these included invalid calls eg hang ups.

  From these calls, 166 questionnaires were sent out and on the basis of the information received 36 cases were referred to the Legal Services Directorate (LSD) and of these 25 were accepted by LSD for full investigation. Most of these cases will still be under investigation.

  Mineworkers' Pension Scheme
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings she has held with trustees of the Mineworkers Pension Scheme in the last year; when the meetings were held; and what subjects were discussed. [170329]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I met the Trustees of the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme, along with those of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, on 30 March 2004. We discussed the Government's commitment to the pension schemes, including the Guarantee arrangements and the agreement to award RPI increases to members despite there being deficits in both schemes.

  The Trustees reiterated their view that the Government Guarantee negotiated in 1994 allows them to take a balanced amount of risk in their investments helping the funds to grow and pay around 30 per cent. bonuses to scheme members. Without the Guarantee the Trustees would have had to follow a much more cautious investment strategy that would not have generated the surpluses we have seen.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers in Huntingdon constituency have benefited from the national minimum wage. [170862]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for the constituency of Huntingdon. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 90,000 people in the Eastern region stood to benefit from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage in April 1999. Between 80,000 and 90,000 people were expected to have benefited from the October 2003 uprating of the National Minimum Wage.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers in Oldham West and Royton have benefited from the national minimum wage. [170937]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for the constituency of Oldham West and Royton. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 140,000 people in the North West stood to benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999. Between 130,000 and 160,000 people were expected to have benefited from the October 2003 uprating of the national minimum wage.
  439W
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers in West Lancashire have benefited from the national minimum wage. [171726]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for the constituency of West Lancashire. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 140,000 people in the North West stood to benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999. Between 130,000 and 160,000 people were expected to have benefited from the October 2003 uprating of the national minimum wage.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers in South Ribble have benefited from the national minimum wage. [172147]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for the constituency of South Ribble. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 140,000 people in the North West stood to benefit from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage in April 1999. Between 130,000 and 160,000 people were expected to have benefited from the October 2003 uprating of the National Minimum Wage.

  Businesses (Huntingdon)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses started up in Huntingdon constituency in each year since 1997. [170780]

  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 1,300 in Cambridgeshire county (which contains the constituency of Huntingdon), 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 5,000 business start-ups in Cambridgeshire County in 2003. Data for counties are not available for before 2003.

  DTI figures based solely on VAT registrations for Huntingdon Local Authority (which contains the constituency of Huntingdon) are shown in the table for the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in Autumn 2004.

  Ordinary Written Pqs

  Named Day Pqs

  Total answers

  Answers within 5 days

  Total answers

  Answers on named day

  Number

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Number

  Percentage

  2002–03

  November

  76

  73

  96

  A monthly breakdown cannot be given

  December

  156

  129

  83

  January

  267

  225

  84

  February

  183

  150

  82

  March

  294

  203

  69

  April

  236

  178

  75

  May

  208

  171

  82

  June

  402

  296

  74

  July

  255

  215

  84

  440W

  VAT Registrations: 1997–2002

  Huntingdon

  1997

  535

  1998

  540

  1999

  485

  2000

  520

  2001

  485

  2002

  515

  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.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with British Energy about extending the life of Dungeness B nuclear power station; and if she will make a statement. [172546]

  Mr. Timms
  My officials have regular discussions with British Energy on a range of issues affecting the company. Any decisions about extending the life of Dungeness B or any other British Energy nuclear power station would be a matter for the company who would need to evaluate the safety, technical and economic case, within the overall regulatory framework.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many(a) Ordinary Written and (b) Named Day Questions her 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; [170776]

  (2) what proportion (a) Ordinary Written Questions to her Department were answered within five sitting days of tabling and (b) Questions for a Named Day received a substantive answer on that day in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) this parliamentary session up to the most recent date for which figures are available, broken down by month. [170777]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested is as follows:
  441W

  Ordinary Written Pqs

  Named Day Pqs

  Total answers

  Answers within 5 days

  Total answers

  Answers on named day

  Number

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Number

  Percentage

  Recess

  45

  30

  67

  September

  158

  140

  89

  Recess

  53

  47

  89

  October

  211

  183

  87

  November

  323

  253

  78

  Total

  2867

  2293

  80

  723

  247

  34

  2003–04

  November

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  December

  225

  190

  84

  58

  18

  29

  January

  405

  317

  78

  71

  26

  48

  February

  340

  230

  68

  72

  24

  35

  March

  458

  338

  74

  105

  39

  22

  April

  251

  225

  90

  30

  10

  27

  Total

  1679

  1300

  77

  336

  117

  32

  Note:

  DTI figures are based on sittings days.

  We endeavour to answer all Parliamentary Questions within the Parliamentary deadlines whenever possible. In addition I refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on 3 March 2004, Offical Report, column 907W.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices were closed in each of the past three years up to March in(a) the East of England, (b) Suffolk and (c) the parliamentary constituency of Bury St. Edmunds. [171869]

  Mr. Timms
  I am advised by Post Office Ltd. that data on post office closures by county or parliamentary constituency are not available in the form requested as the company does not require this data for its operational purposes. However, I understand that since March 2000 the company has recorded details of post office closures on the basis of Government Region and in the East of England region as a whole, the numbers of net closures were as follows:

  East of England Region

  Number

  2000–01

  70

  2001–02

  21

  2002–03

  33

  Post Office Ltd. produces statistics on post office closures on a quarterly basis. The latest data on net closures by region currently available for year 2003–04 is to the end of December 2003. Data for the quarter to end March 2004 is expected shortly. There were 61 net closures of post offices in the East of England region to the end of December 2003. These figures include a total of 55 closures in the East of England region under the urban reinvention programme since its commencement in late 2002.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) Post Office, (b) Royal Mail and (c) Government functions are (i) provided by all sub-post offices, (ii) provided by some sub-post offices at the discretion of (A) the sub-postmaster, (B) Post Office Ltd and (C) others, (iii) provided by all
  442W
  Crown post offices and (iv) provided by some Crown post offices at the discretion of (1) the manager, (2) Post Office Ltd. and (3) others. [171936]

  Mr. Timms
  These are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the decision to turn Taunton Crown Post Office into a SPAR store with post office facilities was taken; and if she will make a statement. [171990]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: This is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultation took place between the Government and the main clearing banks prior to the introduction of the Post Office card accounts; and what advice Ministers received on these matters. [172319]

  Mr. Timms
  Extensive consultation took place between the Government and the banking industry. The result of those negotiations was that all the main High Street banks and the Nationwide Building Society agreed to make a significant contribution to universal banking services at the Post Office. They are contributing £180 million towards the Post Office card account and are each providing access at Post Offices to a basic bank account product. Universal banking services were successfully launched on 1 April 2003.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 28 April 2004,Official Report, columns 1163–64W, on rural post offices, for what reasons she will not publish Postcomm's advice on future levels of support; and when the Department will complete its consideration of this advice. [172547]

  Mr. Timms
  As I made clear in my answer of 28 April, Postcomm's advice on the future of the rural post office network was submitted to the Government in confidence. There are good reasons for this. The report contains detailed material which is commercially sensitive, both in relation to Post Office Ltd. and to the many individual businessmen and women who own and
  443W
  run sub-post offices. While I do not rule out the publication in due course, it would be inappropriate to publish it before the Government has taken any decisions on the future of the rural network. The Government is currently considering that advice and will take decisions on the shape of the rural post office network after 2006 in good time to allow for a smooth transition from the current support arrangements. The current funding arrangements for the rural post office network have nearly two years to run yet.

  Radio Frequency Identifiers
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the likely change in the number of jobs in the retail sector as a result of the implementation of radio frequency identifier devices. [170163]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To date, DTI has not conducted any assessment of the likely change in retail staff numbers as a consequence of the implementation of RFID technologies.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of the(a) measures in the Regulatory Reform Action Plan and (b) regulatory reform orders which her Department has proposed but not completed. [171613]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The updated Regulatory Reform Action Plan, published in December 2003, contains over 600 deregulatory and simplification measures under way across Government. I am advised that over 300 of these measures have already been delivered.

  The DTI proposed 10 Regulatory Reform Orders in the Regulatory Reform Action Plan; two have been implemented, three are in the scrutiny process and the remaining five will be the subject of consultation exercises.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research she has commissioned on the balance between profit and investment associated with renewable energy development. [170173]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government have created an attractive investment framework for renewable energy developments through the creation of the Renewables Obligation and, for certain technologies, additional support through capital grants. This is in support for our policy goals of securing 10 per cent. of electricity from renewables by 2010 and further significant contributions from this sector 2020 and beyond.

  However the specific economics of individual renewable energy projects will differ on a case by case basis for a variety of reasons, notably the location of the project and the technology involved. Those seeking to develop or finance renewable energy developments must reach their own views on the economics of individual projects.
  444W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on renewable energy. [170792]

  Mr. Timms
  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 starting 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 have also allocated a total of £350 million over four years for capital grants and research grants to promote forms of 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 biomass, £25 million for solar photovoltaics (PV), £10 million for community schemes and £5 million for wave and tidal demonstration projects.

  Scottish Power
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met representatives of Scottish Power Plc; who was present; and what was on the agenda for discussion. [171781]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have had no recent meetings with representatives of Scottish Power.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Service, met with representatives of Scottish Power on 11 March to discuss a number of issues relating to electricity supply. Also present were DTI officials.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effects of the EU Social Chapter on the residents of Oldham West and Royton. [170939]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The residents of Oldham West and Royton have benefited from the EU Social Chapter by having their employment rights extended to include:the right to parental leave which gives parents the right to 13 weeks unpaid leave at the birth or adoption of a child;
  the entitlement of part-time workers to the same pro-rata terms and conditions of employment as full-time workers, thereby removing any discrimination and improving the quality of part-time jobs;
  the provision that once a prima facie case has been made in an employment tribunal claim, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant (usually the employer), who will need to demonstrate that sex discrimination has not occurred;
  rights under the fixed term work directive that provide equal treatment and prevent abuse of fixed term contracts;

  445W
  rights under the European works council directive which requires companies with at least 1,000 employees in total and at least 150 workers in each of the two member states, to establish structures for consulting workers on issues that affect them and;
  in addition, the information and consultation of employees directive, to be implemented in the UK by March 2005, establishes a right to new minimum standards for workforce communication and involvement in large firms.

  Timber
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department plans to contribute financially to the establishment of the second phase of the Central Point of Expertise on Timber. [167618]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 31W.

  Travel Agents
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make it her policy to require travel firms not bonded with ABTA or ATOL to display this information when advertising their services. [172027]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is soon to make recommendations to Government on the possible extension of financial protection for consumers in the event of failure of air travel firms. I understand from their published draft advice that CAA may recommend an extension to mandatory protection, but I also expect the proposals to address the scope for improving transparency regarding protection for travel arrangements.

  VAT
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many businesses have(a) registered and (b) deregistered for VAT in each year since 1997 in each local authority area in East Sussex. [169849]

  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 1,100 in East Sussex County, 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 4,700 business start-ups in East Sussex County in 2003. Data for each local authority in East Sussex County are not published by Barclays. Barclays start-up data for counties in England and Wales have only been published for 2003. Barclays closure data for counties in England and Wales have not been published.

  DTI figures for VAT registrations and de-registrations for each local authority in East Sussex County are shown below for the period 1997 to 2002. Data for 2003 will be available in autumn 2004.
  446W

  VAT registrations: 1997–2002

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  East Sussex

  County

  1,745

  1,605

  1,610

  1,575

  1,535

  1,540

  Eastbourne

  255

  215

  240

  210

  235

  215

  Hastings

  195

  180

  200

  205

  185

  205

  Lewes

  355

  335

  290

  275

  285

  280

  Rother

  335

  290

  285

  285

  265

  275

  Wealden

  610

  585

  590

  595

  565

  565

  Source:

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

  VAT de-registrations: 1997–2002

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  East Sussex

  County

  1,435

  1,335

  1,430

  1,430

  1,475

  1,475

  Eastbourne

  225

  200

  205

  210

  195

  235

  Hastings

  170

  180

  170

  170

  175

  190

  Lewes

  260

  260

  255

  265

  280

  230

  Rother

  265

  230

  300

  285

  290

  315

  Wealden

  510

  460

  500

  500

  535

  505

  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.

  Work-Life Balance Study
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the findings were of the second Work-Life Balance study's accompanying employee survey report. [170519]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  "The Second Work-Life Balance Study (WLB2): Results from the Employees' survey" was published in March by my Department as report number 28 in the Employment Relations Research Series. It is based on a survey carried out by MORI in January and February 2003. Key findings from the study are as follow:There was a high leve1 of support for work-life balance amongst employees with 95 per cent. agreeing that 'people work best when they can balance their work and other aspects of their lives'. However, they were also clear that business considerations should still come first with three-fifths (60 per cent.) agreeing that employees should not expect to 'change their working pattern if to do so would disrupt the business'.
  Reported availability of work-life balance practices appeared to have increased since 2000 for several arrangements, but varied considerably from 67 per cent. of employees who said part-time working was available to only 20 per cent. who said that working from home on a regular basis was available.
  There has also been an increase in take up of several flexible working practices since 2000. Where employers provided flexible arrangements, take up among employees in the previous year and with their current employer was highest for flexitime (55 per cent.) and working from home (54 per cent.), but lower where hours of work (and thus pay) would be reduced such as for job-sharing (15 per cent.).
  A sixth of employees (17 per cent.) had approached their employer in the last two years to make a request to change how they regularly work For a sustained period of time, and 77 per cent. said their request had been agreed. Almost one-third

  447W
  (29 per cent.) of mothers had requested a change in how they regularly worked from their employer in the last two years, compared to only 12 per cent. of fathers.
  However, there was some employee concern, particularly among men, about the consequences of adopting flexible working practices in terms of their job security and career prospects. Although when asked about various working patterns and leave arrangements, only in the case of working reduced hours (such as part-time working) did more employees consider that adopting this way of working would negatively affect their career (51 per cent.) than those who stated that it would not (38 per cent.).

  The findings indicate strong support for work-life balance among employees. The increases in provision and take up indicate a shift towards improved work-life balance for employees, and the Department has encouraged this trend through the new employment rights introduced in April 2003. This legislation gives new rights to parents including introducing paternity and adoption leave for the first time, and the right to request flexible working for parents of children under six-years-old and of disabled children under 18-years-old (with a statutory duty on the employer to consider the request), as well as increasing maternity pay and leave.

  The report is available free from publications @ dti, or can be downloaded from the DTI website.

  Workers' Rights (South Ribble)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the benefits to the residents of South Ribble of new rights for night workers. [172138]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Working Time Regulations came into force on 1 October 1998. The regulations limit working time to 48 hours per week averaged over a 17-week reference period. For night workers the limit is eight hours per day on average, including overtime where it is part of a night worker's normal hours of work. There is no opt-out from the night working time limit.

  Night workers are entitled to 11 hours rest between working days, one day's rest per week, and a 20-minute in work rest break if the working period is longer than six hours.

  All night workers should be offered a free health assessment before they start working night and thereafter at regular intervals for as long as they are working nights. The health assessments should take account of the nature of the work and the restrictions on a worker's working time under the regulations. Workers who suffer from problems as a result of working at night, should as far as practicable be offered alternative day work.

  All workers are entitled to four weeks paid annual leave. There is no specific data available for night shift workers in South Ribble.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many residents in South Ribble have benefited from a reduction of the working week to 48 hours. [172139]
  448W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations provide workers with the right to refuse to work more than 48 hours on average, if they do not want to. Numbers for South Ribble are not available, however it has been estimated that around 300,000 workers resident in the North West region stood to benefit from the introduction of the weekly working time limits in 1998.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of women in South Ribble have taken 26 weeks maternity leave since 1997. [172148]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Take-up of maternity leave is not recorded centrally. It is possible to make an estimate of the numbers of women taking maternity leave based on employer returns to Inland Revenue of the Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) they recover (since 2003 this has covered the first 26 weeks of leave). Figures for the take-up of SMP are not available on a regional basis, but nationally around 300,000 women receive SMP each year.

  In addition, there will be some women who will qualify for maternity leave but not SMP (because they do not meet the earnings or length of employment criteria for SMP) and similarly some who qualify for SMP but not leave (because they are employed earners for the purposes of SMP but not employees in order to qualify for leave).

HEALTH

  Abortions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average cost of an NHS abortion was in each of the past three years; and what the total cost of NHS provision of abortions was in each year. [171508]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  National health service funded abortions performed in NHS hospitals in England

  Average cost of an NHS abortion1 provision (£)

  Total cost of NHS abortion (£ million)

  2000–01

  393.00

  32.7

  2001–02

  415.00

  35.7

  2002–03

  469.00

  38.2

  1 Average cost of a day case surgical abortion.

  Source:

  National Schedule of Reference Costs, Appendix IC.

  Blood Transfusion
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what work is being undertaken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence into the most efficient use of alternatives to blood transfusions in the NHS. [164110]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 21 April 2004,Official Report, columns 548–49W.
  449W
  The Chief Medical Officer's national blood transfusion committee is looking at how to encourage the most efficient use of blood donations in the national health service.

  Breast Cancer (Preston)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of women in Preston with suspected breast cancer saw a specialist within two weeks in each of the last five years. [168102]

  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 Preston area.

  Waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment for suspected breast cancer following urgent GP referral

  Seen within 2 weeks

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  1999–2000

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  94.5

  52

  2000–01

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  100.0

  169

  2001–02

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  100.0

  240

  2002–03

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  238

  2003–04

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  279

  Note:

  Lancashire Teaching Hospitals was established on 1 August 2002 from the acute services of Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust and Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  Source:

  DH form QMCW.

  Care Qualifications
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of home care workers who have(a) obtained and (b) have yet to obtain NVQ level 2 in care. [171006]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally. Since April 2004, the regulation and inspection of domiciliary care services has been the responsibility for the commission for social care inspection (CSCI). Information about the numbers of staff and their qualifications are provided to the CSCI as part of the registration process. Aggregate information is therefore likely to become available after March 2005.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the availability of courses in NVQ level 2 in care; and if he will make a statement. [171007]

  Mr. Hutton
  The nature of the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) level 2 in care and its assessment precludes the provision of courses specifically designed to support study for this qualification. Candidates require access to specific educational or training courses according to their existing level of knowledge and skill. Such courses are provided locally and information about them is not collected centrally by the Department.
  450W
  Topss England and the Learning and Skills Council have been working to ensure that social care employers have robust NVQ frameworks and increased number of NVQ assessors and verifiers in place so that staff can complete NVQs in care.

  Catheter Laboratories
  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many catheter laboratories there are at Manchester Royal Infirmary; when the last new one was opened; how many patients were treated in its first 12 months of working; and what the levels of throughput were of the older laboratories over the same period. [170143]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not collected centrally and is a matter for the Central Manchester and Manchester Children's Hospital National Health Service Trust.

  Chief Medical Officer's Report
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the reasons are for the delay in the publication of the report on health and activity written by the Chief Medical Officer and due to be published last year; [165238]

  (2) if he will publish the report on health and activity written by the Chief Medical Officer last year. [165247]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Chief Medical Officer's (CMO) report, "At Least Five a Week", was published on 29 April. It is the authoritative source document on the health benefits of physical activity for England. The report includes the most up-to-date academic literature and was fully peer reviewed before publication.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take further measures to increase the availability of NHS dentistry. [168095]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government are committed to rebuilding and restoring national health service dentistry to improve oral health. New legislation in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 will underpin a modernised, high-quality primary dental service, properly integrated with the rest of the NHS The aim is to deliver better access to services, better working lives for dentists and their teams, better oral health and an improved patient experience.

  As part of the new arrangements, the current remuneration system, which is based on item of service fees, will be abolished and replaced by a much simpler contract. Under transitional arrangements we are developing a simple but robust 'base contract' which all dentists and primary care trusts (PCTs) will be able to put in place from 2005. These transitional arrangements will provide protection of dentists gross earnings for three years to enable them to come off the treadmill of item of service fees to see their patients at intervals appropriate to their oral health needs and to modernise and adjust their workload. These proposals are set out in "Framework proposals for primary dental services in

  451W
  England from 2005" which was published on 24 February and on which we have been seeking views from dental representative bodies.

  In the meantime we have provided new investment totalling £90 million to NHS dentistry over the last year. £59 million will support access and is aimed at increasing access to NHS dentistry for patients. Strategic health authorities have been advised of their shares and are working with their PCTs to address access issues. £30 million is to support information technology and the balance of £1 million will support organisational development locally.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to improve NHS dentistry for pensioners in Gloucester. [169984]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have provided new investment totalling £90 million to national health service dentistry over the last year. £59 million will support access, and strategic health authorities (SHAs) have been advised of their shares and are working with their primary care trusts (PCTs), including those in Gloucestershire, to address access issues. £30 million is to support information technology and the balance of £1 million will support organisational development locally.

  In Gloucestershire, the existing dental access centres offer emergency and routine dental treatment—this is prioritised according to patients' needs and the demands placed on the service.

  All the PCTs in Gloucestershire have been invited by Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire SHA to submit proposals to improve access to dental care, funded through the SHA's £2 million share of the access funding. They are also exploring the possibility of establishing an outreach-teaching pilot for dental and dental therapy students with Bristol University.

  West Gloucestershire PCT is one of the 16 PCTs in England with which the NHS dentistry support team is working. The support team has made several visits to Gloucestershire towards the end of 2003, and an action plan to establish new dental practices in Cinderford, in the Forest of Dean, and Gloucester City will be agreed by the end of April 2004. Additionally, work is underway to explore the potential for overseas recruitment in Gloucestershire.

  This work is to improve NHS dentistry for all patients in Gloucester including pensioners

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [171145]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total cost to the Department of producing the 2004 Departmental report was £27,532. This included £20,577 for design, typesetting and artwork and a further £6,955 for the cost of the copies ordered by the Department.
  452W
  This year 1,500 copies of the report were printed.

  Those who receive free copies of the departmental report are chief executives of strategic health authorities, departmental senior civil service, directors of social care, parliamentary Libraries, Her Majesty's Treasury and Department of Health Ministers' private offices. This came to a total of over 640 copies that were provided free of charge.

  Information is not yet available on how many reports have been sold at the cover price.

  The report is also available on the Department's website at http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/AnnualReports.

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of the(a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by his Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170801]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Crockery and cutlery in use in the Department for catering and hospitality is supplied by the Department's catering contractor.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when digital hearing aids will be available on the NHS in the constituency of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood. [170591]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Digital hearing aids have been available on the national health service from the Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre Hospitals NHS Trust since January 2004. Priority is currently being given to new patients who require a hearing aid for the first time. However, existing patients are eligible for consideration subject to agreed criteria.

  Drug Addicts
  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Heywood and Middleton are receiving drug treatment. [168538]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 2000–01, there were 712 people receiving drug treatment in Rochdale. This is the latest available data. Data broken down by drug action team for 2001–02 and 2002–03 have not been finalised.

  Exubera Inhaler
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Exubera inhaler will gain a certificate of a medicinal product and become available on the NHS to diabetics. [170535]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As with all marketing authorisation applications, before Exubera is granted a licence and becomes available in the United Kingdom it must be fully evaluated in relation to the appropriate standards required in the relevant European rules and
  453W
  regulations on medicinal products. Data submitted in support of the application will need to demonstrate that the safety, quality and efficacy of the product are satisfactory for its intended use.

  Food Procurement
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is towards local food chain procurement; and what attempts he has made to amend his Department's competitive tendering rules. [170140]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency (PASA) and NHS Estates have produced an action plan, entitled "Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative", on behalf of the Department. The action plan was produced in response to the action on farming and food programme and it focuses on promoting sustainability in terms of NHS food procurement. This plan can be viewed at the PASA's website at www.pasa.nhs.uk or copies can be requested from the Corporate Affairs Manager, NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, 80 Lightfoot Street, Chester CH2 3AD.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's policy is towards special dietary provision by health trusts with reference to(a) halal, (b) kosher and (c) vegan diets. [170141]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Ensuring patients have access to adequate nutrition is a key component of effective health care. National health service trusts should have arrangements in place to ensure that the individual dietary needs of all patients can be met whether these arise from clinical need, cultural or religious requirements, or individual choice.

  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency is currently re-negotiating two new central agreements for the provision of special diets and authentic ethnic food. The process is currently under way for developing the specifications for these with religious and cultural leaders and with dieticians and the British Dietetic Association to ensure authenticity and acceptability of the products.

  General Practitioners
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) average cost of each patient consultation to a general practitioner and (b) average (i) hourly and (ii) daily cost to the NHS of a general practitioner's time was in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [168716]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data on general and personal medical services expenditure and activity are included in the Department's annual reports.

  The report for 2004—Cm 6204—was published on 29 April 2004, and figure 7.5 of the report shows that expenditure per consultation was £17.42 in 2002–03.
  454W
  The Report is available in the Library and on the Department's website at http://www.dh.gov.uk/PublicationsAndStatistics/Publications/AnnualReports/DHAnnualReportsArticle/fs/en?CONTENT_ID=4080936&chk=OsqvVR

  General practitioners are self-employed contractors to the national health service and so determine their own hours of work and the hours of work of the staff that they employ to assist them. It is not possible, therefore, to estimate hourly or daily rates for a GP's time.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) under what circumstances a general practitioner may make a charge to patients for signing official documents; and if he will make a statement; [169746]

  (2) if he will issue guidance to primary care trusts on suitable levels for charges by general practitioners for signing documents; [169756]

  (3) if he will list the official documents and certificates which require a general practitioner's signature; and what action he is taking to satisfy himself that the level of charges by general practitioners for such signatures are reasonable. [169757]

  Mr. Hutton
  General practitioners are required to sign the following prescribed list of medical certificates:To support a claim or to obtain payment either personally or by proxy; to prove incapacity to work or for self-support for the purposes of an award by the Secretary of State; or to enable proxy to draw pensions etc.
  To establish pregnancy for the purpose of obtaining welfare foods.
  To secure registration of stillbirth.
  To enable payment to be made to an institution or other person in case of mental disorder of persons entitled to payment from public funds.
  To establish unfitness for jury service.
  To support late application for reinstatement in civil employment or notification of non-availability to take up employment owing to sickness.
  To enable a person to be registered as an absent voter on grounds of physical incapacity.
  To support applications for certificates conferring exemption from charges in respect of drugs, medicines and appliances.
  To support a claim by or on behalf of a severely mentally impaired person for exemption from liability to pay the Council Tax or eligibility for a discount in the amount payable.

  They must also sign prescription forms. If the doctor is asked to sign another document, such as a passport application form, he or she is not obliged to do so. However, if the GP does do this work, he or she is entitled to charge a fee. There are no plans to issue guidance on the level of this fee since successive Governments have regarded it as a private matter to be agreed upon between doctor and patient.
  455W
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much income general practitioners lost in 2003–04 owing to not meeting specific targets imposed on them by his Department in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement [170206]

  Mr. Hutton
  No targets have been imposed on general practitioners in any of the last three years.

  Guide Dogs
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial support is given to train guide dogs for the blind. [171536]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: The Government do not fund the training of guide dogs. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association is a registered charity and has not requested core funding from the Department or from the National Lottery.

  Health Checks (Over-75s)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what tests are contained in the general practitioner health check for all patients aged 75 or over who request it and have not had a consultation within the last 12 months. [169717]

  Mr. Hutton
  Tests to be undertaken in the health check for patients aged 75 and over are not specified. It is a matter of practitioners' clinical judgment, based on the patient's needs arising from the consultation.

  Health Directorates
  Angel Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each local health directorate in England the number of(a) men and (b) women elected. [164632]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Health Services
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many residents in Bootle awaiting heart surgery have had the option of choosing an alternative hospital for quicker treatment in the last 12 months. [169263]

  Selected Trusts in Crosby area: Counts of finished admission episodes (valid waiting list and booked cases) by time waited grouping—NHS hospitals, 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Time waited grouping

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  0 to 3 months

  38,836

  35,102

  36,452

  37,931

  35,230

  34,472

  more than 3 to 6 months

  4,618

  5,478

  5,672

  5,740

  5,723

  5,652

  more than 6 to 9 months

  2,384

  2,896

  2,414

  2,778

  3,174

  2,597

  more than 9 to 12 months

  1,685

  1,918

  1,947

  2,353

  2,033

  2,607

  more than 12 months

  2,753

  3,377

  2,990

  2,636

  2,235

  1,749

  Total admissions

  50,276

  48,771

  49,475

  51,438

  48,395

  47,077

  Selected Trusts in Crosby area: Counts of finished admission episodes (valid waiting list and booked cases) for aggregated time waited groupings—NHS hospitals, 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Time waited grouping

  1997––98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  0 to 3 months

  38,836

  35,102

  36,452

  37,931

  35,230

  34,472

  more than 3 months

  11,440

  13,669

  13,023

  13,507

  13,165

  12,605

  more than 6 months

  6,822

  8,191

  7,351

  7,767

  7,442

  6,953

  456W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of suspected cancer patients in Bootle saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years. [169265]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information from 2000–01, the earliest available, is shown in the table. BOOTLE—Waiting times for first consultant outpatient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral.

  Seen within two weeks

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2000–01

  4

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  665

  2001–02

  1

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  683

  2001–02

  2

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  712

  2001–02

  3

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  878

  2001–02

  4

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  795

  2002–03

  1

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  916

  2002–03

  2

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  992

  2002–03

  3

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  1066

  2002–03

  4

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  1019

  2003–04

  1

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  1094

  2003–04

  2

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  1150

  2003–04

  3

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100

  1151

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inpatients in Crosby had to wait more than(a) three, (b) six, (c) nine and (d) 12 months for treatment in each year since 1997; and what the percentage change in each year was in each case. [164307]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not collected on a constituency basis but at national health service trust level. This information is shown in the tables.
  457W

  Selected Trust in Crosby area: Counts of finished admission episodes (valid waiting list and booked cases) for aggregated time waited groupings—NHS hospitals, 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Time waited grouping

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  more than 9 months

  4,438

  5,295

  4,937

  4,989

  4,268

  4,356

  more than 12 months

  2,753

  3,377

  2,990

  2,636

  2,235

  1,749

  Total admissions

  50,276

  48,771

  49,475

  51,438

  48,395

  47,077

  Selected Trust in Crosby area: Counts of finished admission episodes (valid waiting list and booked cases) for aggregated time waited groupings—NHS hospitals, 1997–98 to 2002–03

  Time waited grouping

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  0 to 3 months

  −9.6

  3.8

  4.1

  −7.1

  −2.2

  more than 3 months

  19.5

  −4.7

  3.7

  −2.5

  −4.3

  more than 6 months

  20.1

  −10.3

  5.7

  −4.2

  −6.6

  more than 9 months

  19.3

  −6.8

  1.1

  −14.5

  2.1

  more than 12 months

  22.7

  −11.5

  −11.8

  −15.2

  −21.7

  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 are grossed for coverage, except for 2001–02 and 2002–03, which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  3. Time waited statistics from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and time waited for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment on a specific date and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the time waited as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  4. Trusts in Crosby Area:
  REM Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust
  REQ Southport and Formby Hospitals NHS Trust
  RJV West Lancashire NHS Trust
  RVY Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust.

  5. Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust was created on 1 April 1999 from Southport and Formby Hospitals NHS Trust and part of West Lancashire NHS Trust. The figures for West Lancashire NHS Trust for 1997–98 and 1998–99 are for the whole trust. It is not possible to identify the proportion of this figure attributable to Southport and Ormskirk NHS Trust.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of suspected cancer patients in Wigan saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years. [169348]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information from 2000–01, the earliest available, is shown in the following table.

  Waiting times for first consultant outpatient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral.

  Seen within two weeks

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2000–01

  4

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  100

  146

  2001–02

  1

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  214

  2001–02

  2

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  232

  2001–02

  3

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  304

  2001–02

  4

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  346

  2002–03

  1

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  306

  2002–03

  2

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  337

  2002–03

  3

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  353

  2002–03

  4

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  337

  2003–04

  1

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  396

  2003–04

  2

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  393

  458W

  Seen within two weeks

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2003–04

  3

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  447

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS waiting times for heart surgery in Wigan. [169349]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In February 2004, no patient waited more than nine months for heart surgery at The Central Manchester and Manchester Children's Hospital National Health Service Trust or the South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of women in Wigan with suspected breast cancer saw a specialist within two weeks in each of the last five years. [169352]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Waiting times for first consultant outpatient appointment for suspected breast cancer following urgent GP referral

  Seen within 2 weeks

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  1999–2000

  1

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  100

  19

  1999–2000

  2

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  100

  31

  459W

  Waiting times for first consultant outpatient appointment for suspected breast cancer following urgent GP referral

  Seen within 2 weeks

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  1999–2000

  3

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  100

  53

  1999–2000

  4

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  100

  59

  2000–2001

  1

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  100

  48

  2000–2001

  2

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  100

  68

  2000–2001

  3

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  100

  80

  2000–2001

  4

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  100

  71

  2001–2002

  1

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  89

  2001–2002

  2

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  93

  2001–2002

  3

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  93

  2001–2002

  4

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  106

  2002–03

  1

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  107

  2002–2003

  2

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  88

  2002–2003

  3

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  120

  2002–2003

  4

  Wrightington. Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  88

  2003–2004

  1

  Wrightington. Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  93

  2003–2004

  2

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  98

  2003–2004

  3

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  100

  110

  Source:

  DH form QMCW.

  Hospitals (Bedside Televisions)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department intends to take to resolve the problems in some hospitals where bedside televisions cannot be switched off. [169722]

  Mr. Hutton
  The bedside televisions provided can be switched off and no action is therefore required. Patients can turn off screens or turn them to face the wall if they prefer.

  Immigrant Medical Inspections
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which bodies have had the prime responsibility for making available medical staff to support local authorities in their functions related to the Control of Disease Act 1984 during the NHS reorganisations of the last five years; and whether funding has followed these changes. [156843]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Long-standing central guidance has been that the local consultant in communicable disease control (CCDC) should normally be the local authority proper officer for the purposes of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. Local authorities also look to the national health service to provide medical officers for the purposes of the port health regulations which are made, or deemed to be made, under powers in the Act.
  460W
  In the last five years, CCDCs have been employed by health authorities, primary care trusts (PCTs—which were created in three waves, from April 2000, April 2001 and April 2002) and, from 1 April 2003, the Health Protection Agency (HPA).

  From 2003–04, funding previously allocated to health authorities has been made available directly to PCTs. From April 2003, all PCTs which transferred staff to the HPA were top-sliced in line with the expenditure associated with the staff transferred. This included the funding for CCDCs and their teams.

  Internet Medicine Sales
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list websites which have been(a) closed and (b) required to amend their web pages by their internet service providers following representations made by (i) the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency in the last year and (ii) the Medicines Control Agency for each year between 1997 and 2003 for (A) being in breach of the law on the scale of unlicensed medicines via the internet and (B) providing medicines without adequate patient consultations. [167807]

  Mr. Hutton
  During the period 1997 to 2003, the former Medicines Control Agency (MCA) achieved compliance through amendment to the website by the internet service providers in six cases involving the sale and supply of all medicines via the internet. A further seven websites were closed as a result of the operators voluntarily agreeing to do so. These cases involved both licensed and unlicensed medicines.

  Specific enforcement activity is a matter between the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and the individual(s) concerned.

  Mobile Telecommunication Masts
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to undertake further research into the health effects of G3 technology mobile telecommunication masts. [170128]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: A review of recent research entitled, "Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", published by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) advisory group on non-ionising radiation 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."

  Nevertheless, following the precautionary approach advocated by the independent expert group on mobile phones (IEGMP) in May 2000 (www.iegmp.org.uk), the LINK mobile telecommunications and health research (MTHR) programme, was established under an independent programme management committee (PMC), following the publication of the IEGMP report. The PMC has expressed its wish to undertake research into the effects of 3G exposures and discussions are already taking place on how this can be added to the overall programme of research. Further information about this programme as a whole can be found on the MTHR website at www.mthr.org.uk.
  461W
  The operators of mobile telephone equipment, including 3G technologies, ensure that public exposure does not exceed national and international guidelines. A substantial number of measurements of potential exposures of the public from base station emissions, have been made by a number of bodies, including the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) (www.nrpb.org) and Ofcom, formerly the Radiocommunications Agency (www.ofcom.org.uk). In all cases, exposures have been very much lower than guidelines.

  National Service Frameworks
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards the National Framework milestone for primary care group and primary care trust schemes for older people to receive more help from pharmacists in using their medicines. [170617]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  While we do not collect data centrally on the number of primary care trusts (PCTs) that have schemes in place so that older people can get more help from pharmacists in using their medicines, there is good evidence to indicate that the number of pharmacists providing support to patients, general practitioners and PCTs to improve medicine taking has increased significantly since 2001, when the older people's national service framework was published.

  PCTs now employ over 1,000 pharmacists, some of whom provide hands on support to GP practices to set up medicines management schemes, which help patients take their medicines more effectively. Through the national medicines management collaborative at least 393 community pharmacies are actively involved in programmes such as prescription intervention schemes, medication reviews, return of unwanted medicines, and minor ailment schemes, thereby encouraging self-care and support to vulnerable groups, particularly older people. This includes enhanced prescription collection and delivery services, medicines management services to care homes and domiciliary visiting. The Department is also funding a trial of structured services based exclusively in community pharmacies for patients with coronary heart disease, led by the pharmaceutical services negotiating committee.

  The proposed new community pharmacy contractual framework, which is currently being negotiated, will also be an important driver for change and will help to ensure that pharmacists are more involved in supporting patients in using their medicines. Repeat dispensing, which is expected to be an essential service provided by all pharmacies, will enable patients with stable conditions to obtain a prescription from their GP, which can then be dispensed in several instalments by their pharmacy over an agreed period of time.

  The first pharmacist supplementary prescribers have qualified and will be writing their first prescriptions imminently. Supplementary prescribing within a clinical management plan agreed with the doctor will be particularly beneficial for patients with chronic diseases. The work of the medicines partnership taskforce, funded by the Department, has helped professionals and older people to become more involved in medication reviews.
  462W
  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 single integrated community services. [170619]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Of the 138 areas in England that have been identified to be covered by integrated health and social services community equipment services, 110, or 72 per cent., predicted in January 2004 that they would meet the four integration criteria, which are: to have a pooled budget, a sole manager, a manager's advisory board, and unified stock. The majority of the remaining services are expected to complete their integration during the course of the year.

  Neurosurgical Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many neurosurgical trainees who were awarded their Certificate of Completion of Specialist Training more than six months ago have not yet received a consultant appointment, excluding locum consultancies. [167059]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  NHS Land Sales
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the sale of surplus NHS land within the Northumbria NHS Trust area. [170414]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  An agreement in principle has been given to transfer surplus land in the ownership of Secretary of State for Health to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Details of the transaction and the price to be paid have still to be determined.

  Some of the land under consideration for transfer falls within the area covered by Northumbria national health service trust.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what conditions attach to the receipt of the proceeds of sale of the surplus NHS land to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; [168350]

  (2) what arrangements have been entered into with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that the Department receives a share of any profits made on the subsequent sale of the surplus NHS sites by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. [168351]

  Mr. Hutton
  The announcement on 7 April was of an in-principle agreement to transfer the sites and the detailed terms of the transfer are still under discussion.

  NHS Recruitment
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of whether NHS organisations adhere to the Code of Practice on Ethical Recruitment in the granting of work permits to foreign healthcare applicants. [170668]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: We monitor compliance to the code of practice through information supplied by strategic health authorities and also publish of a list of agencies who agree to comply with the code.
  463W
  National health Service employers may only apply for a work permit following a professional registration assessment by the relevant statutory body.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the extent to which medical professionals from EU accession countries after 1 May will help to fill vacancies for(a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) dentists in the NHS. [168069]

  Mr. Hutton
  No assessment has been made on how many national health service vacancies could be filled by healthcare professionals from European Union accession countries after 1 May.

  However, international recruitment has a long established history with many healthcare staff from around the world having come to the United Kingdom at some point in their career. International recruitment has made a key contribution to the delivery of services in the NHS, and is a two way process. Welcoming healthcare professionals from abroad gives valuable opportunities for a transfer of experience and the sharing of ideas.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Qualified speech and language therapists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists employed in the NHS as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Increase Number

  Percentage

  Speech and language

  5,430

  5,685

  5,960

  6,243

  813

  15.0

  Therapists

  Occupational therapists

  13,129

  13,914

  14,749

  15,391

  2,262

  17.2

  Physiotherapists

  15,608

  16,212

  16,885

  17,922

  2,314

  14.8

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Training commissions

  Headcount

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Increase Number

  Percentage

  Speech and language

  457

  558

  553

  597

  140

  30.6

  Therapists

  Occupational therapists

  1,173

  1,385

  1,563

  1,692

  519

  44.2

  Physiotherapists

  1,346

  1,473

  1,780

  2,157

  811

  60.3

  Source:

  Department of Health Quarterly Monitoring

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for Richmond Park will receive an answer to her questions regarding the use of Thimerosal, tabled on 22 March. [168865]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I replied to the hon. Member on 4 May 2004,Official Report, column 1474W and 5 May 2004, Official Report, column 1626W.

  Patient Forums
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of patient forums in representing the interests of patients following the abolition of community health councils; and if he will make a statement. [167291]

  NHS Therapists
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS therapists for children with disabilities in mainstream schools have been recruited in the last three years; how many additional training places for such NHS therapists have been created in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [I70607]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not specifically available on the number of therapists for children with disabilities that have been recruited to the national health service. The tables show the number of physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists employed in the NHS and entering training each year.

  Between September 2000 and 2003, the number of speech and language therapists employed in the NHS has increased by 15 per cent. Physiotherapists have increased by 15 per cent., and occupational therapists by 17 per cent.. The Government is also increasing the number of students entering training each year; since 1999–2000, training places in speech and language therapy have increased by 31 per cent., in occupational therapy by 44 per cent., and by 60 per cent., in physiotherapy.

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Community health councils had a general duty to represent the interests of the public in the health service. The new system of patient and public involvement is a much broader structure with a range of specific features.

  The new system comprises on the spot support for patients through patient advice and liaison services (PALS), independent support for complainants through the independent complaints advocacy service (ICAS), the powers to scrutinise health services by overview and scrutiny committees of local authorities, and a duty on the national health service to involve and consult patients and the public in the planning and development of services.
  465W
  On top of these arrangements there are also 572 independent patients' forums with a clear remit to monitor local NHS services, obtain the views of patients using those services and feed those views into local decision-making.

  The Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, the independent body responsible for supporting, advising on and monitoring the work of forums will also be responsible for reviewing how effectively forums have been in carrying out their responsibilities. It is also responsible for ensuring that appropriate and high quality support is provided to forums by the forum support organisations—it does this through rigorous contract and performance management arrangements.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press officers were employed in his Department in each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04; what the total cost was in each year; and if he will make a statement. [162845]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The cost for all staff employed in the media centre from 1997–98 to 2003–04 is shown in table 1.

  Table 1

  Cost (£ million)

  1997–98

  1,062

  1998–99

  1,239

  1999–2000

  1,253

  2000–01

  1,233

  2001–02

  1,279

  2002–03

  1,077

  2003–04

  1,284

  Information showing the number of press officers employed by the Department is shown in table 2.

  Table 2

  Staff

  1990–91

  11

  1991–92

  12

  1992–93

  14

  1993–94

  14

  1994–95

  14

  1995–96

  17

  1996–97

  17

  1997–98

  15

  1998–99

  15

  1999–2000

  16

  2000–01

  19

  2001–02

  22

  2002–03

  24

  2003–04

  26

  The cost of employing press officers from 1990–91 to 1996–97 could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  QA Business Services
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action he is taking to complete the 466W
  compensation calculations in respect of former employees of QA Business Services to achieve final conclusion of their claims; [170476]

  (2) when he expects all the agreed compensation claims in respect of former employees of QA Business Services to be settled and paid. [170532]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Almost all the former employees of QA Business Services, who have taken legal action over compensation, have now received offers in settlement. The professional advisers for the litigants have responded to the offers. We are currently considering the issues raised and will respond to the litigants shortly. It will then be a matter for the litigants to decide if the revised offers are acceptable or not.

  All those non-litigants who have been shown to have suffered losses on the same basis as the litigants have already received compensation payments.

  Rheumatological/Musculoskeletal Conditions
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of hospital trusts provide access to a multidisciplinary team for patients with rheumatological conditions; [171931]

  (2) what steps are being taken to increase patient access to direct advice, information and support to assist them in coping with their conditions. [171933]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information is not collected centrally on the proportion of hospital trusts with access to a multidisciplinary team for patients with rheumatological conditions.

  The Department is driving forward a major programme of work to improve equality of access to all national health service treatment and care services. Priorities for health and social care are set out in "Improvement, Expansion and Reform", the priorities and planning framework for 2003–06. Although rheumatological conditions are not identified specifically, people with these conditions stand to benefit from the improvement in access to specialist care for patients with any form of orthopaedic condition.

  Maximum waiting times have fallen over the past few years and will continue to do so. By the end of 2005, the maximum waiting time for a first out-patient appointment with a consultant will fall to three months and the maximum wait for inpatient treatment will fall to six months. Also, the older peoples' national service framework set standards that will improve treatment and care for a range of older people, including those with rheumatological conditions.

  Royal Colleges
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of those classified as(a) senior managers, (b). managers, (c) clerical staff and (d) administrative staff within the NHS are eligible to join a royal college; and how many are not. [171361]
  467W
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Scanners
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of a(a) MRI scanner and (b) CT scanner. [169709]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The costs of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners are dependent on the precise specification of equipment required at each individual institution. Costs may also be influenced by the method used to purchase equipment.

  In England, costs range from £300,000 to £700,000 for CT scanners and £650,000 to £1,500,000 for MRI scanners. These costs are not inclusive of value added tax or any necessary build and installation costs.

  Local authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Barking and Dagenham

  22

  37

  32

  40

  28

  46

  46

  Barnet

  63

  77

  50

  71

  77

  93

  88

  Bexley

  18

  17

  22

  17

  21

  22

  35

  Brent

  195

  163

  211

  287

  293

  226

  175

  Bromley

  21

  13

  26

  28

  26

  9

  20

  Camden

  105

  103

  78

  81

  100

  125

  119

  City of London

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  2

  5

  Croydon

  64

  83

  87

  92

  85

  108

  108

  Ealing

  162

  212

  197

  238

  240

  261

  153

  Enfield

  45

  68

  63

  83

  79

  111

  72

  Greenwich

  54

  70

  59

  59

  91

  98

  88

  Hackney

  117

  121

  96

  180

  176

  138

  217

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  54

  59

  49

  75

  34

  10

  19

  Haringey

  145

  99

  135

  158

  158

  79

  106

  Harrow

  64

  73

  75

  89

  99

  124

  110

  Havering

  19

  6

  12

  27

  21

  15

  19

  Hillingdon

  75

  98

  79

  86

  93

  98

  123

  Hounslow

  74

  79

  105

  104

  45

  24

  42

  Islington

  77

  84

  93

  93

  106

  112

  113

  Kensington and Chelsea

  51

  43

  64

  45

  47

  36

  47

  Kingston upon Thames

  10

  17

  15

  12

  17

  18

  8

  Lambeth

  94

  102

  100

  126

  137

  98

  122

  Lewisham

  57

  78

  68

  68

  64

  82

  34

  Merton

  39

  21

  30

  40

  43

  65

  30

  Newham

  174

  213

  237

  290

  238

  228

  247

  Redbridge

  100

  70

  71

  58

  73

  91

  97

  Richmond upon Thames

  9

  14

  16

  9

  14

  16

  6

  Southwark

  75

  61

  74

  102

  98

  69

  76

  Sutton

  23

  18

  15

  14

  23

  31

  34

  Tower Hamlets

  136

  104

  107

  120

  128

  151

  135

  Waltham Forest

  94

  93

  93

  102

  87

  93

  99

  Wandsworth

  70

  67

  59

  51

  55

  87

  95

  Westminster, City of

  105

  81

  89

  92

  89

  73

  98

  London total

  2,411

  2,444

  2,503

  2,938

  2,886

  2,839

  2,786

  1 2003 is provisional data and may be subject to small adjustments in the future.

  Sources:

  Statutory Notifications to the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre.

  All forms of Tuberculosis. Corrected Notifications.

  Data excludes chemoprophylaxis.

  Data excludes Port Health Authorities.

  Population denominators ONS.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of people eligible for the BCG inoculation in Greater London, broken down by national health service trust, received it in each year since 1997. [170507]

  Solvent Abuse
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children were treated for solvent abuse in each of the last seven years; [169031]

  (2) what the average waiting time is for children requiring consultations for solvent abuse. [169032]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Tuberculosis
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of people eligible for the BCG inoculation in Greater London, broken down by national health service trust, received it in each year since 1997. [170501]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of tuberculosis cases is not available broken down by national health service trust. As the nearest alternative, information on tuberculosis notification is shown in the table at local authority level.

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available in the format requested. The number of BCG vaccinations to children aged under one and those aged 10–15 given by trusts in London is shown in table 9 of the annual statistical bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics,
  469W
  England: 2002–03" and in similar tables in earlier bulletins, copies of which are available in the Library. Copies of bulletins from 1998–99 onwards are also available electronically on the Department's website at:

  www.publications.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0316.htm,

  www.publications.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0218.htm,

  www.publications.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0121.htm,

  www.publications.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0026.htm and

  www.publications.doh.gov.uk/public/sb9928.htm.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of patients with suspected cancer in Burnley saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years. [167943]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected on a constituency basis. Information from 2000–01, the earliest available, is shown in the table and relates to the national health service organisations serving the Burnley area.

  Waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral

  Seen within 2 weeks

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2000–01

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  100.0

  175

  2000–01

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  173

  2001–02

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  100.0

  229

  2001–02

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  262

  2002–03

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  99.6

  246

  2002–03

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  100.0

  317

  2003–04

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  688

  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.

  Vaccinations
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there is a shortage of serum for(a) measles, (b) mumps and (c) rubella for children whose parents opt for individual inoculations; and if he will make a statement. [171738]
  470W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department holds no information about the supply of single vaccines.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what analysis he has made of the potential link between the use of mercury-based whooping cough vaccines and the incidence of autism; and if he will make a statement. [167767]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As with all medicinal products, vaccine safety is continually monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and its independent expert advisory body, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM). The MHRA and CSM have thoroughly reviewed the safety of mercury-containing vaccines, including alleged links with autism, on a number of occasions.

  In 2001, CSM conducted a major review of the available evidence and has since then considered new data as it has emerged. In 2003, following a review of further studies, including two United Kingdom studies involving more than 100,000 children, CSM advice was placed on the MHRA website at http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk.

  Further studies from Denmark involving almost half a million children have also specifically investigated the suggested link between mercury-containing vaccines and autism. None of these studies found any evidence of a causal association.

  On the basis of the available data, the advice of CSM remains that there is no evidence of harm from the form of mercury contained in vaccines, with the exception of possible hypersensitivity reactions, typically skin rashes or local swelling at the site of injection. The CSM advises that the benefits of immunisation with such vaccines outweigh any potential risks of vaccination. This view concurs with that of the World Health Organisation.

  Despite the strong evidence supporting the safety of mercury-containing vaccines, the European medicines regulatory body, the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) continues to promote the development of vaccines without, or with the lowest possible levels of, mercury compounds. The CSM supports the EMEA position. In response to this, several UK licensed vaccines have had levels of such compounds reduced or removed completely from the manufacture of the component antigens or from the final vaccine.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Higher Education Links Programme
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  Having reviewed the higher education links programme, I have decided to continue with a redesigned programme, maintaining current levels of annual investment (£3 million) but with some modifications to the existing scheme (which will end in March 2006). I expect the new scheme to commence in April 2005, with commitments being made over the following seven years (until March 2012).

  The review report identified a number of strengths of the current scheme, but there were also some areas for improvement. The redesigned programme will tackle these issues.

  The overall goal of the redesigned programme will be the reduction of poverty, the promotion of sustainable development in poor countries; and the building of human capital and skills. Only countries where DFID has bilateral country programmes will be eligible for funding; there will therefore be more emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa and low-income countries.

  The revised programme should also support south-south links and links between southern partners and non-UK partners in the North, and it will also give more attention to science and technology. An independent evaluation will take place after five years.

  DFID's Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has written to Professor Robert Boucher, vice-chancellor of the University of Sheffield and Chair of the existing Higher Education Links Steering Committee, setting out the features of the new scheme. His letter is on DFID's website. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Controls on Firearms
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  The Home Office consultation paper on firearms controls is published today. Copies have been placed in the House Library. The paper invites a wide-ranging debate on the principles that should underpin firearms licensing and how the existing system might be improved. People will have until 31 August to respond.

  United Kingdom Immigration Control
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  The Government are firmly committed to maintaining effective immigration 12WS
  controls while at the same time ensuring that genuine passengers are able to pass through our ports with the least possible inconvenience.

  The number of people arriving at UK airports who are found to be inadmissible is unacceptably high. Certain nationals, who are required to hold a valid visa to enter the UK, may transit this country for up to 24 hours without a visa. This provides a relatively easy and inexpensive way for those who are intent on circumventing our immigration controls to do so. Last year we introduced measures to tackle this problem with the introduction of a direct airside transit visa (DATV) requirement for 23 nationalities. For the three months following the introduction on 16 October of DATV regimes for Angola, Bangladesh, Cameroon, India, Lebanon and Pakistan, the number of asylum applications made at ports by those nationalities fell by 58 per cent. DATV requirements have been shown to work and we now need to take further action to strengthen the regime. Intelligence would suggest that some individuals travelling on Kenyan and Tanzanian documents to the United Kingdom are destroying these documents either en route or after gaining entry to the UK, and are then applying for asylum as Somalian nationals. Therefore from 00.01 hours on Thursday 13 May all nationals of Kenya and Tanzania wishing to transit the UK will require a visa to do so.

  To avoid undue hardship for those who had already made their travel plans, we have agreed to operate a grace period. Until 23.59 hours on Wednesday 19 May, any transit passenger who bought their ticket on or before 12 May will not be refused entry solely on the basis of not holding a valid transit visa. Also, any person on the return leg of a journey they commenced before 13 May and who passed through the UK on the outward leg of their journey will be allowed to transit the UK without a visa until 23.59 on 9 June.

  In parallel with those measures, we are introducing changes to the arrangements that allow certain groups of low risk passenger to be exempt from a transit visa requirement if they are in possession of specific documents. The exemption applying to those holding a valid visa for the United States of America or Canada has been widened to enable visa-free transit of the United Kingdom irrespective of the routing chosen to reach the USA or Canada. Similarly, a passenger returning from a trip to the USA or Canada will be able to transit the United Kingdom irrespective of the routing they choose providing they are in possession of an onward air ticket and they are not seeking to transit the UK more than six months since they last entered the USA or Canada with a valid visa.

  We have also decided to introduce an exemption for holders of diplomatic or official passports issued by the Vietnamese Government, who will be exempt from the requirement to hold a visa when transiting the UK for up to 24 hours.

HEALTH

  Cardiac Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson)
  The national service framework for coronary heart disease, published in
  13WS
  March 2000, heralded a new era for the development of fast and modern services for the prevention and treatment of heart disease.

  With significant progress now secured for patients with coronary artery disease, the national health service is now well placed to deliver similar improvements for patients with arrhythmia and with syndromes that can lead to sudden cardiac death.

  Dr. Roger Boyle, the national director for heart disease, is today launching a consultation paper on a new national service framework chapter for these conditions. The views received will be considered by a new expert group that is being established by the Department of Health to take forward the task of writing the new national service framework chapter.

  The Government have already shown their determination to tackle coronary heart disease through the publication of the national service framework. The prospect of a new the national service framework chapter setting out the standards and models of care for patients with arrhythmia marks a major step forwards for cardiac patients in England.

  Copies of "New NSF Chapter on Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death: A Consultation Paper", have been placed in the Library.

NEW NSF CHAPTER ON ARRHYTHMIAS AND SUDDEN CARDIAC DEATH

  A CONSULTATION PAPER
  Introduction
  The national service framework for coronary heart disease, published in March 2000, heralded a new era for the development of fast and modern services for the prevention and treatment of heart disease. Four years on from its publication, the combination of a clear set of national standards, sustained levels of investment and reform and redesign of services has delivered real improvements for patients. Primary care has made extraordinary progress in ensuring that patients with heart disease are on the right combination of drugs to lengthen their lives. Waiting times for bypass surgery and angioplasty have fallen dramatically. Patients with a heart attack are treated quickly with life-saving clot busting drugs.
  With significant progress now secured for patients with coronary artery disease, the NHS is now well placed to deliver similar improvements for patients with arrhythmia and with syndromes that can lead to sudden cardiac death. These patients have already benefited from the substantial growth in NHS staff, equipment and facilities. The Government have now agreed to drive further progress for these patients by working with patients, families and NHS professionals to develop new NSF standards or practice recommendations for these conditions.
  The strength of the existing NSF has been that it is based on the views of clinicians, patients and their families. Its aims and approaches have credibility with those who deliver it and those who benefit from it. The aim of this consultation paper is to invite initial comments from everyone with an interest in these issues to ensure that we can build a similar consensus for this new NSF chapter.
  The views received will be considered by a new expert group that is being established by the Department of Health to take forward the task of writing the new NSF chapter. Detailed membership of the group will be published shortly, but it will include patients, relatives of patients, patient organisations, professional bodies, experts in the field, health service managers and other Government Departments with an interest. The group will be chaired by Dr. Roger Boyle, national clinical director for heart disease, and is aiming to produce the new chapter within twelve months.
  The attached paper sets out the proposed scope of the work and how we propose to take the work forward. In addition to your comments on this way forward, we would welcome specific views on:
  Whether the scope covers all the aspects of these conditions which the new NSF chapter should cover;
  Examples of existing good practice in the management of these conditions that might inform the work of the expert group;
  Views on the obstacles to progress on developing state of the art services for these patients, and suggestions on how these might be overcome;
  Areas where further research is needed to improve understanding of these conditions;
  Views on what the immediate, medium term and long term priorities should be for these services; and
  How best to ensure that the patient, family and carer perspective is at the forefront of policy and service development.
  Details of how to respond to this consultation are included at the end of this document.

  EXPERT GROUP
  Membership
  The group will be composed of external stakeholders similar to the expert external reference groups who helped create the national service framework for coronary heart disease with voluntary and professional organisations being invited to take part. Patients, cardiologists, GPs, nurses and members of voluntary and professional organisations (including CRY, the Ashley Jolly SAD Trust, Hearty Voices, the British Cardiac Society and the British Pacing and Electrophysiology Group) will be asked to join. Representatives from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will also be invited.
  Other Stakeholders
  We will be holding a stakeholders' event during the consultation period to raise awareness of the new group and invite wider consultation and participation. This will help to ensure that the key issues are covered and that the outcomes address the needs of all the interested parties. If you would be interested in attending this event, please e-mail your name and contact details to Jennifer.francis@doh.gsi.gov.uk
  Proposed Workstreams
  We propose four key workstreams for the expert group to manage its work, sudden cardiac death and screening; acute care; cardiac interventions; and patient involvement and support.
  Sudden Cardiac Death and Screening
  It is estimated that 200–400 young people die from sudden cardiac death syndrome each year. Dari Taylor MP's recent Private Members Bill highlighted a number of important issues that the new NSF chapter will need to address. These include:
  Raising awareness of signs and symptoms of conditions that may lead to sudden cardiac death;
  Support for those who have lost relatives or friends;
  Considering the feasibility of guidelines on how these deaths are certified;
  Setting standards or practice recommendations around how suspected cases are treated in primary care;
  Promoting models of good practice for local use; and
  Design of an evidence-based protocol that clarifies when it is recommended that patients and/or their relatives should ideally be invited for screening.
  Acute Care
  For many patients the first sign of their cardiac condition is an emergency admission to hospital. Those who know they have the condition but whose care is not well managed may also need urgent treatment. Arrhythmia is consistently in the top 10 reasons for hospital admission, using up significant A&E time and bed days. This workstream will cover:
  Design of a care pathway showing the ideal treatment of those who require emergency care for these conditions;
  Outlining what information patients require when in hospital to help them successfully manage their condition after discharge;
  Considering the feasibility of setting or practice recommendations around readmission rates for those with conditions which could be better managed; and
  Development of a set of audit indicators and suitable performance indicators that might be used locally around emergency care for those with arrhythmias and conditions which may lead to sudden cardiac death.
  Cardiac Interventions
  Since publication of the NSF there have been significant improvements in both the technology and the clinical capacity to intervene to treat arrhythmias and related conditions, giving more options for this group of patients in terms of both diagnosis and treatment. New emerging technologies such as the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or more sophisticated pacing devices, with good medical evidence for their use, has given the cardiologist many more treatment options in 2004 compared to the 1990s. This workstream will cover:
  Design of a care pathway for the diagnosis, management and treatment of arrhythmias and conditions which may lead to sudden cardiac death (considering cardiomyopathies, atrial fibrillation and electrical conduction disorders);
  Identification of models which deliver the appropriate interventions reliably; and
  Development of audit measures and suitable performance indicators around the care and treatment of people with these conditions, which might be used locally.
  Patient Involvement and Support
  Patients with a lifelong or long to term cardiac problem need continuing support to help them manage their condition and live as full a life as possible. Assistance also needs to be available for carers and family members
  16WS
  where they wish it. Patients need to be involved in decisions about their own care and in helping to shape the planning of services. This workstream will include:
  Design of care pathway for management and control of specific conditions (for example, atrial fibrillation);
  Development of guidance on monitoring patients with chronic conditions;
  Identifying effective ways of providing emotional support to patients and their relatives where appropriate; and
  Identifying effective means of involving patients in their own care and in influencing the way that services are provided.
  Next Steps
  Ideas and proposals should reach the project team by 4 August 2004 at the latest.
  The Department of Health would welcome contributions throughout the consultation. Emerging issues and contributions will be fed into the discussions of the expert group and used to develop the proposed new NSF chapter on arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death.
  The information you send to us may need to he passed to colleagues within the Department of Health and/or published in a summary of responses to this consultation. We will assume that you are content for us to do this and, if you are replying by e-mail, that your consent overrides any confidentiality disclaimer that is generated by your organisation's IT system, unless you specifically include a request to the contrary in the main text of your submission to us.
  Contact Details

  New NSF Consultation

  Heart Team

  Department of Health

  403 Wellington House

  133–155 Waterloo Road

  London SE1 8UG

  Email: chdnsf@doh.gsi.gov.uk

  Website: www.dh.gov.uk/consultations

  Telephone: 0207 972 4513

  Annex: Consultation Criteria

  Code of Practice on Consultation

  We will ensure that this consultation meets the following criteria:
  Consult widely throughout the process, allowing a minimum of twelve weeks for written consultation at least once during the development of the policy.
  Be clear about what your proposals are, who may be affected, what questions are being asked and the timescale for responses.
  Ensure that your consultation is clear, concise and widely accessible.
  Give feedback regarding the responses received and how the consultation process influenced the policy.
  Monitor your department's effectiveness at consultation, including through the use of a designated consultation coordinator.
  Ensure your consultation follows better regulation best practice, including carrying out a regulatory impact assessment if appropriate.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate Report (Milton Keynes Council)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Chris Pond)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the benefit fraud inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Milton Keynes Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The performance standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  In 2002–03, Milton Keynes council administered some £48.3 million in housing benefits, about 18.5 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure. BFI inspected Milton Keynes council against the performance standards for housing benefits, and concludes that the council's benefits service had not reached standard in any of the seven functional areas—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud and overpayments.

  The report finds that the benefits service had been given low priority within the council in the past and performance overall had been poor. However, several significant changes had taken place over the past two years, including a complete service restructure and the replacement of its benefits IT system.

  The December 2002 comprehensive performance assessment classified the council as poor. Since then progress had been made across many areas of the performance standards. The claims backlog had reduced considerably since 2002 but it was still having an impact on claims processing times. Times taken to process new benefit claims and changes of circumstances were reducing but still did not meet the performance standards. Processing times for new claims had reduced to an average 49 days from 68 days compared with the performance standard of 36 days. The council processed changes of circumstances in 13 days, compared to the standard of nine days.

  The council's counter-fraud performance was strong, with successful sanctions against benefit fraudsters and excellent relations with the Department's counter fraud investigation service. However, the council needs to develop procedural guidance for investigators and do more management checks.

  The council did not have an overpayment policy or debt recovery strategy. However, actions plans, developed with the support of BFI's performance improvement action team, had been in place since March 2003 and these were having a positive impact on the recovery of overpaid benefits.
  18WS
  The council further demonstrated its commitment to improvement by entering into a public private partnership agreement, in January 2004, to deliver a number of its services, including benefits.

  The major challenge for the council now is to continue to improve its benefits processing performance. This will be helped by a more systematic approach to planning, backed up by improvements to its management information and reporting systems.

  The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

  Over 50s Outreach Pilot
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith)
  In December 2002, the Government published the Pensions Green Paper: "Simplicity, Security and Choice: Working and Saving for Retirement." Chapter 6: "Extending Opportunities for Older Workers" sets out a range of measures to increase employment among older workers, which is considered essential to address the pensions challenge.

  The Over 50s Outreach pilot is one of these measures and supports PSA target 4c: In the three years to 2006, to increase the employment rate of people aged 50 and over, taking account of the economic cycle, and significantly reduce the difference between their employment rate and the overall rate.

  Research has shown that contact from Jobcentre Plus can concern people aged over 50, particularly those on benefits such as incapacity benefit (IB), income support (IS), and severe disability allowance. Clients on these benefits may be concerned about Jobcentre Plus forcing them into work, or reducing their benefits, if queries about work are made, in spite of assurances from Jobcentre Plus to the contrary.

  The pilot involves external organisations acting as an intermediary between the Jobcentre and the customer. These organisations will:
  contact people aged 50 and over who are not in work, and encourage their use of Jobcentre Plus services or volunteering opportunities;
  market the back to work help, employment and volunteering opportunities available and overcoming the concerns of some IB and IS clients that their benefits may be affected if they approach a Jobcentre Plus office with a work related enquiry; and
  promote the back to work help available through Jobcentre Plus to people aged 50 and over who may not be aware of this help or who do not normally have contact with Jobcentre Plus.

  The evaluation of these pilots will demonstrate what methods of contact and awareness raising worked most successfully to encourage people who would not otherwise have asked about or taken up Jobcentre Plus services and work or volunteering opportunities to do so. The methods that are most successful can then be disseminated throughout Jobcentre Plus to be incorporated into the continuous improvement of their services.
  19WS
  The pilot will run in seven Jobcentre Plus regions for two years and commenced in April 2004. The organisations that successfully tendered for the pilot are as follows:

  Region

  District

  Partner Organisation

  Wales

  Cardiff & Vale

  Working Links

  North East

  Newcastle & North Tyneside

  Age Concern North Tyneside

  North West

  Wigan

  Adactus Housing Group

  North West

  Liverpool

  Forty Plus

  West Midlands

  Dudley & Sandwell

  Pertemps Employment Alliance

  Scotland

  Lanarkshire

  South Lanarkshire Council

  Scotland

  Fife

  Instep

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Design Coding (Pilot Programme)
  The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is today launching the design coding pilots programme. Kate Barker in her review of housing supply identified significant levels of undersupply, and a lack of certainty and speed in the planning process. This programme aims to test the use of design coding as a means to accelerate the delivery of housing while maintaining the high level of design content required to ensure that new development contributes fully towards improving the quality of our villages, towns and cities.

  A design code is a set of specific rules or requirements to guide the physical development of a site or a place. The aim of design coding is to provide clarity as to what constitutes acceptable design quality, and thereby a level of certainty for developers and the local community alike, that can help to accelerate the delivery of good quality new development.

  Operating over a number of different development circumstances, the pilots will be carefully monitored over the coming year and will provide the means to evaluate various models and approaches for developing, adopting and implementing design codes. Depending on the outcome, the review may inform the development of future planning policy.

  The Government wish to test the potential for design coding as a means of delivering higher quality development at greater speed through the planning process. The development projects which they have chosen to monitor and evaluate in order to assess the effectiveness of the coding approach are subject to approval through the planning system in the normal way. It is possible that some of these projects may, at a later stage, be referred to the Secretary of State for decision (for example on whether an application should be called in for his own determination or on an appeal against the decision of a local planning authority).

  For the avoidance of doubt, partners involved in the design coding exercise should understand that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is encouraging the use of
  20WS
  coding on these sites without prejudice to any decisions the Secretary of State may be required to take through his formal role in the planning process. The fact that development is proposed in accordance with a design code does not imply that the Secretary of State is content for any particular development proposal to proceed. Any decisions which fall to be made will be taken having regard to the facts and merits of the case, taking into consideration all relevant matters.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  US Naval Ships
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  Following the incident in 2003 in which four redundant US naval vessels were transferred from the USA to Hartlepool without the necessary authorisations for them to be dismantled there, I announced in the House on 3 November that"We will require a full evaluation of the situation to set out why the problems have arisen and what lessons we can learn."—[Official Report, 3 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 535–42.]

  Subsequently, the Environment Agency has carried out its own internal Review of the events surrounding the incident. Similarly, DEFRA commissioned its own Review. Both Reviews' terms of reference were to identify lessons that could be learned from the incident.

  The reports of each Review are available on my Department's website www.defra.gov.uk, and have today been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Government will carefully consider the conclusions and recommendations of both Reviews, which were broadly compatible, before issuing a further statement.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Commission for Equality and Human Rights
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  Creating a fair and more inclusive society is fundamental to building a prosperous country. Equality and human rights must be at the heart of modern Britain. Discrimination has no place in our society.

  We need a step change in the fight against discrimination. We need to create a culture of respect based on equal value, the dignity and worth of every individual.

  Extending opportunities to all means removing unfair barriers. Delivering prosperity for all means harnessing the skills and potential of every member of society, whatever their background. Equality and human rights matter to everyone—they are not minority concerns.

  Last October, we announced the Government's plan for a single equality body to realise this vision of a fairer, more inclusive and prosperous Britain. Today we are setting out how we propose to deliver that vision. Our White Paper on: "Fairness for All: A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights", detailing our proposals has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
  21WS
  It is a bold and innovative plan. The new Commission will have a dual remit to challenge discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and human rights.

  We believe there is an opportunity for it to create a strong, proactive relationship with private sector employers, both large and small, and service providers to maximise progress towards equality.

  The Commission for Equality and Human Rights will bring together the work of three existing equality commissions—the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and the Disability Rights Commission (DRC). It will also support new laws outlawing workplace and vocational training discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and, in time, age.

  We owe the existing Commissions a debt of gratitude for their work in changing attitudes and practice on disability, gender and racial equality and their hard work in bringing us to this point. Now we are ready to adopt fresh approaches to meet new challenges.

  In making today's announcement, we have taken account of the responses to the Government's consultation document Equality and Diversity: "Making It Happen" and the Sixth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

  The White Paper owes much to the discussions of the CEHR Taskforce whose membership reflected the broad range of interests involved in this issue, including the existing Commissions. The Taskforce advised Government on a number of key issues for the new body through an innovative and open process.

  We are grateful to all its members for so willingly sharing their depth of expertise. Their participation and contributions are an important aspect of our wider policy development, and have informed the White Paper significantly.

  The White Paper sets out the proposed vision, functions, powers and governance arrangements for the CEHR. It outlines the work the body will be expected to carry out to support key stakeholders; it sets out the Scottish and Welsh dimensions of the new body and also maps out the road to implementation.

  The Core Duties of the New Body

  The proposed core duties of the CEHR set out in the document will be to:
  Encourage awareness and good practice on equality and diversity.
  Promote equality of opportunity between people in the different groups protected by discrimination law.
  Promote awareness and understanding of human rights.
  Work towards the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment.
  Promote good relations among different communities and between these communities and wider society.
  22WS
  Additional responsibilities will include:
  Keeping relevant legislation under review.
  Acting as a centre of expertise on equality and human rights.

  Key Issues in the White Paper

  The increasing complexities of our diverse society require appropriate tools to challenge discrimination and enforce the law. Our proposals build on the existing Commissions' powers and create a selection of tools for the CEHR to enforce discrimination law effectively.

  The White Paper sets out detailed proposals on the role of the CEHR in promoting a culture of respect for human rights and improving public service delivery. The human rights framework will also be used to help balance potentially conflicting rights.

  The Government propose that the CEHR will have an obligation to consult stakeholders on its strategic plan. The CEHR will clearly set out how, when and with whom, it intends to consult.

  To ensure experience and expertise is not lost from the existing Commissions, the CEHR Board will also, for a transitional period, have three additional reserved seats for a commissioner from the CRE, the DRC, and the EOC.

  The White Paper recognises the distinctive issues that arise for disabled people in the establishment of the CEHR and the need to ensure effective transition from the DRC. The Government propose that the nominated transitional DRC commissioner is appointed to sit on the CEHR board until vesting day. After that date, we will ensure, via a statutory requirement, that at least one person who has, or has had, a disability is appointed to the CEHR Board.

  The White Paper also proposes a Disability Committee, with disabled people making up the majority of its members. This Committee will have authority to set strategy, develop policy and monitor delivery for specific areas of the CEHR's disability work, and will be subject to a mandatory review after 5 years of the continuing case for the committee. This will give disabled people a clear voice in the CEHR's work.

  We recognise the unique and important local racial equality work that has historically been supported by the CRE. The White Paper proposes a commitment to maintaining existing levels of support for local race work.

  The White Paper also confirms that the Government will start detailed. preparatory work on the nature and shape of a new statutory duty on public bodies to promote gender equality in fulfilment of its longstanding commitment to introduce such a duty. This duty will oblige public bodies to ensure that their actions (either as employers or service providers) will promote equality of opportunity between women and men and make public services more responsive to their different needs. Part of the preparatory work will involve learning from the experiences of the public sector duty introduced for race through the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, and will be informed by the proposed public sector duty for disability. The Government will consult interested stakeholders and parties as this work develops.
  23WS
  Establishing the CEHR will require primary legislation. We intend to bring a Bill before Parliament as soon as Parliamentary time allows. The Commission will not be fully operational before the end of 2006 at the earliest. A planning phase, beginning shortly, will become progressively more detailed over the next 12–18 months. Plans for bringing in the "new strands" of equality, religion and belief, sexual orientation and age, are outlined in the White Paper.

  The Government look forward to consulting and debating on all these issues, and particularly welcomes views responding to the White Paper's questions on regional and local issues and how the body should work with stakeholders. We welcome the eleventh report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the structures, functions and powers of the new body, and will consider this further alongside responses to the consultation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Overseas Art Exhibitions
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin)
  The British Council, although not a Government Department, receives a substantial grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Council regularly organises or sponsors exhibitions overseas of works of art loaned from National Galleries and private collections in the United Kingdom. It provides certain assurances or guarantees in respect of loss or damage while these works are on loan.

  In the year ended 31 March 2004, the British Council provided such assurances to six national lenders and undertakings to 206 private lenders. The value of the contingent liabilities that remained outstanding as at 31 March 2004 was £2,807,500 in respect of national lenders and £7,247,453 in respect of private lenders.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Public Services: Productivity
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether official data relating to public services show that productivity has fallen since 1997 by 10 per cent overall and by 15 to 20 per cent in health and education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, no "official data relating to public services" currently measure the productivity of health and education. It has become increasingly clear that the current data exclude some important public sector outputs, do not adequately recognise improvements in quality, do not capture improved outcomes and fail to recognise that present capital expenditure is designed to build capacity for higher output in the future.
In December 2003, acknowledging the importance and complexity of the issue, the National Statistician asked Sir Tony Atkinson to undertake an independent review of measures of government output and productivity.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. I am sure he is aware that the figures in the Question are from a leaked restricted Cabinet committee document—a committee chaired by the Prime Minister—so I did not expect him to confirm them. However, can I at least try to persuade the noble Lord that productivity is not what it should be in the public services? What are the Government trying to do about that, other than trying to persuade the Office for National Statistics to produce more favourable figures?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was fully aware of where the figures came from—I read the Sunday Times too—but that is not the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, is saying that we are trying to produce more favourable figures. The problem is that the existing figures are not only much worse than inaccurate; they are actually perverse. They go in the opposite direction from common sense. If, like many educationists, one thinks it is desirable to reduce class sizes so that the ratios between pupils and teachers improve in the sense that kids get better education,
268
that shows up as a decrease in productivity in the education sector. It does not make sense and it must be put right.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that the position is worse than he describes? We could easily raise productivity in health simply by not treating all the people whose expectations of life are poor and who are very ill and need difficult treatment. In education, if we did not try to educate people who have learning difficulties, productivity would rise dramatically. However, such action would go against our concepts of public service and so we should not fall for this productivity nonsense in the first place.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, by giving only one example from education, I was sparing the House a long lecture in agreeing with my noble friend Lord Peston. With regard to health statistics, outcomes show that, for example, chronic heart disease mortality is down by more than 20 per cent and cancer mortality by more than 8 per cent in under-75s since 1997. With regard to education, 52.9 per cent of 16 year-olds achieve five or more GCSEs at grades A-star to C compared with 46.3 per cent in 1997–98. These are real advances that show up as declines in productivity. It is total nonsense.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Government are trying to do something about productivity in the public sector via the Gershon process and that many of the Chancellor's hopes of improving productivity rest with that? Will he confirm recent reports that the potential savings, despite being identified by the Gershon report, are being radically watered down by Ministers and civil servants?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, no, I will not confirm that. The message I am trying to get over is that there are real improvements in outcomes in health, education and the public services generally. These are starting to be recognised by the people of this country as real improvements in outcomes and we will not be diverted by perverse statistical errors.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend feel that, in view of what he has read and the leak in the Sunday Times, it is time he stopped taking the Sunday Times?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not buy it—I come and read it in your Lordships' Library.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that mental health practitioners are penalised if they work with the carers rather than directly with the patients? If a mental health profession child psychotherapist works with the staff in a pupil referral unit, he can say, "According to the NHS, my time is

269
being as well spent as if I were playing a round of golf", whereas if he worked directly with a client, which is often important, that would be monitored and noted? Is that not a barrier to better partnership working and the more effective use of the scarce resource in mental health services?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am very grateful for that independent Cross-Bench confirmation of the message that I am trying to convey to the House. I am trying to say that this is not only a statistical aberration but one which could, if taken too seriously, cause damage to the public services.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have always supported far greater expenditure on the health service. However, is there not a danger of great public cynicism when the measurement of the use of that money is not properly evaluated? It seems that the Government have come very late in the day to discovering that their productivity measurement is flawed. Is it not high time that we had a much better measurement and that the set of statistics and the new set of measurements to which the Minister referred do not only coincide with the next general election?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that that is true. I seem to remember answering questions along these lines over a considerable period. It is true that we have only more recently appointed Professor Atkinson to look at the statistics. But doubts on this subject have been expressed in this House—and by me—for quite some time. If that is a rebuke for being too pusillanimous in resisting irrational opposition, I suppose that I have to share in pleading guilty to it.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we on this side accept that there is a real problem in measuring productivity in the public sector. However, does the Minister agree that international comparisons are far more helpful? What is his answer to the economists at the European Central Bank whose survey last year stated that Britain is more inefficient than the US, Japan or Australia to the extent that, if it matched the American standard, it could spend 16 per cent less on the public sector and still achieve the same results?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for giving me notice of that question. I am afraid that the statistics to which he referred are subject—perhaps to a lesser, but still substantial, degree—to the same criticism as our own unofficial productivity statistics. Of course, real international comparisons, when properly carried out, can be of enormous value, but I am afraid that they are not carried out properly here or in other countries.

Secondary Schools: Sex and Relationship Education
2.45 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether maintained secondary schools are fulfilling their obligations to teach their pupils about the legal and moral responsibilities attaching to each partner responsible for causing a child to be conceived; and whether this education has been successful in reducing teenage pregnancy.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, all maintained secondary schools have a statutory requirement to teach sex and relationship education (SRE). SRE includes moral and emotional development as well as an understanding of how the law applies to sexual relationships. Improving the quality of SRE in schools is a key strand of our teenage pregnancy strategy, which resulted in a 9.4 per cent reduction in under-18 conception rates between 1998 and 2002.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that good news. At the same time, I have to point out that she drew attention only to what the law requires schools to do. I was hoping that she might be able to tell the House whether the Ofsted reports on schools over recent years have shown that the responsibilities of parenthood are being disseminated to people on the basis that ample research shows that, if they have children before they are capable of properly looking after them, they will disadvantage those children.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. Sex and relationship education is taught within the wider framework of personal, social and health education (PSHE). That stresses the social and moral responsibilities and, as children grow older from primary school-age onwards, it addresses all those responsibilities. Since 2003, Ofsted has required every inspection to comment on PSHE in relation to sex and relationship education. That is a step forward and it is part of the way in which we are trying to drive our policy in schools. Indeed, I understand that Ofsted is carrying out an inspection of PSHE, and the results of that should be available later this year. Therefore, there will be something else to look forward to.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that countries which have much more widespread sex education than ours, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, have much lower rates of teenage pregnancy?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. It is a very sad fact that our figures are extremely poor compared with those in the rest of Europe. Indeed, I think that one of the worst statistics shows that the poorest areas in England have a conception/birth rate up to six times higher than that in the most affluent areas. Even our

271
most affluent areas have teenage birth rates which are higher than the national rates of, for example, the Netherlands or France. That is precisely why we are investing so heavily in a coherent teenage pregnancy strategy linked to effective SRE in schools. That plays a very important part. We are serious about driving down those rates.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, the noble Baroness is no doubt aware of the emphasis that the Prime Minister recently, and rightly, laid on the part that parents can play in helping to overcome the worrying lack of discipline in schools. In the light of that, does the Minister agree that the earlier that parents-in-waiting, if I may call them that, are supported and educated in the crucial, but still far too undervalued, role that parents play in preparing their children for responsible adult citizenship, the better it will be?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I could not agree more; the noble Baroness is absolutely right. The guidance which schools are now following makes it absolutely clear that schools must work with parents as fully as possible. We carry out much work with parents through the teenage pregnancy strategy and, for example, Parentline Plus, which helps parents to access advice on how to talk to their children. Some very interesting work is taking place with young fathers—particularly those in deprived areas—through Sure Start Plus, for example, which looks at how we can support teenage parents so that they take pride in parenting and become effective parents. I wish that there were more that I could say because a great deal is going on in this area.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, can the Minister say why the Government do not give the same prominence to the "Say no" campaign as they do to the "Know how" campaign?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that in the guidance, heavy emphasis is placed upon how young people can resist and delay early sex and how they can assert themselves, particularly girls, so as not to be pressured into sex. That is a very important part of sex and relationship education.
All the evidence suggests that abstinence alone does not work. That is very well documented, not least from the Alan Guttmacher Institute in America, which is a known authority. Indeed, our policy is evidence based. It is the competence of education plus media strategy which is effective.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the programmes promoted by the Family Planning Association for schools have been extremely successful. However, does the Minister feel that there is sufficient emphasis upon parenting within such programmes?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is up to schools to draw on whatever resources they find. The
272
Government do not tell them what and how to teach in this area although we lay down the framework. Certainly, the FPA materials are extremely effective. But parenting information can be obtained from other sources; for example, the Parenting Education and Support Forum, which has produced some excellent guidance on what a good parenting programme might look like for 15 and 16 year-olds. So, there are a variety of sources, most of which are on the web. Teachers are becoming adept at drawing down what they think they can use most effectively.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that despite the drive for further education in this area, with which we all agree, that should not undermine the assistance that society rightly gives to young teenage mothers and their children?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is absolutely the case, and we have a very good record on that. One of the most effective aspects is the Sure Start programme, which concentrates on areas of deprivation, and provides a wide range of support to parents in difficult circumstances.
Baroness Billingham: My Lords, are boys being specifically targeted for sex education? That seems to be an area which is particularly important.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, indeed. As the guidance makes clear, one of the problems is that boys have not always been receptive to or apparently interested in sex education. Many boys do not want to discuss their maths homework with their fathers, let alone sex, so we have a long way to go. However, we have commissioned practical guidance for teachers on engaging boys. The guidance ensures that that is prominent. The PSHE website contains some very good examples of how to engage boys in some of the aspects of building relationships, which is extremely important. We are targeting many of our media campaigns, for example, on local radio, popular newspapers and teenage magazines, which young boys read and to which they respond.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that young women leaving care are two and a half times more likely to become pregnant in their teenage years? Can she say what particular attention is being given to their needs in preparation for leaving care?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the commitment of the noble Earl to raising standards for young people in care is very well known. Certainly, those young people should have had access to the best formula of sex education while in school. Many of our programmes focus on young people in deprived areas. The Sure Start Plus programme, for example, is concentrated in 35 local areas. However, I shall find out specifically whether we have programmes which address the question and shall write to the noble Earl.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, will the Minister take note of the comparison between the success of the "Say no"

273
campaign in the United States as compared with the sophisticated sex education campaign in the Netherlands which has produced the lowest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, yes. I reiterate that the evidence we have, which is well researched, is that abstinence campaigns alone, especially ones which do not follow exhortation with education, information and access to responsible contraception, are not effective. However, when we have a coherent education programme, that does affect attitudes. We are in this for the long term.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I appreciate the value of the Ofsted inspection and the importance of the guidance to which the Minister referred. However, it still seems that sex education in schools is of a hit and miss nature. Are steps being taken comprehensively to monitor the programmes in schools and to collect best practice and the most effective methods of teaching, which can be further disseminated?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, we are doing all that. It is not only Ofsted which is involved now. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is developing exemplar schemes of work and more guidance. We know that in some places education is patchy. We are developing certification schemes for teachers of personal, social and health education so that they can build up their own good practice. We have targeted 3,000 teachers for that extra certification and quality this year. We think that when that percolates through the schools it will be particularly effective.

Privacy Law
2.55 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following the recent ruling by the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in the case of Campbell v MGN Limited, whether they have any plans to introduce a privacy law.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the Government have always said that it is for the courts to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the right to privacy. The judgment vindicates the Government's view and we have no plans to introduce a statutory privacy law.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is not the implication of that Answer that we are to have a privacy law in a back-door, ad hoc way, which will do great damage and cause great confusion to both the public and the media? Would it not be far better to have a privacy law which could be scrutinised—there could be pre-legislative scrutiny by Parliament and full public
274
debate, which would set both the public and the media on a proper basis—rather than to go the way we are, which is the way to confusion?
Lord Filkin: No, my Lords. The Human Rights Act already requires the courts to protect people's right to respect for their private and family lives. Furthermore, over recent years a range of statutory provisions have enhanced that. I refer to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Data Protection Act 1998 in addition to the common law remedies available of defamation, nuisance and breach of confidence. There is never a simple answer to where press freedom or freedom of speech ends and the individual's protection of their privacy starts. That is why the courts have to strike that balance and make that judgment on the individual facts and circumstances.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, having spent 14 years as chairman of the Newspaper Publishers Association perhaps I may add an example of one area that might be considered as rising above the others. In my personal view, harassment of any person who seeks treatment for a serious drug problem is unacceptable.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not go into the detail of the Appellate Committee's judgment—it is available in the Library of the House for those who want to inspect it—but it is relevant to this Question. It was never in contention on this case whether it was legitimate for the Mirror newspaper to publish the fact that the defendant, Naomi Campbell, took drugs. The reason it was never in contention was because she had made it clear publicly and promoted the fact that she did not take drugs. That is why that issue was never in contention. What was in contention were the ancillary issues around that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I respectfully support the attitude of the Minister, bearing in mind that since very early times the privacy law of England and Wales has been adjusted according to the social circumstances in a way that has been found very effective.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I always make it a point of policy never to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton, especially when he is complimenting me.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it not about time that we had a press ombudsman? Not everyone can afford to go to the courts. The only redress they can aim for is through the Press Complaints Commission, which is widely seen as being under the domination of the media and in any event does not award compensation. Is it not about time that we had an ombudsman so that people could seek compensation and some sort of redress?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, ombudsmen do not normally award compensation. They normally make a finding of fact. Nevertheless, my noble friend raises an important issue; that is, while the law may be sound, is there effective access to justice for people who feel that they have been mistreated by the media? There are two points in that respect. The PCC deals with some 2,500 complaints each year. In its evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee it asserted that it achieves resolution in 95 per cent of those cases. Furthermore, conditional fee agreements appear, at least in the view of Carter-Ruck, to be working in this respect as a mechanism for bringing to court cases where people feel that they have been wrongly infringed by the media. Therefore, obviously we keep the issue under review, but it would be foolish to think that there was a simple answer.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the American law of privacy? Is he aware that my American law professor wife has written an altogether admirable book called Invasion of Privacy on the subject? Over the years, in the interests of education and inter-party harmony in exchanges in your Lordships' House, I have had to ask her to send copies to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and even the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. If I can help to educate them, would it help the Minister if I got my wife to send him a copy?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the short answer is no, I do not know my noble friend's friend, but I am certainly open to education as he offers.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, the freedom of the press is a fundamental democratic right and should be safeguarded. Does the Minister therefore agree that a privacy law may simply serve to protect those in a financial position to seek legal redress and in that sense may prove to be elitist?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is interesting; it is possible. At heart, one of the reasons why the Government do not believe that a specific privacy law would assist is that it would put into statute what is already effectively in statute through the Human Rights Act. It would have to say to the court, "Strike a balance between freedom of speech, under Article 10, and the privacy of the individual as I quoted". Therefore, it would not take us much further forward. They are important issues, but the courts are well placed to decide on them.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the study by Professor Ian Hargreaves of Cardiff University, which showed that about 10 per cent of the public believed what they read in the Sun? Is not the biggest danger to the freedom of the press a press that was itself held in contempt because of its deplorable standards?
Lord Filkin: No, my Lords, I was not aware.

Iraq: Treatment of Prisoners
3.2 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in response to representations from the International Committee of the Red Cross and Amnesty International on the regime of treatment for prisoners in Iraq, they have withdrawn any instructions on coercive treatment techniques to break resistance to interrogation; and, if so, which instructions have been withdrawn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, there has been no need to amend or withdraw any part of the standard operating instructions in relation to tactical questioning, commonly known as interrogation, for operation TELIC. The instructions specify that individuals being questioned must be treated at all times fully in accordance with the Geneva protocols and must not be subjected to physical punishment. The instructions also direct that only personnel who have successfully completed a stringent Ministry of Defence course may undertake questioning. The course also directs that the Geneva protocols must be adhered to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. As he speaks for government, when the daily narrative concerning the ICRC representations of 4 February is self-contradictory and opaque, is it not requisite that clarification should be given'? In the immediate interests, not only of the Armed Forces but of those detained, and of due administration, may I ask when the report on the regime of treatment as constituting serious violations of humanitarian law was received by any department of state in this country? If before last weekend, why was it not at once made available to the Prime Minister and Ministers, in particular those who answer at the Dispatch Box?
As the report was discussed at a meeting on 26 February, to which Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the Prime Minister's special envoy, sent his chief adviser, and that was also attended by three British officials and Paul Bremer, why was it not then made available to the Prime Minister and Ministers?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall have to repeat a little of what I said in my Statement to the House two days ago. The ICRC report to which he refers raised two serious concerns in respect of British forces' treatment of prisoners and internees. The vast majority of that report had nothing to do with British internees or prisoners. Ministers were aware of the issues that the reports raised some five months before the report itself was handed over to Mr Bremer in February this year. Ministers have commented on those two issues both in public and in.

277
the House. The necessary action to address those concerns was also taken some five months before the report.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, further to the Minister's earlier Statement that no further action had to be taken, one of the recommendations made by the International Committee of the Red Cross was that hoods should no longer be used. Obviously, the Armed Forces stopped using hoods on the original recommendation. It was a very serious allegation made by the Red Cross and the MoD reacted to it. Has an investigation been undertaken into why hoods were placed over prisoners' heads in the first place? At what point did Ministers investigate whether that use of hoods was against the Geneva Convention?
Lord Bach: My Lords, directions were issued on 30 September last year that all hooding should cease. As I understand it, that was not because of representations from the ICRC at all; it was a decision taken by the Chief of Joint Operations off his own bat. It is not accurate to link that with the Red Cross report.
Prisoners would be hooded from time to time to ensure that while the arrest process was under way the arresting officers or soldiers could sensibly divide their time between arrest procedure and general force protection, which in Iraq includes the protection of the prisoners themselves. They might also be hooded on arrest to protect their own interests in preventing future identification, because they might be considered to be future possible collaborators by fellow prisoners. It would be a temporary measure only and would be used only to achieve the safe arrest and transit of suspects.
Hooding is not a recognised technique for interrogators. As I have said already today, it is specifically taught as an unacceptable technique at the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre. If there are examples of hooding, apart from on arrest, of course they will be investigated.
Baroness Goudie: My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Boothroyd, my concern is the breakdown of reasonable relationships that were being built up between British service personnel and the Iraq people. Given what we have seen over the past few weeks and continue to see in the Daily Mirror, did the editor at any point telephone the Ministry of Defence or the Prime Minister's private office to give notice of what the newspaper was doing? This has caused me and others great concern for the lives of British troops in Iraq at present.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree entirely with the feeling behind my noble friend's question. The House probably knows by now that we understand that the photographs—the notorious photographs, I dare call themߞwere in the possession of the Daily Mirror for some time before it decided to publish them. The Daily Mirror was kind enough to give the Ministry of
278
Defence some 12 hours' notice—perhaps that is a slight exaggeration, rather less than 12 hours' notice—of the fact that it was going to publish the photographs. I do not know whether phone calls were made.
As the House will want to know, thorough and detailed investigations had been undertaken in relation to the photographs published by the Daily Mirror. These photographs are, of course, central to accusations concerning the behaviour of British troops, in particular the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. There are strong indications that the vehicle in which the photographs were taken was not in Iraq during the relevant period. Of course, additional lines of inquiry are being pursued to corroborate that. If it is right that the vehicles in which the photographs were taken were not in Iraq during the relevant period, that is a pretty fair clue as to whether these are fake or genuine photographs.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, much has been made of the US forces in Iraq using private contractors as interrogators. Can the Minister confirm that Britain does not, and will not, use private contractors for interrogation?
Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, I can confirm that.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while there is great respect for our troops—rightly and deservedly soߞthe impact of the allegations that have been made is extremely serious? As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, pointed out, the allegations have had a grave effect on the reaction of the Arab world to our claims to be a society committed to democracy and the rule of law. The impact of the allegations has also put our troops in considerable danger, as is tragically indicated by the terrible events today concerning Mr Nick Berg and those of his family, who have been profoundly affected by such awful behaviour. There is a kind of slow descent into barbarism on one side, and degradation on the other.
Given that, can the Minister say absolutely clearly that any act by our troops, or by civilians associated with the running of prisons, that breached the Geneva Convention will—as his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, promised me on 27 April in her reply—be investigated by a senior officer, be investigated without pressure from any quarter, and that the House and the country will be fully informed of the result of those investigations? I am sure that the Minister will agree that the matter is too serious to be dismissed by looking at such incidents, silly though they may be, as the enhancing or fraudulent presentation of pictures in the Daily Mirror.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I absolutely agree with what the noble Baroness has said. This is an extremely serious matter. She will know that the Government take the allegations extremely seriously. Of course, if cases are proved following proper investigation,

279
looking after the interests of all sides involved, action will be taken against those who it is proved are responsible.
The point about the photographs cannot be just put on one side. There is no doubt that if the cliché is right that a picture speaks a thousand words, the point of putting those photographs in the newspaper was surely to convince people that there were true allegations of wrongdoing by British troops, not by reading the scripts of the Daily Mirror, but by looking at that photograph. If the photograph is false, first, there may have been a fraud committed on the Daily Mirror, but on the other hand, and much more seriously, it almost certainly has had the effect of putting British soldiers' lives at greater risk than they already are.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, does the ICRC have a policy on the publication of its reports to governments, and if so, what is that policy?
Lord Bach: Yes, my Lords, as I understand it, the ICRC has a policy that reports are normally kept confidential between it and the authorities to whom they are presented. That is for a pretty good reason; not just to maintain a positive working relationship between governments, but also sometimes to protect those mentioned in the reports. We would not dream of publishing an ICRC report without its express permission.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, does the Minister recall the debate before the invasion of Iraq, when the view was expressed by some extremely experienced Members of this House that while the war would certainly be winnable, the peace would be a much more difficult matter? In that connection, with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war and the treatment of those detained following public order situations, what specific instructions were given by Ministers? What particular attention was paid by Ministers to those issues that were bound to arise in the course of winning the peace?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am not in a position to tell the noble Lord here and now what specific instructions were given, but he can be content that Ministers across government were concerned that we should look carefully at what the position would be once conflict ended, and do our very best to ensure that we moved to a free, democratic Iraq as quickly as we could. This has proved to be a very difficult process. Ministers realised that at the time, and they realise it now. I would resent—and I am sure that this is not what the noble Lord implies—any implication that somehow Ministers did not do their duty at that time.
Lord Renton: My Lords, has the editor of the Daily Mirror conceded that the photographs that were
280
published in the Daily Mirror were premature in relation to any offence that might have been committed in Iraq?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not believe that the editor of the Daily Mirror has conceded anything.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree, having read the full report, as I have, that any public official who took the decision not to make it known to Ministers was wrong to take that decision? Does he further agree that for our Prime Minister to negotiate with President Bush, unaware of this time bomb ticking away, would have had his position severely weakened?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with either of the propositions that the noble Lord puts forward.

Housing
3.16 p.m.
Lord Lucasrose to call attention to the review of housing supply by Kate Barker (March 2004); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I declare an interest: I have an association with an outfit called Green Issues, which facilitates community consultation.
I welcome the publication of the Barker review and of the counterblast to it from the Campaign to Protect Rural England. I would welcome the publication of the Egan review, if I could get a copy of it out of the Ministry. Although the Printed Paper Office asked for copies a week ago, it has yet to be given any.
All these things are, I hope, indications that we are at last moving to address some issues of real concern and distress in the areas of housing and property development. Perhaps, over time, we are moving to achieve consensus, because that is what is needed in this area. We need the same sort of basic consensus that underlies the planning system. Of course, we all argue between parties about what the planning rules should be, but there is a basic understanding that the planning system should exist, and a basic understanding and agreement on roughly what it should do. We need to achieve the same sort of consensus in two particular areas. What sort of houses do we hope that people will live in? What importance should we attach to house price inflation?
Some while ago, I asked a Question of the Government, and their Answer could be summarised by saying that over the past 20 years the average household is 20 per cent richer in real terms and lives in a house that is 20 per cent smaller. That is because of the vast increase in house prices. I would not wish that trend to continue. We ought to hope that, over time, our people will live in better homes. We ought to set it as an objective that in a generation's time, as far as possible we all have better places to live in

281
We spend an awful lot of time in our homes. They are the source of a great deal of our pleasure in life, and the location of a great deal of our enjoyment of life. It matters a great deal to us what our homes are like, from the smallest to the largest. It ought to be our objective that we will have better living conditions over the years; not that our houses will become ever more valuable, but that we have a better place in which to live. That is a widely shared ambition, which is reflected in this plethora of television programmes on home improvement and self building and so on. People really care what their houses are like.
One aspect of the Barker review that I welcome is its interest in gathering evidence about the sort of housing that people want. If we are going to set objectives for what housing should be, we ought to understand what people want. There is remarkably little evidence of that at the moment. We tend to provide on the basis of housing need, which is defined by officials. We ought to take into account the sort of housing that people want.
The other objective that we should set ourselves—and one which is central to the Barker review—is controlling house price inflation.
When I was young, house price inflation was seen as a wonderful thing. We could all make money out of playing with houses—and a lot of people have done so. But we are now beginning to realise that this is not an economic good, by and large. It does not create wealth, except at the fringes. It is merely a matter of wealth transfer: it transfers wealth from the young to the old; from the poor to the rich; and from pretty well everybody to estate agents and landowners. That is not the sort of policy that we should pursue.
I welcome Kate Barker's emphasis on reducing the rate of house price inflation to something that bears some relation to the general increase in national wealth and is ideally a little below it. If we could have the rate at 1 per cent below the rate in earnings, then that would be the mechanism necessary for us all to be able to look forward to better houses and homes over time.
I remember the hilarity in the newspapers when the Albanian pyramid scheme burst. But this is exactly the same thing. It is a pyramid scheme that we are all playing—or at least that 60 per cent of the nation are playing. We are all buying a house on an enormous mortgage in the hope that in a few years we will be able to sell it to some other sucker for rather more. It is exactly the same set of motivations and exactly the same disaster awaits us at the end of it.
We can see the problems now in the difficulty key workers have in finding places to live in London or large parts of the countryside. We can see it in the difficulty that young people, setting out on a career newly encumbered with their student loans, have in affording places to live.
There is no reason why this should not go on getting a great deal worse. At the height of the property boom in Japan mortgages were granted for multiple generations. People inherited a mortgage, because there was not enough time in one lifetime to pay it off.
282
So we can get a lot further. When that bubble burst, 10 years of stagnation followed. It is not a good thing that we are getting into. If we can set out as a consensus— as an objective—that we wish to see housing inflation controlled, that would be a good basis for moving forward on future policy.
So what should we do about it? The Barker review concentrates on housing supply. That must be part of the answer. In its document the CPRE appears to say that supply has no effect on price. Go to the bottom of the class—O-level economics starts with that kind of relationship. It cannot make that allegation and be taken seriously. Of course supply has an effect in the long term, rather than in what happens next year. The effect must be there.
I hope that organisations such as the CPRE can return to the realms of rational debate. They have an enormously important part to play in making sure that the beauty and purity of our countryside is defended and that we do not lose that under a rash of ill-advised development.
That does not only apply to the CPRE. The Kent Wildlife Trust—of which I have been a member for a long time, and which is usually a sensible organisation—has produced a flyer on all the new houses being built in Kent. It attributes the decline in the water vole to housing development. It also states that:
"The river Stour could become 66% sewage"
and that putting an extra 10,000 houses in Kent will
"double the amount of road traffic"
in the county. We have to have a rational debate. We need the defenders of the countryside to come down off their hysterical pillar and engage in a proper debate.
The homes that every single one of us lives in were green fields once. How many of us will put their hands up and say that they will turn it back into one? None of us would. We must start from a basis that some development is good. It has provided us with homes. What once was woods and fields is now our houses and we are glad that that has happened.
We in this party rightly give the Government a hard time over the way in which the grammar and public school educated Front Bench tries to pull the ladder of achievement up after it and not extend the same facilities for advancement to the poor people of today. In our party we must not commit the same crime when it comes to housing. We all live in very nice houses. If we want a future expanded population to live in nice houses too, we must allow an additional measure of house building and development. It must be part of what we wish for the future of this nation.
Consider a field: a typical upland Hampshire field run on a rotation of barley, barley, barley, barley, barley, barley, beans; with hedges like a row of bedraggled ostriches, because they are cut thin and straight and the wind blows through them underneath. Replacing that with a proper housing development is an ecological plus. There will be much more wildlife, a greater variety of wildlife and a lot of happy people

283
living on it. And a good deal of that countryside will look better. We have to talk sensibly. Not all our countryside is such that it has to be preserved to within an inch of our lives. We are allowed to pay some attention to what is best for our people too.
The CPRE hopes that we will all move north: do not build in the south, build in the north. But there is no sign that the north wants us. The whole north-west has a moratorium on house building until the end of 2005. It is possible to build a house in the middle of Manchester but almost nowhere else in the north-west are people allowed to develop anything. There is no indication that they want us up there. And even the areas in which they are trying to build are being kiboshed by the changes in landfill regulations, which reduce the number of sites that will take the industrial waste that has to be cleared from many northern sites. That means that there will be no house building site of any scale in the north-west for the next two years. There is no sign that the north-west is setting out to search for people from the south.
Is there, up there, anyway, what southerners want? Apart from sunshine—we all have a prejudice that it always rains in the north-west—if we are prepared to move up there, we want to find the standard of shop, the standard of leisure and the standard of house that we have got used to. If you try to build a house of any size in the north-west you will not get anywhere. In the north, permission will not be given to build big houses. If a company wishes to move a managing director up north, he has to wait in the queue for one of the existing houses—new ones cannot be built.
If we are going to follow the advice of the CPRE, there has to be a real willingness in the north to take us on. Perhaps we should have a competition, and make them an offer: if they will open up room for 250,000 southerners to move north, we in the south will gather together and pay for it to happen. Faced with that bill, would we do it? The question of responding to demand in housing is not an easy one.
If we really want to move north, it is not a question of trying to shift a few civil servants up to Tyneside. We have to move important centres of economic activity up there—something that will draw economic and business life after it. The Law Lords are in search of a new home: send them to Hull. Why not? That would move some serious jobs north. We could put Parliament in Stoke-on-Trent or send the CPRE to Rotherham. If we made that sort of move, the south would begin to squeak, because—golly—it would be starting to lose things that it valued. That is what moving to the north means—losing things that we value. That must be taken into account in the debate that the CPRE wants us to have.
If we are to have a system that is built on consensus, we must have one that allows a good long time to think about things. There again, there is a good point in the Barker review. It suggests that local planning authorities should build up, as it were, a bank of land that, they know, will be developed in due course. If the emphasis was not on how quickly planning permission could be run through and there was a 10-year bank of
284
land for which there was outline permission and if people knew what the plans for the future of that land were, local authorities could draw down on the land, as they decided that there was a local requirement. That would give an enormous amount of time for all the problems relating to the environment to be considered, for local consultation and for the assessment of local benefit.
That would create plenty of opportunity to work through another of Kate Barker's suggestions that I agree with; namely, that new development should, wherever possible, bear the costs that it imposes on the rest of the community. It should not be possible just to get away with putting up a housing estate without facing the fact that that places costs on the local health service, the local transport system and the local education service. We could consider doing what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, advocated so expertly during the passage of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill—building sustainable communities. All that takes time and a lot of public consultation. If we follow the suggestion in Kate Barker's review that we should give ourselves time and allow local authorities to base their decisions on such a timescale, we will get development of better quality that will be more satisfactory in giving people what they want from property development.
I hope that this is the beginning of consensus. I know that it begins in argument, but so does everything. When my noble friend Lady Thatcher set out to give council house tenants the right to buy their home, there was no consensus; now there is. That is a great victory. The consensus to come should be that those who now have their home will, in a generation's time, live in a better one. I beg to move for Papers.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in the debate. He and I had several interesting and, I hope, fruitful discussions while he was Minister for construction in Mr Major's government. I never got anything out of him, but that was his loss. I should declare my usual interest: I have been involved in the construction industry for a lifetime. I should also add that I am a columnist for HouseBuilder magazine, which is owned by the House Builders Federation. They pay me, but I write what I think, not what they ask me to write. The noble Lord referred to the grammar school-educated Front Bench. I was at a comprehensive school. They were common in Scotland and have been since, I think, the time of John Knox.
I shall begin somewhat obliquely and, perhaps, unusually by congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Prescott, who, last week, was elected honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects. It is a worthy honour, but it was, I think, conferred on the basis of policy initiatives such as the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and on the basis of promise, rather than for actual performance in house building. As we know, we now have the lowest level of house building in this

285
country since 1924, when Ramsay MacDonald was Prime Minister. That year is important to me, because that is when I was born. A lifetime has gone past, and we are back where we started.
The shortfall, of course, is mainly in affordable housing, rather than in the private sector. Affordable housing was called council housing in my day. I shall be mildly critical, but I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will not be alarmed. The Government have had ample time, since they came to power in 1997, to improve the situation, but they have failed to do so. Several years have been wasted. I will not say that the Government have been neglectful, but they have not been terribly competent. Now, though, there is a hint from the Chancellor that something might be done. In his Budget speech a few weeks ago, he said that he and Prescott would consult on how we could increase the supply and affordability of housing and the goals that we should set, while striking the right balance between the economic and social case for development and environmental and housing needs. That is good news. We must hope that there are good results.
In her report, Mrs Barker promotes design quality, something that John Prescott has promoted. He has produced a new measure of design quality that, I must admit, I do not wholly understand. I am a civil engineer, not an architect. He calls it the "Wow" factor. He is looking for something that he thinks to be good. He is right, but I have a word of warning for Mr Prescott: he must be wary of the Pound bury effect or the Sea view, Florida effect. I am sorry to say this, but he must keep the Prince of Wales at arm's length in looking for the "Wow" factor. He must pay more attention to the views expressed publicly and in this House by my noble friend Lord Rogers of Riverside.
Rightly, Mrs Barker approached the problem as an economist. That is what she was asked to do by the Chancellor. However, on page 19 of the report, she says:
"Increasing housing supply could also have benefits for individual and social well-being".
I am glad that she said that, but I was bothered a bit by that comment. I should have thought that the economic advantages should not come first; the advantages to be had from an increased housing supply should be aimed at individual and social wellbeing. Economics used to be called the "dismal science", probably rightly.
I turn to the danger of concreting over the countryside, as it is called by the nimbys and people such as the CPRE, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, a while ago. Oddly enough, only 7.1 per cent of England is urbanised, according to the review. That is slightly less than I thought, but it means that nine-tenths of the country is not urbanised, whatever that may mean. Furthermore, just over a third of the land is protected from development.
One of the surprises to come out of the review is the fact that the north-west, which was mentioned, is more urbanised—9.9 per cent—than the south-east —
286
7.8 per cent, just a bit above the national average. In addition, 60 per cent of land in the south-east is protected from development,
"either through greenbelt status, designation as an area of outstanding natural beauty or other designated conservation or protected areas".
That leads Mrs Barker to an interesting conclusion. She states,
"suppose government chose to allow an additional 120,000 houses per annum—
which she had asked for—
"to be built over and above existing plans and that all this building were concentrated in the south east (an unlikely and undesirable event). Over the next ten years, this would mean using an additional 0.75% of the total land area of the south east, 1.92% of developable land".
Those simple figures should blow away the wilder fears of tree huggers and people of that nature—even the CPRE—but I imagine that they will pass unnoticed. They are based on an assumption that 60 per cent of new homes would be built on brown field sites and they include an allowance for infrastructure.
That notion that the countryside is to be concreted over is a chimera. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said already, the pressure groups should come to terms with reality and deal with things as they are and not as they are in their wildest dreams.
Mrs Barker is right about social housing. I have already said that it used to be called council housing. I lived in one for about 25 years. Between 1994–95 and 2002–03, the number of new social houses built for rent in England fell from nearly 43,000 to about 21,000. The review suggests that 17,000 to 23,000 additional houses should be provided each year. That is about double the existing number.
That would be costly and I presume that it would involve some element of subsidy. It takes me back to what I said earlier about 1924. I assume that the house-building ratios in that year were the responsibility of the previous Conservative government, but in the years following MacDonald's first government—and his second one later—a considerable effort was made to provide what we now call "social housing". It was brought about largely by the Housing Act of the late John Wheatley, who was Tam Dalyell's wife's uncle. The Wheatley Acts produced council housing to an extent which ameliorated the housing problem at that time. All I shall say to Mr Prescott, whom I much admire, and to my noble friend on the Front Bench, is that if such an attitude toward housing the poor, as one might call them, was good enough for Ramsay MacDonald and John Wheatley and the Labour governments of the 1920s and even later, it is surely good enough for the Labour Government of this century.
3.44 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I begin, as I am sure other speakers will, by thanking my noble kinsman Lord Lucas for giving us the opportunity to discuss housing supply and the Barker review. I declare an interest immediately as a landowner in the south-east and specifically as Chairman of the South-East Rural

287
Affairs Forum. The forum advises the Government Office of the South-East on the issues which are of most concern to the rural communities in the southeast, reporting to Alun Michael. Although I cannot speak today for the forum, I admit that the issue which concerns us most in the rural communities in the affluent area of the south-east is the difficulty of providing affordable housing for those on an average wage. We have failed lamentably to do that for reasons perhaps of unimaginative planning and for reasons that the Barker review sets out; namely, lack of innovation in the building sector.
Perhaps that is also because we have relied rigidly in the past on providing what is described as "social housing" as a cost on the taxpayer without recognising the real challenge, which is not necessarily impossible, to provide affordable housing through the market. By that I mean providing housing below the market price that would otherwise be commanded in a way which is nevertheless attractive to business or to the landowner. The Barker review touches on that. A box sets out two or three initiatives. I hope that the Minister will follow up the suggestions made there to see what opportunities are available to allow the market to address the issue of how one brings in housing stock at a price which would otherwise have to be achieved by subsidy.
The problem at the moment is that the south-east, for example, has a draft regional housing strategy. I am referring specifically to village communities of fewer than 3,000 inhabitants. That draft strategy proposes that 720 homes should be built throughout the south-east, from Oxfordshire to Kent, over two years. That implies a cost to the social housing grant of about £40 million. If I look at my neighbours in the village where I live, in neighbouring villages and in villages elsewhere in the region, I realise that that implies an astonishing lack of commitment to the families who have lived in the villages and who have plenty of work available to them in the rural enterprises. There is simply no statistical hope that they will benefit from that modest provision.
We need to think again about how we are going to provide affordable housing, recognising the combined pressures exerted by people wanting to live in the south-east because that is where the jobs are, by its attractive countryside and by its planning system. Those factors all add to market prices.
At the moment, the exception sites policy—Section 106 agreements and the like—provides a measure of affordable housing, but the definition of houses that planners will normally accept as eligible for an exception site are those in receipt of a social housing grant. We then come back to limitation of the amount of grant available and it does not go very far. A more imaginative approach would be to take the Housing Corporation's total cost indicator and say that any housing whose cost was 80 per cent or lower of that total cost indicator would be eligible for the exclusion sites. Those sites would then be recognised as fulfilling a role for the rural economy by meeting the desperate need for social housing.
288
The challenge would then be to provide houses at 80 per cent of what the Housing Corporation accepts as a reasonable cost. Part of the answer will he by shared ownership, because it will be in the interests of businesses, landowners and others to share part of the cost. They may not even wish to charge rent for their share. I have set up my own scheme, my own business. I declare an interest as a farmer with a shared ownership scheme. I am reasonably happy just to take the increase in equity on the share that I do not own, but I have given the right to staircase to those who live in the house. If I am bought out, that is all the better because I can recycle the money. That is one element. If rent is to be charged, the rent allowance can be used to fund that share of the ownership.
However, the ultimate requirement of housing in rural and urban areas is to attack the high cost of building in this country. The Barker review is interesting in its analysis of why it is that we appear to have costs that are higher than some, but not all, of our neighbours, and why we are particularly unsuccessful compared to Germany, Japan, Scandinavia and other countries in breaking through on the potential of offsite manufacturing systems. Industry offers all kinds of reasons why those do not work in practice. It usually comes down to economy of scale, but Kate Barker points out trenchantly—she could have been even more forceful—that the building industry is not known for its innovative skills. There is a need for much better research and development. There is a need to take the whole problem and to copy what is happening in Germany, where large companies such as Volkswagen have invested large sums of money in offsite manufacturing systems.
I am told, although I have to admit that I cannot substantiate it, that the costs are now likely to come in at a 25 per cent reduction from what were quoted for at British offsite manufacturing systems. That needs to be looked at carefully. They are still speculative and, of course, there are all kinds of difficulties in trying to persuade planners, neighbours, or even potential owners of the homes that what are effectively factory-built houses will be appropriate in their rural landscapes and will hold their values. It is sometimes difficult to persuade the financial services that they should be insured at a sensible rate or that mortgages should be offered. But these are issues about which we in this country appear to have a much greater hang up than in Scandinavia, Germany and certainly Japan. If we are to crack housing in this country, we simply have to take this step change and also have with it a much more enlightened planning policy.
The reason that we have failed so many people by not providing housing stock where they need it, where the economy requires it, is because the very people in the greatest need of such housing are not in a position to make a decision. They are not on planning committees; they are not trying to protect their house values; they are not trying to meet some modern concept of what a house should look like. Just think about their grandparents or great grandparents. When they started in the village communities, they very often built their own houses; they used local materials; the

289
houses were not smart; they might have been built to a standard that perhaps would no longer be acceptable. Nevertheless, they provided the need of that generation. Because we now enforce standards that may be appropriate for those who can afford them, we do not allow self-build homes to the extent that we should, even if we insist, as I am sure we should, that the building regulations should in no way be short circuited.
If we are to consider low cost housing schemes, let us look again at offsite manufacturing systems, let us look at self-build, where a shell is provided, let us ensure that we crack the question of how to get high quality design using vernacular cladding materials, but, above all, let us recognise that the purpose of building houses is to meet the needs of the people who need to live in them.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I hope that Kate Barker thinks more clearly and speaks more independently of the Government on the MPC of the Bank of England than she does in this, frankly, muddled and flawed review.
Kate Barker's analysis of housing affordability and what drives house prices misses the main point, which jumps out at you from the chart of housing completions over the past 50 years on page 125 of the report. Between 150,000 and 200,000 new houses for sale have been completed every year since the late 1950s. That total has been very stable over the past 20 years or so. But the flow of new social housing built for rent by the public sector—councils or registered social landlords'—is now down to a pathetic trickle. As the noble Lord, Lord Howie, pointed out in his fascinating historical excursion, it is now down to 21,000 new social houses per year. It was running at about 150,000 a year as recently as the late 1970s, certainly within my working memory, because I was a member of Oxford City Council's housing committee at the time.
If we are serious about tackling homelessness and housing crises in the high stress areas of London and south-east England, we must deliver far more affordable housing directly at the point of need, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, illustrated so clearly and expertly in his speech. Here I must differ in emphasis with my former city colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Of course, increasing supply ultimately affects price, but so does reducing excess demand. There is not a shred of evidence that spraying estates of new executive boxes at a quarter of a million or half a million a time all over the green belts and flood plains of southern England will house key workers for our creaking public services or reduce the rate of house price rises any time soon.
Barker's key mistake is to assume that building only new homes for sale reduces house price growth. But building new social housing meets housing demand more directly. Much of the upward pressure on house prices comes from people being forced deep into debt to buy because they can find nothing to rent. There is
290
no surprise there, of course, because new affordable housing has dried up and so much social housing has been sold off by the governments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who I am sorry to see is no longer in her place, and her successors.
The Barker review's proposed additional 17,000 to 23,000 social houses a year barely scratches at the surface of our affordable housing crisis, as it is called by Home Truths, backed by the Town and County Planning Association, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and many other leading housing associations. Barker believes that her recommended targets of building 17,000 to 120,000 extra new private sector houses for sale a year will cut long-term real house price rises to either 1.8 per cent or 1.1 per cent a year. Frankly, the evidence for that in her report is so thin that it is almost anorexic. That, in turn, undermines Recommendation 1, that the Government should establish a market affordability goal for house prices, which should be incorporated into the public service agreement framework.
Not content, of course, with just the national house price goal, which will be even more difficult to achieve than it is to define, Recommendation 5 goes on to say that every unelected regional planning body should,
"set its own house price target, plus sub-regional targets, which may include floors and ceilings".
Regional planning bodies and regional housing boards would be merged to create regional planning and housing bodies, which,
"will be responsible for managing regional housing markets delivering the regions' affordability target … and will continue to be responsible for the Regional Spatial Strategy".
The regional planning executive would, of course,
"require new appointments, including a chief executive".
That involves building bureaucracy, not houses. These new regional housing commissars could no more set regional house prices, let alone sub-regional floors and ceilings, than King Canute could stop the tide coming in.
Picture yourself as the chief executive of the new RPHB in York or Nottingham, watching house prices rise in your region by 50 per cent over the past year. What would you have done—torn up your house price target, changed your sub-regional price ceilings into floors or rung the Governor of the Bank of England, begging him to put up interest rates? Recommendations such as these are for the birds. They cut right across the grain of how markets work and they override democratically elected local authorities. For instance, we read in the report that within the current institutional framework at the regional level, no organisation has overall ownership of the regional housing market. Of course it does not; millions of individuals own it. No serious economist would ever write a sloppy sentence such as that.
Also, sadly, Barker has been nobbled by the Treasury in her refusal to end the nonsense of a 0 per cent VAT rate on new building, compared with a crippling 17.5 per cent rate on the reconstruction, renovation and improvement of existing homes. That is very interesting, because her report actually makes

291
a very powerful case for applying VAT to newly built homes on green field sites. It says that it has credibility, would correct the distortion between new build and repairs, maintenance and improvement, would create a more efficient market for housing resources, and would enable the wider community to use VAT to share in development gain without undermining the ability of most landowners to prosper from land sales for residential use. Wise words, backing a longstanding Liberal Democrat commitment.
Why then do we suddenly get a screeching U-turn worthy of Tony Blair over the referendum? "No equalising of VAT rates after all", says Barker—"let's try a planning gain supplement". However worthy in principle, that to me looks like some of the 1976 development land tax, the 1973 development gains tax, the 1967 betterment levy or the 1947 development charge. Politicians love ideas such as those, but property professionals have grave doubts about whether they will work any better than their predecessors, when land owners just sat on the land and the system seized up.
By contrast, VAT at, say, 5 per cent on new housing is simple, straight forward, fair, impossible to evade and easy to collect. Indeed, in the section of the report that Barker, rather than the Treasury, wrote before the U-turn, she confirmed that levying VAT on newly built housing would have little direct impact on house prices and would lead to a reduction in land prices, and that,
"it would have the desired effect of extracting some of the development gain associated with land sale for housing development".
Some three and a half years ago I made the case for equalising VAT rates in this House. I received an encouraging and revealing response from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He called the present distortion,
"undoubtedly a significant perceived disincentive to refurbishment … However, at the end of the day, these are matters for the Chancellor … No doubt the taxation issue can be referred to at a later stage". —Official Report, 17/10/00; col. 970.]
We have reached the later stage; some three-and-a-half years on, we are no further forward. When will the Treasury lift its dead hand blocking this long overdue reform?
So VAT reform would help to bring unfit empty houses back into use. In total, there is not a housing shortage in this country. The problem is that too many of our houses are in the wrong condition, at the wrong rent or price, and in the wrong place. VAT reform would provide a major boost to social house building for rent and thus attack the crisis in affordable housing and help to keep prices down.
Most important of all, the Government must pursue a much more vigorous policy to promote economic growth. jobs and therefore housing demand in our less prosperous and less overcrowded regions. Building new towns all over southern England only reinforces regional inequality and makes overheating down here worse. Northern and Midlands cities have plenty of cheap housing, plenty of cheap office space, and the skilled staff to take far more government jobs for a start. Members on these Benches have already
292
proposed in all seriousness to move a substantial chunk of the Treasury's operations to Liverpool. Why not follow that by moving most of our swollen Home Office head office to Newcastle? Some 1,300 Home Office civil servants say that they must have daily access to Ministers and Parliament. What rot. Why, for example, does the Prison Service need to have its headquarters in London? In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, whom I thank for his interesting speech, this is not a question of moving bodily a quarter of a million people from southern England up north, but of stopping the steady drift of jobs, money and people down south—or at least trying to reverse the trend.
I believe that the Barker review is a great opportunity sadly missed. It is now time for the Government to act on the areas under their own direct control—VAT reform, far more social and affordable housing, and jobs to move out of London and the south-east to where they are desperately needed in the regions.
4.2 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I start by expressing my thanks to my noble friend Lord Lucas for instigating this important debate on one of the most pressing subjects faced by this country at the moment. I do not profess to be a great expert on these matters and I am conscious that I shall be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who certainly is an expert. He has probably forgotten more about the subject of housing than I have ever known. But I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words about housing needs in rural areas, in particular in the smaller and more remote villages of England and Wales. This is a subject which I think was largely ignored in the Barker report.
I start by declaring my interest as a landowner. As such, no one is more acutely aware than I of the need to protect rural Britain from the ravages of inappropriate development. However, the countryside cannot stagnate, and a recent report produced by the Country Land and Business Association on housing and the rural economy concluded that the current planning policies are neglecting the growing crisis in housing in rural areas, particularly in villages in the wider countryside, and that the problems of affordable housing cannot be addressed in isolation from the insufficient supply of housing as a whole.
That last point is important because I think it means that the difficulty faced by local people, including key workers, to whom my noble friend quite rightly referred, is that they are not able to compete financially with outside forces. It is also a question of a lack of houses in general. The report stresses the need for an increase in the supply of all types of houses in order to help reduce the pressure.
Of course, building under any circumstances is an emotive subject, particularly so in the more remote rural areas because of the perceived visual impact on the countryside. However, I believe that there are good examples which demonstrate that with intelligent thought and good design reflecting traditional local

293
styles, not only can new housing blend into the local landscape without causing offence, but if it is done really well, it can be a positive enhancement.
The rural economy is as important as any other sector of the economy in this country. It does not deserve to be abandoned. A well-managed countryside depends on a vibrant economy, and an adequate supply of housing is an essential ingredient to achieving such a goal, a point acknowledged by Kate Barker in her report. Moreover, given the changing face of agriculture and the need for rural enterprise to expand into alternative ideas, a more pragmatic approach needs to be adopted by planners towards the re-use of redundant agricultural and commercial buildings in rural areas. When such locations are close to public services, I suggest that there is no reason why judicious plans combining commercial and residential use would not be appropriate. To that end, I believe that there is a case to be made for the definition of brown field sites to be extended to include land supporting buildings previously used for agricultural purposes.
Notwithstanding the need for a general increase in the supply of housing in rural areas, the greatest problem lies in the shortage of affordable housing, a point already identified by several noble Lords. This has been brought about by the lack of supply and the ever-increasing demand from people living away from rural areas to pursue what might be described as the countryside idyll.
There is also much talk of key workers. But the category does not apply only to doctors, nurses and teachers; that is, those working in the public sector. Workers in the private sector are equally important in their own way and their contribution to the local rural economy and the well-being of the countryside is essential. Here I refer to farm workers, plumbers, electricians, gamekeepers, forestry workers and the like.
The Countryside Agency has estimated that an additional 10,000 new houses are required per annum in settlements of under 10,000 people. Yet I believe that Housing Corporation finance is budgeted to supply only 1,750 start-up homes in rural settlements of under 3,000 inhabitants. I appreciate that the two figures do not compare exactly, but it is clear that there is likely to continue to be a severe shortage while lack of finance continues to act as a major restriction on the provision of sufficient affordable housing to meet the needs of the smaller settlements of this country.
However, affordable housing in smaller rural settlements is generally uneconomic unless the land is made available at price levels significantly below the market value. That requires some degree of subsidy either on the rent or through shared equity. One solution is to consider what landowners themselves can do to bridge the gap between affordable housing and key local employees. In the absence of available land there will be no housing, so it would seem logical to try to encourage the release of land to meet such demand.
294
I feel certain that, if encouraged, landowners would be willing to provide land for affordable housing provided that it was understood that such dwellings would be occupied by people who play a key role in the local community in either the public or the private sector. Unlike a speculative developer, I am sure that the local landowner would be prepared to accept a figure well below the open market development land value, provided—and this, I believe, is key—that those houses were retained for their original purpose and not allowed to fall on to the open market. Such properties could be rented out or sold using shared equity as described by my noble friend Lord Selborne.
I now raise the subject of exception sites, as defined in the 1992 national planning policy. The CLA in its housing report, to which I have already referred, has strongly argued the case for the retention of such a mechanism. It says that exception sites should be used more imaginatively by planners, using Section 106 agreements to provide more affordable housing. It goes on to say that the allocated quota site approach has not worked for smaller settlements because it paralyses development, whereas exception sites allow local authorities to find the right site and to negotiate an appropriate land price with the landowner concerned, thus going a long way to reducing the call on the public purse.
Many, if not most, affordable housing schemes in remoter areas have been achieved through the use of the exception site mechanism. So I hope that the Minister can give the House an assurance that this scheme will not be compromised. I also suggest that the use of exception sites concurs with Recommendation 9 of the Barker report which calls for local plans to be more realistic in their initial allocation of land and more flexible in bringing forward additional land for development.
I suggest that the combination of encouraging landowners to release small pockets of land at reduced rates for the purpose of housing key community employees, in both the public and private sectors, along with the flexible use of exception sites, should help towards easing, in a modest way, the housing needs in the remoter rural areas. It is often suggested that building in villages is unsustainable through lack of services, but the shortage of houses for local people is making communities unsustainable, resulting in additional travel, usually by car, with all the obvious consequences.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Best: My Lords, I declare my interests as chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation which undertakes a continuous programme of research on housing matters, with a long list of reports on housing supply to which references are made in Kate Barker's review, and as chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust which tackles problems of housing supply, in particular in relation to affordable homes, and which is currently planning a sustainable new community as an urban extension to the city of York.

295
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing forward this debate on a subject that is now near the top of the political agenda. I am deeply appreciative of the hard work and skill that Kate Barker has applied to her task and which I have witnessed first hand at a number of meetings with her and her colleagues. I think a word of appreciation should also go to the Chancellor for commissioning the review in the knowledge that it would be bound to put pressure on the Government to address the problem of inadequate housing production and the requirement for more support from the Treasury.
From the many recent reports from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on the issues raised in the Barker review, I thought it might add most to the debate if I drew upon the findings from three new studies which we shall be publishing in June. The first research project that I want to cite is currently being concluded by Professor Steve Wilcox of York University. It looks at the facts on affordability—who can afford to buy a home and who is left out. The Barker review explained the position nationally: only 37 per cent of new households could afford to buy in 2002 compared with 46 per cent of new households in the late 1980s. The number of homes bought by first-time buyers has declined markedly, even though at least as many people aspire to home ownership as ever before. As Kate Barker puts it,
"this brings potential for an ever widening social and economic divide between those able to access market housing and those kept out".
Steve Wilcox first demonstrated, on the basis of 1998 house prices and incomes, that it was not just in London and the south-east that home ownership was beyond the reach of many new households. As incomes may be relatively lower in relation to house prices in some other places—for example, in the southwest and in other rural areas—affordability was just as great a problem there as in the over-heated London and south-east regions. Now this evidence has been updated to 2003 and—this comes as a surprise to no one—it is clear that the problem of affordability has worsened dramatically and more areas are seriously affected.
The tip of the iceberg is the rise in homelessness. Thank goodness that no longer leads to families being placed in unsavoury bed-and-breakfast accommodation because of sterling efforts by the Government and local authorities to use privately rented accommodation instead. But the B-and-B success story is at the expense of other groups who can no longer rent the same private property. Unless the supply of affordable homes is addressed, the misery is just moved around. Shortages of affordable housing destroy quality of life for more households than those declared homeless by local authorities—those forced to share into middle age; those in miserable, overcrowded flats; and those who have a two-hour commute that ruins family life.
Steve Wilcox's latest research illustrates the extent of the affordability problem. In 100 local authority areas working households with average incomes now need a mortgage of five times their earnings to buy the
296
average house. In places like Pen with in Cornwall, south Lakeland in the Lake District, and east. Devon, as well as in Westminster and Islington, those on average earnings need a mortgage of over seven times their income, which is clearly impossible.
The second piece of work commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to which I want to draw your Lordships' attention relates to the position of parents. While all of us homeowners may feel a warm glow from the increasing value of our home—even if we think current figures are unrealistic in the longer term—those of us who are homeowners with children are coming to recognise that high house prices are not quite such good news after all. We asked MORI to do a poll for us to determine how parents with adult children are being affected by the problems of affordability.
The MORI poll shows how more and more parents will need to dip into their own pockets to support the next generation in meeting current levels of house prices. Two-thirds of those with adult children under 30 are affected. That takes no account of the impact of bigger student loans in the future. Parents of such adult children who have not yet purchased overwhelmingly believe that their children will want to do so, but over half of the parents feel that it is unlikely that their children will be able to buy without parental support. Although three-quarters of these parents would be willing to help, only half of them will have the resources to do so. Parents reckon that each of their children will need an average of £17,000. To raise that money a fifth of parents thought it likely that they would need to borrow themselves—for example, by remortgaging their own house. More than half of the parents fear that without parental funding their adult children will never be able to buy.
It may help to change hostile attitudes towards new housebuilding as more homeowners recognise that just when they might be finishing with their own mortgage, they may be forced to borrow again to help out the next generation; or, at least, be required to give away much of any capital they have saved.
This brings me to a third piece of work supported by the foundation and undertaken by the Cambridge Architectural Research organisation. This report, which will be released next month, looks at public attitudes to new homes and has tested the notion that "we are all nimbys now". The study involved interviews with over 1,400 people in areas of potential growth in the south-east and discovered that, when faced with reasoned argument, opposition to new housing was not universal or total. Consultation can work; people make reasoned choices and compromises if presented with information about a range of options. They are prepared to see development on open land, not just on brownfield sites. Mostly they agreed that the region must be allowed to grow. While they remained opposed to the thought that many more homes should be built, there were clear worries about the shortages of affordable housing.
Of course, rational and sensible public views in relation to a region or city may not hold good when it comes to the potential development of the site next

297
door. I have been shocked at the level of opposition to our proposals for creating a sustainable new community on the edge of York. This is intended as a model in terms of design, traffic calming and accessibility; an integrated mix of renting, part owning and owning; and with heavy expenditure on environmental aspects. But, despite 36 local consultative meetings, those who live nearby have had exaggerated fears and misapprehensions about the consequences of any such development.
This case, in microcosm, reveals the pressures that vocal opponents of new housing bring to bear upon local councillors. There is a democratic deficit in that those people who will be delighted to occupy this new community in the future are not yet in a position to make their views known. Clear and forward looking local leadership can be hard to exercise—although we detect it in York—in the context of the constant round of local elections, particularly where the strength of the political parties is finely balanced. To me, this suggests more decision taking at the more distant regional level, rather than expecting sensible local councillors to incur the wrath of their electorate if they speak in favour of new housing.
Having indicated that research in the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's pipeline underlines a picture of worsening affordability, of new pressures on the parents of those in their twenties and of the importance of local opinion, perhaps I may end with two conclusions.
First, the problem of an inadequate supply of affordable homes can be addressed only by more supply. It cannot be overcome by paying subsidies to special groups. If subsidised mortgages are made available to nurses or teachers—as with the starter homes initiative—these worthy people may be able to outbid others in the market place. But if there is no increase in the number of homes, the extra cash will pour fuel on the flames and simply push up the prices of existing homes beyond the reach of other people. The taxpayers' money needs to be used to increase supply, and that suggests targeting grants on the production line of the registered social landlords—the housing associations.
As Kate Barker has made clear, it is not a decline of private sector house building that has reduced housing output to the levels of the 1920s despite rising household numbers; it is, as other noble Lords have emphasised, the reduction in grant-aided housing—homes previously built by local authorities and now by housing associations.
Kate Barker estimates that it will cost perhaps another £1.5 billion each year to increase sufficiently the output of subsidised or affordable housing—with, of course, the new homes pepper-potted among owner-occupied housing, not put into segregated ghettos. This call for funding is an uncomfortable reality but it is one which the Chancellor really must address in this summer's spending review.
My concluding point is that the private renting sector also deserves a boost. The current buy-to-let lending boom— with nearly £40 billion of loans now
298
going mostly to new small landlords—represents only additional demand for existing property, not the commissioning of a supply of extra homes. The Chancellor is looking at the opportunities for property investment funds—which could bring in new money and an increase in new supply—and we need to address that issue.
I greatly welcome Kate Barker's excellent review. I hope that it will lead us into addressing one of the great challenges still facing this country.
4.24 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for giving the House the opportunity to debate Kate Barker's report. Whether we agree with all of it or disagree with all of it, we at least have a chance to consider it fully. I hope that our discussions today will move the debate forward. With its 36 recommendations, the report challenges many long-held views. Unfortunately, the Government have failed to allocate parliamentary time for a full debate on it and so I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for introducing the subject today.
In her introduction, Kate Barker stated that in 2001 the construction of new houses fell to its lowest level since the Second World War and that fewer were built than in 1924. Over the 10-year period to 2002, the output of new homes was 12.5 per cent lower than in the previous 10 years. That is a worrying figure.
Builders will argue that planning permission is not being granted and cite the strength of local opposition to new house builds. This argument has been reflected in the Chamber today. Others will explain the fall in numbers by quoting the perception that most of the houses being built are large and often detached. But the House Builders Federation representative to whom I spoke yesterday gave an example of what pressure can do. In the south-east in 1997, 47 per cent of dwellings constructed were detached and only 15 per cent were flats; in 2003, the proportion was 19 per cent detached and 47 per cent flats. The remaining build was a mixture of bungalows and semidetached and terraced housing. Can the Minister comment on the reasons for these figures?
Does the Minister believe that we will have enough skilled trades people available if we decide upon a large increase in house build? Does he accept the report's suggestion that perhaps three out of every 100 employees should be apprentices? If so, how do the Government envisage moving forward with that proposal?
Kate Barker suggests that we should build our way out of the supply shortage. If, however, only 1 per cent of the houses required are built every year, it will take decades before the shortage is overcome. It is also true that, since the fall in the value of stocks and shares, many people have turned to investing in the housing market, an issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, referred. The buy-to-rent sector has grown, but will it continue to thrive? It will do so only as long as sufficient demand exists for rented accommodation. So the balance between the rented and owned sectors is interlinked.

299
Are the Government's figures on the demand for new houses based on people's preferences, or are they an accurate measurement of the number of people who lack their own homes, whether rented or purchased? Can he explain how predicted growth demand is factored in and whether the drop of 1 million in the 2001 census figures has yet been reflected in the new housing total requirement?
I turn now to consider the issues of brownfield sites and empty homes. The Government are to be congratulated on the work they have carried out towards the use of brownfield sites. However, I understand that there are still some 650,000 hectares of brownfield land available, of which 11 per cent is immediately suitable for housing development. Can the Minister confirm these figures? Can he say, either by department or in total, how much unused land is held by government bodies such as the MoD, the NHS and other public institutions? Such information would help inform our debate today.
I believe that there are some 718,000 houses standing empty. A large number of these reflect the problems that some councils have in filling their properties quickly once they become vacant; others belong to people who seem to prefer to live elsewhere; and, of course, some belong to elderly people who have had to move into sheltered or residential accommodation. What research has been undertaken to ensure that sufficient and relevant housing will be available in the future, having regard, in particular, to the likely increase in the number of single elderly people which is forecast over the next 10 years?
Do the Government agree that one of the major difficulties for new house build lies in the granting of planning permission, a matter to which I referred earlier? What is the latest total for land with full or outline planning permission held by local councils or by developers and builders? Do the Government agree with the recommendation that regional planning bodies and regional housing boards should be amalgamated? If so, will the Minister explain how the new body will enable more housing to be built? For instance, will it impose new building sites on rural and urban communities where planning permission has previously been refused, or will the new body be yet another additional costly layer of bureaucracy?
Does the Minister accept that there should be a proper assessment of the current situation whereby we have surplus houses in the wrong place while in other areas we are desperately short of affordable houses?
So far I have not mentioned the newer types of housing construction. Several larger companies have been quietly investing in houses that are built in factories before they are put on site. These are engineered to a high standard of insulation, energy efficiency and the use of materials which have a less unfavourable impact on the environment. They are manufactured in factories and then conveyed to the site. I understand that a layer of bricks or wood panelling may then be added to the shell so that they look like a traditional house. Other noble Lords have touched on that area, which offers great possibilities.
300
I declare an interest. My family owns property in Suffolk. We have sold land for affordable social housing to be built. We are very happy to support that. The land we sold to the local authority now houses many families. It is then hard, as my noble friend Lord Peel said, when one applies to convert other buildings for either business or other purposes to be turned down by that same council, which says that it is not relevant.
The Government need to allow a degree of flexibility to local communities to encourage the take up of what I would call "practical workings". Here I should like to give the Minister an example. Two days ago a councillor from south Shropshire came to see me. His council's survey shows that 1,435 new affordable build homes are needed in his district, but the county structure plan allocates it only 18 new houses, of whatever type, per annum until 2011.
Clearly, that is a mismatch. So the council has taken the bull by the horns and launched a joint venture between the district council and the private sector to develop a balanced portfolio of market and affordable homes. Has that come within the Minister's portfolio at this stage, or is it a new innovation about which he knows nothing? It makes sense where there is permission to build ordinary private houses for sale and there is a willingness to include affordable housing.
I understand that the houses are limited in price. When a person sells the house its price can be raised only by an amount related to the average value of property in that area. So it would be retained and not lost as affordable housing. I think that is a good example.
Do the Government have a role in encouraging such new developments? Do they continue to support building research? Are they contributing to work designed to reduce demand on water supplies, to improve the efficiency of water storage, particularly the reduction of evaporation in the face of climate change and to lessen the impact of dwellings on the environment, or does the Minister think that that should be left to the private sector?
What work are the Government commissioning or carrying out to establish the housing requirements in the next two decades? I am particularly concerned that we should not find ourselves once again faced with a situation in which older people living in large houses which they cannot afford to maintain find there are no smaller houses in the area to which they can move.
House affordability in rural areas is increasingly worrying. Several noble Lords have spoken of that. If we do not have enough affordable houses in those areas the communities die. As services are increasingly centralised, there are fewer GPs' surgeries in the villages, fewer rural post offices and a steep fall in the number and scope of village shops. Strong, supportive communities need to be encouraged. All that depends on the accessibility of affordable houses.
This afternoon's important debate raises huge issues. I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to consider them. I hope the

301
Government will take up the challenge and that the Minister will respond directly to some of the questions raised this afternoon.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for giving us the opportunity to debate these immensely important issues. It is an appropriate tribute to Kate Barker and her colleagues that we are assembled to spend time on a report that sheds light on many of the complex issues that surround this area.
I want to make four points in the debate. The four points may seem disparate but in fact they are linked together by two things: first, they concern planning and regulation; and, secondly, they require for their proper treatment that holy grail of politics—interdepartmental co-operation, what perhaps in headier days was called "joined-up government".
I shall introduce my first point by mentioning a novel that I thoroughly enjoyed and approved of in my fairly early youth. It is a novel by David Lodge called Changing Places. In it, which is a satirical account of British and American universities, there is an exchange of places by two professors. The one from California, from the University of Euphoria—typically and perhaps illusorily named—came to the rather less illusive University of Brummidge in the Midlands. On the first morning of his stay near the University of Brummidge the professor in question woke up in a panic; he thought he had caught fire because he thought he saw smoke above his bed. In fact, it was his breath condensing in the air. He had not realised that in Britain we do not yet know how to regulate the temperature of houses. Things have not got significantly better. We have got better at pumping heat into houses, but of course a great deal of that simply heats the local environment.
My first point really is a request. There is the prospect of a significant increase in building, as envisaged in the Barker report and certainly in the comments of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, at Thames Gateway and around the country over the next 10 to 15 years. This is an opportunity to change building regulations to ensure that much higher standards of energy efficiency are built into the houses that we would like to see available for all sectors of the community. The first point concerns that kind of regulation. Are the Government paying any attention to this issue? Granted that very many new houses will be built over a comparatively short period, it is a chance to move the whole debate ahead and, indeed, to change the character of some of the energy needs of the community in which we live. It is a very important issue.
My second point concerns how the design of houses will affect the use to which the houses are put and their suitability. I pay tribute in passing to the Rowntree Trust and its Hartrigg Oaks Scheme, which is specially designed for older people who might have care needs in the future. I shall not go into detail, but it is an
302
immensely important example of how. in this country at least, some agencies are trying to deal with the needs of the elderly, potentially frail and, indeed more broadly, the disabled. My plea is again a request to ask whether further guidance might be issued, particularly about one aspect. If you have a potentially frail person in your family—and we are all frail in one sense or another—there are two ways of trying to deal with it: first, by making arrangements for proper care home supervision; and, secondly, and much the preferred way for virtually everyone asked, by enabling people to stay in their own homes.
The technology infrastructure of homes will make this more possible and more likely if we pay attention to it now at a national level. This infrastructure, creating the possibility of so-called smart homes, makes possible an extension of life that is tolerable and acceptable to many who otherwise would need complex care arrangements to be made in homes and possibly even in hospitals. My second question to the Minister relates to inter-departmental planning, cooperation and discussion. What opportunities does he envisage for taking that discussion forward if so many new houses are to be built? How will the elderly and potentially frail be integrated into the new communities that will be built up as very large numbers of houses are completed?
In relation to my third and fourth questions, I declare an interest as chairman of the Quarry Products Association. This, initially, has to do with rather important planning matters. The Barker report properly spends a lot of time on planning issues. However, planning is not simply for houses and land; it also concerns the materials used to build the houses. Of course, there are marvellous ways in which we can use new technology, but even the infrastructure in which houses are set requires large amounts of quarried material.
The quarry industry is sadly not a popular industry. That is a great mistake because civilisation is built out of holes in the ground. That is also true of houses. Unless there is sufficient adequacy in the planning horizon for the quarrying and extraction of relevant materials, whatever plans you have there will not be sufficient houses or they will be built at great cost by importing materials from far afield with the appropriate transport costs.
There are two aspects to this issue. One is that 15-year planning horizons for quarry extraction are currently being set. Have these planning horizons been set in the light of the demand potentially created by the statements from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and from the Barker report? If not, they may have to be looked at again. To have planning for houses means land, but it also means the material dug from holes in the ground. I simply ask whether the inter-departmental consideration necessary for that is being given?
The second aspect of this issue of planning relates to a point that I raised in Questions when the statement by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was made about the huge need for new houses. Many of these

303
houses will be built—whether we like it or not—in fairly congested areas in the south-east. That is simply a fact. That is where many of the brown field sites are and that is where the Thames Gateway is. If that is so, large quantities of material will have to be taken into the building sites and probably detritus and debris will have to be taken out of them. If we have a horizon of 10 or 15 years when these houses are to be built, we could actually sit down now and think about how this is to be done. Are we siting the planning permissions for quarries sufficiently near the potential development sites? That reduces the cost of transport significantly, and the cost of a tonne of aggregate will vary according to the transport involved.
Equally, are we preparing the infrastructure that will take this vast volume of material—the ODPM was talking about 400,000 to 500,000 houses—often through pleasant rural areas and possibly through congested city and town areas? To do that effectively requires one to think in advance about the right routes, whether we have the rail track that will increase the efficiency of this operation and what the possibilities are of bringing much of this material close to the development sites by sea. Of course, that is an increasing factor now. Material is brought by sea into the Thames Estuary from all along the south coast of England.
These issues require planning. On a related point, at this very moment a discussion is going on elsewhere, in a public meeting in these Houses, about marine dredging. This is a key element of how we supply the material necessary. What thought is being given to ensure that the material available through marine dredging and from more traditional quarrying sites is going to be available? Can it be transported into the building sites in a way that will ensure maximum efficiency, economic saving, and the best treatment of the environment that such a development could tolerate?
4.44 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood. One of my professors at the Harvard Business School came to teach in London one summer and after he had been staying at a hotel in central London for about a fortnight, we asked him to lunch. We asked how he was finding the hotel and he said, "Peter, my experience after 10 days is that all toast in the United Kingdom is manufactured in Birmingham and shipped out during the night".
I also echo the noble Lord's argument for anticipation at a national level. From my own constituency experience, I have found that immigrants frequently need houses with more bedrooms because their families are larger. Unless thought is given in advance, we will have a conflict thereafter.
It is a privilege to come in at the Back Bench tail of so worthwhile a debate. I am proud that my party should have provided alternate speakers in the debate so far. and will continue to do so until the end. It is a matter of narrower pride too, that both today's
304
debates have been or will be opened by Balliol men. As one who has the same college loyalty, I quote the observation of Philip Guedalla, a man similarly blessed or afflicted:
"Life is just one damn Balliol man after another".
I congratulate my noble—and Balliolian—friend Lord Lucas on the admirable manner in which he set us on our way. Batting much lower in the order leaves much less to say or need to say it.
That is, however, in many ways a comfort. Though my late noble kinsman was for four years Minister of Housing and Local Government in days when that was a Cabinet title, and though he chaired a series of committees on housing matters set out by Aneurin Bevan, when the latter had the housing responsibility in Cabinet—thus demonstrating a bipartisan attitude—I have inherited my late noble kinsman's interest but not his knowledge. I am therefore not remotely qualified to comment in the round on Kate Barker's magnum opus in the way the noble Lords, Lord Oakeshott and Lord Best, variously did. I hope that noble Lords will forgive some more random comments.
I understand the Government's rationale in setting up the review, and I also congratulate the Chancellor. There is no question but that the review provides us with a quarry. I appreciate that the revisiting of PPG3 does not meet with universal approval, but I have always admired the Duke of Wellington's conclusion that his victory at Waterloo was because his battle plans had a leather harness, whereas Bonaparte's had an iron one.
I realise the scale of the nation's task in future housing provision, and I recognise the implications for the Government of that. Incidentally, I am interested in how we are performing in relation to our brownfield targets. That was a salient issue both before and after 1997 and was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. Could the Minister add a word or two about the comparative density of population in England and Wales within the European Union?
I appreciate that a task on this scale requires a road map, and a wide-ranging one. However, I will acknowledge one apprehension. The road map, like the attitude of the UGC and HEFCE towards universities, can become unduly formulaic. A fortnight ago, we debated London, with the same Minister winding up. I believe passionately in mixed communities. I recognise this objective came under Kate Barker's scrutiny, but successful mixed communities evolve rather than leap fully formed from the head of Pallas Athene, the goddess of wisdom.
Taking examples from both town and country, I had 15 wards in my prior inner city constituency, and I live on a lane in the country which is a sub-hamlet of six houses within a dispersed hamlet of 90 souls. In those 15 wards, there were many good examples of mixed communities, as there were bound to be in a seat among the richest in the country, but also 48th in terms of the poverty indices on a national basis. I take in particular two contrasting examples: Pimlico and Soho.

305
Pimlico was the more recent, designed largely by Cubitt in the 19th century, on a grid pattern on the marshy farmlands near the river which the heiress Mary Davies—the eponymous origin of Davies Street in Mayfair'—brought as her dowry on marriage into the Grosvenor family 1653. Suitably for a ducal estate—although the Pimlico element had to be sold in 1953 to meet death duties—Pimlico is a largely residential community, where duke and dustman really do live side by side, assisted by Peabody housing which conforms to the same grid pattern that Cubitt created. Working-class families in Pimlico and its perimeter often go back at least four generations, and I disagreed with Dame Shirley Porter on their role in society.
Soho is different. Its origins go back before Mary Davies' marriage in 1653. It was always a manufacturing and trading community, and is also on a grid pattern. In 1685 there were 16 churches for Huguenot worship in Soho. Those working there lived there. Thanks to determined community resistance, which included some small light industry, the demolition of the 18th-century terrace houses was resisted in the 1970s, and the community likewise curbed the expansion of the sex industry. Twenty times as many people work there now as live there, but the alliance between the two sides of the community—residential and commercial—lives on, ironically threatened only by the licensed and entertainment trades that are the subject of the next debate.
In the country, my lane comprises: the manor house lived in by a retired industrialist; a bungalow lived in by a man who largely works from home; a house using old materials on the site of an 18th-century farmhouse, rebuilt by a master craftsman cum artist and his German wife; another bungalow lived in by our immediate neighbour, a retired and partially disabled agricultural labourer and the oldest person in the hamlet to have been born there; a small, handsome stone house let to a London family who come there occasionally and who, at a critical moment, betrayed unfamiliarity with the constraints that the foot and mouth regulations had imposed on the countryside; and ourselves, in a property accurately described by the vendor's agent as,
"a 17th-century shepherd's cottage, interestingly extended".
We all know each other; we talk to each other, although we necessarily see less of the London family; we help solve each other's problems; and we exchange periodic hospitality. That mixture is induced not by statute but by housing history and human contiguity two miles from the nearest shop.
Those three communities are all different, both in history and social admixture, but they are all admirable. I shall be happy to be cured of my formulaic apprehensions, but England will be poorer if that social richness becomes diluted or diminished were we to become too formulaic. I refer to England because an ODPM Minister recently deflected a Welsh question I asked outside this Chamber on the grounds that the ODPM had no responsibility for the subject of my question.
306
My concentration on mixed communities also necessarily springs from a preoccupation with affordable housing. Matthew Parris once based one of his parliamentary sketches on linking Tam Dalyell MP, now the father of the House in another place, with myself as dinosaurs. I forget which of Mr Dalyell's hobby-horses provoked the sobriquet, but in my case it was inner-city affordable housing for key workers. The Minister will probably be aware of the pro forma analysis organised by the National Housing Federation of 36 relevant recommendations in Kate Barker's review in relation to affordable housing. It has the Government's response in one column and the National Housing Federation's reaction in the next one, followed by appendix B, which takes issue with Kate Barker's calculation of the need for affordable housing. I am not qualified to pass judgment on the differences between the NHF and Kate Barker, although intuition and instinct direct me to the figures that come between the two. Any comments that the Minister might care to make on their differences would be welcome.
Although my interest in affordable housing was originally prompted by urban constituency considerations, I was at school with the late Derek Smith, a successful farmer who, in retirement, founded the charity organisation ViRSA in response to a variety of aspects of rural deprivation, including village shops, housing and rural employment.
I would also be interested in any comment by the Minister on the National Housing Federation's separate observation that there has been no earlier response from the Government on recommendations for selective green-belt release and changes to the operation of the sequential test for land release. I should perhaps add that, although I still savour the Deputy Prime Minister's famous boast in the early stages of the previous Parliament that the green belt was the achievement of a Labour government and that the present Government intended to build on it, I recognise that the jury is still out on his real intentions.
Like my noble friend Lord Lucas, I am sorry not have had access to the Egan paper, not least because of my admiration for the author's background and interest in such important matters, which are, of course, paralleled by the same qualities in Stuart Lipton, the chairman of CABE. Anything that the Minister can say on that will be helpful, as well as on guidance to the availability of the Egan paper. I think that I am echoing my noble friend Lady Byford in saying that I hope very much that this will not be our last debate on this exceptionally important subject.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the gap. I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing this important debate. I must declare an interest as a landowner in the south-east.
I read Kate Barker's report and recommendations with interest and broad agreement. There is one issue, however, to which I believe that she has given

307
insufficient emphasis. It was touched on just now by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and is the extent to which the enforcement of green-belt designation has been and remains a major contribution to the supply of housing. That is particularly so in the south-east where, as the report acknowledges at paragraph 1.45, 60 per cent of available land is protected by green-belt or other conservation designation.
We all understand and value the reasons for greenbelt designation, but it is a blanket designation. It is quite clear that not all land subject to green-belt designation is of equal value in conservation terms. On many parcels of land within the green belt, appropriately designed and conceived development would have zero detrimental effect on the environment—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested, could often improve it, as the natural development of our villages and hamlets has done over the centuries.
PPG2 on green belts allows for a concept of "safeguarded land" or "white land", which is land between urban areas and the green belt that, to quote from its paragraph 2.12,
"may be required to meet longer-term development needs".
The Government should allow landowners to submit to their local or regional planning authorities any areas in their possession in the green belt that they believe might be designated as white land or under some new terminology, on the grounds that suitable development on those sites would present no detriment to the wider green belt while contributing to the supply of housing, including of course, most importantly, locally needed affordable housing. In the report, paragraph 2.42 and recommendation 10 at least acknowledge the problem and call for planning authorities to show greater flexibility in using their existing powers to change green-belt designation.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak as briefly as possible in the gap. I want to make only two points. First, I refer to the issue mentioned by my noble friend Lord Oakeshott concerning the possibility of a lower rate of VAT on refurbishment of homes. In France, where the standard rate of VAT is 19.4 per cent, the VAT rate for all home refurbishment is 5.5 per cent. I have noticed that there is a tremendous effort there all the time to improve homes. There would obviously be a cost for that for the Treasury. If 5 per cent were charged on new homes, for example, I imagine that the charging of that lower rate for refurbishment would be revenue neutral.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate, and I was waiting to see who would grasp the nettle. The noble Lord, Lord Howie, came closest, when he referred to the percentage of land in this country that is urban land, as he described it, the rest presumably being open land or green-belt land. If I had to recommend anything to your Lordships, it would be that they needed to make journeys—I have had the opportunity to do so—by helicopter from the centre of London to Colchester, and from the centre of London to
308
Coventry. When we drive, we believe that there is ribbon development all the way, and we assume that most of the land is covered with buildings.
After about five minutes of travelling from the centre of London by helicopter, I discovered to my astonishment that the country is green everywhere. One can hardly see the villages, although the towns occupy more land. My second point is really that what has not been discussed in real terms is what we will do if the supply of housing cannot be increased significantly—probably by between 100,000 and 200,000 homes a year. Over the past 50 years, the population has risen from 50 million to 60 million, and there are huge numbers of one-parent families.
It is the demand for homes that is pushing prices higher and higher. The law of supply and demand determines what will happen to house prices. If we cannot increase the supply, there is certainly no likelihood of the demand being reduced. Coming from these Benches, this is not easy to say but I believe that a great deal more land, and not only brownfield land, should be made available for the building of homes. I quoted the south-east, but if people had the opportunity to fly over the whole of Britain, they would realise that, even if we took 2 million acres to create more homes, that would still leave the country as a green and pleasant land.
5 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing what has been a wide-ranging and very interesting debate. It has been so stimulating that we have had two contributions in the gap, which, in my experience, has not happened for a while. I declare two interests. I am president of the National Housing Forum and also a vice-president of the National Housing Federation.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I welcome the Barker report, whether or not we agree with everything in it, because it provides the opportunity to debate housing and it gives us reference points around which to focus our debate today. I also welcome the fact that the report connects housing and the economy. I have been a housing spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in both Houses and many of my housing speeches have made that point. I am delighted that the Government have woken up to it, although it is a shame that it took them so long—a point touched on earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. That is particularly the case when we see what has happened to house building in this country, with the lowest number of homes being built since 1924. Behind that are the even more important figures which show that the number of households in temporary accommodation more than doubled in the period from 1995 to 2003. We are building affordable houses at one-tenth of the rate that we did in the 1970s, a point made by my noble friend Lord Oakeshott.
Barker emphasises some of the effects on the economy. One of the main effects is that labour mobility has decreased as people often cannot afford

309
to move to jobs in the south because of the price of houses. Interestingly, some people are put off moving to areas such as the north-east, where I live and where houses have been cheaper, although they are going up in price, because, if they want to move back to the south again, the question arises of whether they will be able to afford to do so.
The volatility of the housing market has caused macro-economic volatility. We hear that matter being discussed time and time again. As other noble Lords have said this afternoon, the current situation is incredibly favourable to some people such as home owners, land owners and house builders. Those groups and their families get richer but other people—key workers, for example—are kept off the housing ladder. The noble Earls, Lord Peel and Lord Selborne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, emphasised the problems for those in rural areas.
My other reason for welcoming the report is that it looks in depth at the supply side in housing. For too long, housing policy has been a response to the latest demand crisis. Such responses often merely patch over the immediate problems and do not deal with the fundamental ones. I do not remember who it was, but one noble Lord touched on what the Government have been trying to do for key workers. Will the subsidies for the loans to key workers have a knock-on effect? Do we understand what that will do?
The number of new homes needed in both sectors has been outlined by Barker and also by Rowntree. Over the years, we have seen least growth in the social or subsidised housing sector. If one looks at graphs of housing-building in recent times, the private sector remains fairly steady; it is in the social sector that the amount of such building has gone down.
It is interesting that Shelter believes that Barker may have underestimated the number of homes that we need. As we have already heard this afternoon, the CPRE thinks that it is an overestimate, but I believe that the CPRE is in a minority here. My noble friend Lord Oakeshott referred to the Home Truths document produced by a number of people with an interest in this matter. That document is supported not only by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation but by the Town and Country Planning Association, Shelter, the National Housing Federation, the House Builders Federation, the Chartered Institute of Housing, the Civic Trust and the Royal Town Planning Institute. That covers a fairly wide range of people who agree that we have a problem with supply. Although people will argue about the extent of the problem, there is general agreement on it.
Barker and all of us have made the case for more homes to be built. But the important point is that we all want to see well designed homes. Several noble Lords touched on that matter this afternoon. Those homes also need to be in appropriate locations and they need to be built with the right infrastructure. As other noble Lords have said, too often the only voices that we hear on matters relating to housing supply tend to be from those who are opposed to new developments. The arguments for new homes need to be heard across the
310
board if we are to improve access to housing for all—a point expanded on very well by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I believe that Barker is a useful tool in doing that.
However, I have some concerns about some of the solutions put forward by Barker. First, I find them to be far too centralist. It is not surprising that I should have that view, coming from these Benches. Secondly, I fear that she is far too ready to cast aside democratic accountability. That was mentioned by several noble Lords this afternoon. Thirdly, and very importantly, I do not believe that she places enough emphasis on sustainability and on the need for us always to be mindful of how we affect the bigger environmental picture. Again, that point was referred to by other noble Lords.
Interestingly, Kate Barker recently spoke at a seminar organised by the British Urban Regeneration Association. She admitted that this was one area on which she was not very good and said that she had not appreciated how high feelings ran over housing and the rural environment. She said:
"I went into this with a fair amount of naivety".
She added that her chief regret about the report was that pressure of space meant that she did not have a greater opportunity to address the water supply issue. That has been mentioned by other noble Lords this afternoon, and the Minister may like to report on it.
Another matter which I do not believe was touched on as much as it should have been—in a sense, it was dismissed—is the importance of empty homes. Noble Lords have also referred to that point in the debate. I do not believe—and I do not think that anyone believes—that bringing empty properties back into use will solve the housing shortage. However, it would make a very good contribution to our immediate problem and it would certainly help to improve local environments. There is nothing worse for those who live there than having empty homes in a street. It leads to crime and involves all kinds of other factors.
Returning to my first criticism—that of centralism—Barker's recommendations are heavily based on a centralised business model. My noble friend Lord Oakeshott was able to explain that far better than I could ever do. But she rightly identifies some of the problems that have held up building. I have already touched on the issue of nimbyism, as have other noble Lords, but Barker also talks about the planning system. Some of us in this Chamber, including the Minister who is to reply, have spent much time over the past few weeks dealing with the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. We on these Benches do not like the fact that, again, convenience has been put before the democratic process. I think there is much evidence that the top-down approach really would be government telling the regions what they are to do, and the regions telling the people. That sort of approach does not work. That is one of my biggest worries.
We need to value the role of planners, to boost their numbers and confidence and give them modern tools to enable them to do a better job. In reading the

311
background for this debate I came across a contribution which pointed out that most European countries are far more advanced in the use of geographical information systems to assist their planning process. I hope that the Government are mindful of that.
One of the other criticisms I have is that Barker does not attempt to look at why our economic development is so unbalanced across the regions. My noble friend Lord Oakeshott went into that, so I shall not repeat the many things he said, except to say that in the northeast, where I live, we are for the first time keeping more graduates from our universities than we are exporting.
I conclude with one or two questions to the Prime Minister.
A noble Lord: Not yet!
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am not in another place. I am afraid those days are gone. That obviously indicates the esteem with which I hold the Minister here today.
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has now passed through both Houses. Was the timing right? Kate Barker said at a meeting that she was really rather shocked when she discovered that she was asked to produce this report when the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill was going through Parliament. I wonder whether the Government have conducted an audit on Barker. How many proposals do they think are in the new Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill? I hope that the Minister will comment on fiscal incentives. Where are we on VAT, which has been mentioned? What about measures to encourage investment for renting and measures to ensure that money for infrastructure is provided upfront, not after the homes are built? How can we recapture increased value from development in local communities? What about the forthcoming spending review?
There are all kinds of other things the Chancellor wants to do—extend child care, tackle pensioner and child poverty and meet defence commitments—yet we hear that we are to receive money for housing. I hope that the Minister will feel that he has the backing of this House when he puts in his bid in the spending review for more money for affordable housing in our country.
5.12 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I welcome this valuable opportunity to discuss the terms of Professor Barker's recent report and the problems associated with the supply of housing. I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Lucas on securing what was, as my noble friend Lord Brooke said, an extremely worthwhile debate and one which we might not have had if it had not been achieved in a ballot. Certainly, there does not seem to have been any enthusiasm to bring it forward. I do not put the blame for that on the Minister. I have never known him to be averse to discussing anything to do with his responsibilities. He is always very ready to do that. We have been
312
fortunate today in holding this important debate, which has generated some of the best and most thoughtful speeches that I have heard in the House for some time.
The whole question of housing supply and demand and its affordability is one which has bedevilled succeeding governments. What is clear is that even though this Government have swung into action with their Sustainable Communities Plan, currently, fewer affordable houses are being built annually than in the last years of the Conservative government. As other noble Lords have said, it is clear that there has been a sustained collapse in the development of completed houses in all sectors over the period 1967 to 2002. That is well-documented by the chart on page 125 of the report, where the massive blue section highlights the subsidence of the development of houses.
Local authorities have been taken almost entirely out of the equation as far as concerns providers of housing and have been replaced more or less entirely by registered social landlords—that is, by and large, housing associations supported by the Housing Corporation. However, here and now under these circumstances, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, sadly, completions are depleted.
My noble friend Lord Selborne said that there is a real challenge here for the private sector and I agree. He demonstrated from his own experience the value of shared ownership, for example. That is not always a panacea, but it is a way in which land can be made available and affordable housing provided for people who can—he put it in jargon that we understand although it may not be entirely clear to other people—"staircase" their way out; that is, gradually to buy a property which then becomes their own. I believe also that house builders would not be adverse to looking to ways to provide affordable housing within private schemes. That is the way that we must start to go.
The Sustainable Communities Plan predicates a vast increase in the number of houses to be built over the next 10 to 15 years. It produces vehicles such as urban development corporations to deliver the policies and, by and large, has frightened half out of their wits people who live in the south-east, in particular, at the prospect of large areas being taken over and extended on an alarming scale.
That is not much helped by the pictures of the swathe of south-east England between Peterborough and the Essex coast on which it is proposed to make those extra communities, or by the discussions that we have had over the past few weeks on the extension of Stansted Airport. It may be right that only a small proportion of land is involved, but try telling that to the people who live in those areas and wait for the reply.
It has been informative to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on the subject of the effect on the countryside of the proposals in both this report and the Sustainable Communities Plan. They spoke about the difficulty of providing housing in the rural communities and, in doing that, the importance of being able to sustain

313
those communities for the people who traditionally have lived there and who want to continue not only to live there but to work there and to provide the backbone of rural society. It is extremely important that we find ways to ensure that small organic growth in communities can be undertaken and that that can be locally based and locally negotiated.
As I said in a debate last week, along with others from Parliament I had the opportunity recently to visit Poundbury to listen and to see the rationale of developing in an organic and sensitive way the outskirts of a city, which was based on an idea from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. I think that most of us came away seized with the importance of building communities gradually, developing the infrastructure of roads, schools, medical facilities, dentists, vets, shops and employment all at the same pace, not at the same place.
I thought that everyone would like that concept. However, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, most certainly did not. That is one example—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Best, with his scheme outside the City of York cited another example—of how people are trying to imagine sensitive development built on a whole system of sustainable living for the future. There is no doubt that we simply cannot dump down a whole lot of little boxes and try to pretend that that will bring together communities; it will not. We must find ways to enable people to come together. As I have said in this House many times, the big problem is ensuring that developments are such that people move in organically and in small numbers so that they get to know each other before anyone starts trying to extend the development. There is nothing worse than lumping together, as we have seen in the past, people who do not know each other and have no commitment to each other or to the area.
Against such a background, this is an opportunity to take a closer look at the report and its recommendations, given the almost daily headlines on the problems associated with housing, house price inflation and lack of affordable homes that Barker looks at. We welcome the report; it has set the tenor for a proper look at what is required. However, we have some concerns. Despite the call by my noble friend Lord Lucas for consensus, there are areas on which we do not all agree.
We are worried about the analysis on which the figures are predicated. They make assumptions about a range of social and demographic facts. Over time, we will want to ensure that we can rationalise them. In addition, they ignore the 2001 census data. It has been measured that 900,000 more houses are required in the UK than the Government estimate. That means that the estimated mismatch between households and dwellings may be flawed. In straightforward terms, perhaps the unsuitable mix of housing and the problem of affordability—related not to supply, but to incomes and mortgage eligibility—are more significant than housing numbers.
314
Barker assumes that inadequate supply is the main driver in house price inflation, but noble Lords have questioned that. Low interest rates may have an effect; or perhaps the relative unattractiveness of alternative investment vehicles is bringing pressure on the housing market. Other factors are the disproportionate allure of home ownership in British culture and the level of borrowing guaranteed by housing equity. I agree with the noble Lord who said that it was becoming increasingly impossible to buy a house of a size capable of sustaining a family, or for our children to set a foot on the first rung of home ownership.
Kate Barker's advocacy of large-scale building and relaxed greenfield planning constraints is likely to result in unsustainable development. There are three principal concerns. One of those is the effect on communities and the environment—use of greenfield sites, flood plains and historic villages. Lack of water must be acknowledged even in this country as a problem that must be dealt with.
Developers cogently argue that more brownfield development could be achieved through better planning guidance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, quite a number of recommendations in the report deal with planning issues. I agree with her that it would be very useful to have an audit of what is proposed in that. We might have been able to deal with some of those issues during the passage of the delayed planning Bill, on which we have had endless discussions over recent months.
Another issue that was not raised much during debate on the planning Bill, and certainly not in the Barker report, was the lack of planning officers, the difficulty in providing them and ensuring that there is training and time to ensure that they can deal with such matters.
The recommendations in the report will not solve the crisis in affordable housing that is growing increasingly worse. Furthermore, its suggestions would place enormous pressure on green fields and existing historic communities. Again I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about the report's centralising tendencies. Had we had a chance to discuss the matter during the passage of the planning Bill, we would have deprecated enormously the report's centralising tendencies in bringing together the regional planning boards and regional housing boards then dictating down the amount of housing that must be developed in a region. I certainly do not think that we should embark upon such a process.
There is no doubt that this is a thoughtful report. If there are criticisms of it, I hope that they are constructive. We do not have time to go into them all in detail, but I am sure that there is far more time to be spent on it in future. I very much hope that the Government will have the courage to do that, so that we can ensure that what will make a major contribution over the years, as with all the other work done on this serious matter, can be properly taken into account.
5.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for initiating the debate. It is my third Wednesday debate on the trot. I make no complaint about that, because it has been the first debate each Wednesday.
I shall do more or less what I did last week. When we debated the Sustainable Communities Plan, I came with a set-piece speech, although I had no intention of ignoring colleagues' remarks. A few minutes ago I was torn in deciding whether to stick with my original plan and make the winding-up speech. But I shall cover many of the points raised and intend to respond in writing to the others. In many ways, I saw the opportunity offered by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, as an extension of last week's debate. It is a further step on the road to delivering sustainable communities in this country.
As I have just said to my noble friend Lord Davies, listening to the quality of the speeches today I feel thoroughly ashamed of some of the speeches that I made in the other place. I have just been reading a report of the Barker debate that took place in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago. It was child's play compared with the seriousness of the issues raised here today. I shall be sitting around the table with the top dogs early tomorrow, and I shall ensure that the points made in this House will he stuck straight in their faces. They need to know the details of our discussions on Barker and such issues because a wealth of experience has emerged. What is more, it has reverberated around the Chamber. I know that there have been criticisms, such as those made by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott. However, the other points that the noble Lord made were only supportive in the sense of moving on. That is important.
The planning Bill was introduced in the House of Commons in December 2002. Its Committee stage had been completed by the time of Kate Barker's appointment in 2003. It was a matter of public record that there was a major planning Bill in the parliamentary process. It cannot have been a surprise to anyone.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords—
Lord Rooker: My Lords, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me if I do not give way, because there will not be enough time. I needed to put that point on the record; it did not come out of the blue.
We asked Kate Barker's review on housing supply to look at two key concerns centred on the housing market. The first was decreasing affordability, particularly for those on lower incomes. In 2002 only 37 per cent of new households in England could afford to buy a house, compared to 46 per cent in the late 1980s. The second was a lack of responsiveness in the house-building industry. Over the past 10 years, the number of new houses built was 12.5 per cent lower than in the previous decade.
316
The current housing market overall is not working. It prevents people who would normally expect to move into owner-occupation from doing so. It creates pressure in other sectors, such as private renting and social housing, as pointed out during the debate. Differences in house prices between regions make it more difficult for people to move between jobs and, as pointed out, to move back again. It has the potential to create an ever-widening social and economic divide between those able to access market housing and those kept out.
Where house prices are the highest key workers such as nurses and teachers find it difficult to find somewhere to live. I wish to point out that everyone with a job is a key worker—a noble Lord raised that issue. If you are the boiler man switching on the central heating in an office block in central London you must be in first; you are a key worker so far as concerns the people in that office block. But the necessary constraints of priorities mean that the scheme for key workers has been narrowed to teachers, nurses and one or two others.
In her report, Kate Barker set out a challenging agenda for change. Her key recommendations were: increases in housing supply, both private and public; establishment of an affordability goal to underpin housing supply targets; increasing responsiveness in how housing supply is planned and delivered; and incentives to encourage the provision of housing supply. Obviously, there is a lot of work to be done. I am not giving the Government's reaction to the Barker plan this afternoon. The Government's reaction is not available. I can only give an initial reaction to her proposals.
I will also take this opportunity to talk about the important work that we are doing, as part of our sustainable communities plan, to tackle the issues targeted by the Barker plan, building on what I said last Wednesday. We are working hard to increase housing supply in London and the wider south east. Completions in the London, south-east and east of England regions have increased continuously since 2001. The most recent figures show an increase in completions of 8 per cent against the comparable period in 2002. Starts are up by 10 per cent. In addition to work to achieve existing plans, which as I made clear last week are for 930,000 extra dwellings up to 2016, we are working with local partners to deliver 200,000 extra houses on top of that figure in the Thames Gateway and the other three growth areas of the south-east: Milton Keynes/south Midlands, the Peterborough/Stansted/Cambridge/London corridor, and Ashford in Kent. We are learning the lessons of the past and making sure that we do not create soulless housing estates, but sustainable communities—mixed communities, not commuter communities—genuine communities with jobs and a social infrastructure.
I have said this repeatedly, and I said it again on Monday morning in Essex to representatives of district councils, not exactly welcoming to the overall big picture, as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, made clear. No infrastructure; no development. No infrastructure; no growth. It is just not on for the

317
Government to push the one and not deliver on the other. We are making sure that new infrastructure—roads, health centres, and schools—goes in before the houses are built, so that the services are already in place when people move in. Good progress is being made. We have only made a start, and I agree that there has been some difficulty in recent years. Over £2.7 billion has been made available for major transport schemes in the growth areas. We have put in place a funding package to enable the NHS to increase local service capacity in the growth areas. We are currently working with local education authorities and the Department for Education and Skills to ensure that schools' needs are met.
Our drive to increase housing supply is not confined to new developments. We are committed to accessing the potential of the 300,000 long-standing, private sector empty homes in England. Our approach emphasises voluntary measures through work with the Empty Homes Agency to develop local authority capacity, but following positive reactions to our consultation paper last summer, we are also considering how to introduce some degree of compulsion. We are exploring options for securing the release of vacant space over shops. We have established the Housing Above Shops Task Force, and we are looking closely at its recommendations for measures to overcome barriers to the release of more space above shops. Those barriers are serious, and I pay tribute to the positive response that the British Poverty Federation made when I first asked it to help on this matter, when housing was my daily responsibility. It has been positive about this, along with its other partners.
Through the Housing Corporation, we delivered over 23,000 new affordable homes in 2003–04, focused in London and the south-east, where the need is. In March, we met our target of bringing to an end the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless households with children, except in emergencies. We did not solve the problem of homelessness: I fully accept that it goes on, and more is needed. We have accepted the case made by Kate Barker for increased investment in social housing, and we will begin to address this in the 2004 spending review, which will come to fruition in July. We are also looking at how we can maximise the outputs from existing funding. The Housing Corporation is leading initiatives to improve the housing associations' performance.
We also want to reduce unit costs through better design and modern methods of construction. It is part of the problem, in a way. Some of the money has gone in, but social housing dropped. We were getting fewer square metres per pound. I do not want to pick out individual speeches, but I would say that the speech of the day goes to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. He raised the point about off-site manufacture and modern methods. The other week, I made a detour, while travelling around England, to get to Interbuild, which was at the National Exhibition Centre. I specifically went to the off-site manufacturing section, which was huge—compared to the exhibition that I
318
had gone to the previous year. it was massive. People were telling me about new factories being put down, £10 million investments for building the ingredients and the components. It was a wonder to see.
There is a site at the moment somewhere in Manchester that is the largest off-site manufacturing site for housing, with 1,100 dwellings under construction. There is a real push being given through the Challenge Fund to the Housing Corporation. It is a small blip in the overall production. If we can double or treble off-site manufacturing, it will still be small, but it would make a massive contribution. Most of the factories are in the Midlands and the north, for a start. The skills required are totally different, although as the noble Lord, Lord Best, will constantly point out, because I have heard him do it, when they get on to the construction sites and meet the British building industry they must work doubly hard at quality control to ensure that the assembly is done correctly. We are working on that.
A range of equity loans, intermediate renting, and shared ownership on new build is available to key workers, and £630 million will be spent on the scheme over the next two years. The Sustainable Communities Plan set out our commitment to prioritising development on brownfield sites and to promoting higher density developments through the planning system. That commitment has not changed. I will repeat the figure that I gave last week. For 2002, the latest figure available, 64 per cent of new dwellings were on brownfield sites. That was up from previous years. It will be more difficult to maintain that target as we step up the total housing production. That is the reason that we are not changing the target, as we have been pushed to do.
Our approach on housing density is now starting to take effect. In 2002, dwellings were built at an average of 27 dwellings per hectare, which overall is an increase on previous averages since 1996. The density directive now applies to the wider south-east as well, where the minimum is 30 dwellings per hectare. High quality design at higher densities will help us to preserve the countryside. Part of the renaissance of the cities is the other side of the card to preserving the flight from the cities to the countryside, so that there is less pressure on land. This point has been raised by several noble Lords, and it was also raised last week—I will repeat it. Green belt land occupies 14 per cent of the land. National parks, which are not green belt, occupy 8 per cent. Areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is not green belt, occupy 16 per cent. Green belt land is not pretty land. Green belt land is not national parks or AONB. Green belt land is there around urban settlements to stop urban sprawl. As such, it is pretty poor land in a lot of areas, but it is green belt. It is there for a reason. The idea that we would concrete over the prettiest land, if there is a release of green belt, is nonsense. We have pledged that where we do have to have an incursion into green belt, we will not only replace it, we will replace it with knobs on. There are over 20,000 more hectares of statutory green belt now than there were in 1997. We are growing green belt as we go along.

319
I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, who spoke in the gap about the helicopter ride. He was absolutely right. When I went to ODPM and found the Thames Gateway on my desk, which I did not know much about, I said, "I need to find out about the Gateway". Someone paid, one of the partners, for me to fly up and down the Gateway, both north and south, to have a look at the Gateway. The beauty of it is that when you are 500 metres up in the air, you do not see local authority boundaries. It is more joined-up. Most of the land is green belt anyway. It is the same when you go out into the country. Urban land occupies 9 per cent of the land, leaving green field at 90 per cent of the land—
Lord Sheppard of Didgemere: My Lords, it is better to fly even higher, because then you would not see any people, and you would not need to bother about the people.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I accept the point. Given those figures, 90 per cent of England is green field. If we meet our target as regards existing plans in the wider south-east of the 930,000 plus the extra 200,000, we will take about 1 per cent extra into the urban— that is, about 1 per cent off about 90 per cent of green field. That would take us to the beginning of Barker. No doubt about it—the existing plans under the regional planning guidance, plus the 200,000 in the communities plan, takes us to where Barker comes in. She predicates more on top of that. The take-in land is minimal compared to what is there.
I saw in the Guardian on Saturday, and the Sunday Telegraph on Sunday, some nonsense about concreting over our green and pleasant land. They ought to be forced to read the speeches made in the House today to see what the reality is of people coming from different parts of the country, taking a considered approach to a serious problem—homes for our people.
As was said, the research commissioned by Rowntree delineated by the noble Lord, Lord Best, will be extremely useful. My department will be very interested in taking on board the issue of how we can explain what we are trying to do, and—which is more to the point—what we are not trying to do. That is another reason for welcoming this debate.
We have recently expanded the communities plan to publish the document The Northern Way which gave slightly different solutions in different places. We had those because the country is not uniform. We all know that if we can get development in the north it will take pressure off the wider south-east. That is also crucial for jobs.
I would like to mention the Egan review and its publication Skills for Sustainable Communities. The Deputy Prime Minister asked Sir John Egan to carry out this review in April last year. The publication was launched on 19 April. There was no statement to either House in 2003 about the commissioning of the review. Somebody decided not to make one available at its launch. However, 50 copies of the publication are being walked over to the House as I speak. I take full
320
responsibility for not making sure that they were here beforehand. I knew about the debate, I should have asked, I assumed it would be here and I knew it had been published last week. I am not blaming anybody. I take full responsibility.
In the few minutes that remain I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his debate; to welcome the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, gave about the fact that we are not building and concreting over the land; and to reinforce the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, particularly his point about 80 per cent of the total cost figure equalling planning permission. If people can do that, they will get planning permission for building affordable housing. We will look at that. I will make sure that each idea that has come up today is fed into the department to be tested against the communities plan. We will see if we are doing those things that sound like good ideas.
I am reluctant to talk about bringing about changes by making changes to the tax system. I will get into deep water. Everything that has been said is sensible. I know what is going on in internal discussions. At the moment, the tax system is against generating and refurbishing homes and against brownfield sites. The same principles apply for greenfield sites and it is self-evident that it is more expensive to build on brownfield than greenfield. Something has to be done and that matter is being looked at.
The noble Earl, Lord Peel, raised the issue of exception sites. We have no intention to do anything to jeopardise existing schemes where they help the problems identified by Barker. I take his point about mixed developments in rural communities.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his contribution. He made an excellent case for the existence of people's Peers in this House. That does not apply to everybody. The debate has been excellent. I will make sure those points are put to the department.
After the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, had asked me her 15th of 16th question I lost count. She must have asked me 30 questions. I will see if I can get the answers to her points as they are not unimportant.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, raised the issue of building regulations. That is being looked at. However, building regulations only affect new buildings, and we have a stock of 26 million dwellings to deal with on the issue of insulation. Both CABE and the regional housing boards are looking at specialist housing design and smart houses. Quarrying extraction, like water supply, is also being looked at. It may not hit the headlines, it is not politically sexy, but work is going on regarding extraction of the quarrying materials that we need and the water supply required for growth.
I am running out of time. I have covered a lot of the points, although not all of them. I would like to mention specialist housing. A sustainable community without housing for the elderly is not sustainable, because it means that people are driven away from their community and lose the doctor and everybody else. They may want to move from the house they are

321
in now to a smaller one, but they do not necessarily have to lose their social infrastructure. A community is not sustainable if it is not a mixed community.
I apologise again about the Egan report. I welcome the debate and I will make sure that the points made will be fed in and tested against what is happening in the communities plan. I will stick to my word. When I look them in the eyes across the table in the morning I will tell them how good this debate was compared to the one in another place.
5.44p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I agree with that last sentiment. I have been extraordinarily lucky in the quality of people who have chosen to speak in this debate, and I have learned a great deal in the course of it. I am very grateful to all noble Lords.
I am particularly encouraged by what the Minister said about the speech of my noble friend—my noble kinsman. There is an awful lot that needs to be done to turn villages into sustainable communities. There is a lot of building to be done and it needs to be done in the right way. The more support we have for that the better. He and I both remember the countryside when it was full of people: I would love to see it that way again. That need not be destructive, it is merely going back to the way it used to be.
I would like to take the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, to task for wanting to export a lot of civil servants to the north. The north is not an extension of India, to which we can chuck all our low-grade jobs. If we are going to do that sort of thing, we must export the high-grade jobs too.
I suggest to the Minister that he could solve the problem he has with getting the south of England to adopt regional government if we were to move Parliament to the north. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Alcohol Abuse
5.46p.m.
Lord Aveburyrose to call attention to the burdens of alcohol abuse on local authorities, police, ambulance services and accident and emergency departments; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: The long-awaited publication of the Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England and the interim analytical report that preceded it are to be welcomed, but their message is not. They reveal the enormous burdens on society created by the misuse of alcohol—costed at £20 billion per year—and it is getting worse. Yet drink is so much a part our culture, that every analysis of the problem has to begin with a ritual emphasis on the benefits of moderate consumption. And so the Prime Minister begins his forward to the document by observing that:
"Millions of us enjoy drinking alcohol with few, if any, ill effects."
322
Unfortunately, 6.5 million people drink to an extent that they risk causing serious harm to themselves and other people, and 1.8 million are very heavy drinkers, almost certainly damaging their health and becoming prone to accidents.
Individuals should be able to make informed and responsible decisions about their own level of alcohol consumption—as the Prime Minister suggests—but it is for the Government to set the environment in which these choices are made, so that the total of all choices does not threaten our whole future, as it does now.
The Motion calls attention to the burdens of alcohol abuse on the public services. Behind the headline figure of 30,000 deaths per year—10 times the number of people that were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attack—lies a huge penumbra of disease and disability in the community. Local authorities have to deal not only with the immediate and most obvious manifestations of alcohol abuse such as vandalism and dirty streets, they have to pick up the pieces afterwards in terms of poor educational attainment, school exclusions—alcohol is directly involved in about 20 per cent of school exclusions, and indirectly in a further 20 per cent—domestic violence, the break-up of families, teenage pregnancies and child abuse. The NSPCC says that 70 per cent of the children taken into care have parents who are suspected of substance abuse, and 920,000 children live in a home where there is parental alcohol misuse.
Between 30 and 60 per cent of all child protection cases involved alcohol, the wide spread indicating that more research is needed in this, as in all, aspects of social and family effects.
Local authorities have to provide for the 50 per cent of rough sleepers who are alcohol dependent. In Westminster, the city council tells me that 75 per cent have a drink or drugs problem. The interim report mentions local authorities only twice, and makes no attempt to assess the impact of alcohol harm on them.
Some local authorities organise treatment, support and counselling programmes for people who are dependant on alcohol and wish to stop—at a cost of £17 million according to the Cabinet Office—but very few appear to co-ordinate their strategy, not only for the front line services, but also for children, education, the homeless and for the employees of the council who may have alcohol problems themselves. Sickness and absenteeism cost the economy £3 billion to £4 billion a year. Local authorities pick up their share of that tab.
Alcohol misuse accounts for 150,000 hospital admissions and one third of A&E attendances, at a cost to the health service of £1.7 billion a year. Ambulance personnel on the front line are often the victims of violent drunks but do not keep records of call-outs at which alcohol is a contributory factor, at an estimated cost of £0.5 billion a year. That is a serious gap in our knowledge. We need the information for the wider purpose of continuously measuring alcohol-related harm.
Professor Colin Drummond of St George's Hospital Medical School and others estimate that, in England and Wales, there are 1 million alcohol-related

323
attendances at A&E departments a year at weekends alone. They propose national A&E data collection on alcohol-related attendances, and it would be useful to have the department's view on that. It would require that A&E staff be trained to screen attenders and refer alcohol-related attenders to appropriate treatment. There are several ways of doing that. Professor Robin Touquet and his colleagues at St Mary's have developed the one-minute Paddington alcohol test, which enables them to identify patients at risk and refer them to a specially trained alcohol health worker. In 2001, only four A&E departments in the whole country had such a facility. It has been shown that, if alcohol misusers are identified at what Professor Touquet calls a "teachable moment", treatment is highly effective. Sixty per cent of patients who received brief interventions reduced their alcohol intake. The pay-off was that fewer of those patients returned to A&E for any reason.
There are teachable moments at which drinkers can be persuaded to change their behaviour in other environments: attendance at STD clinics; facio-maxillary clinics; fracture clinics; gastroenterology outpatient departments; and GP surgeries. There is nothing in the strategy about the GP contract, although, on average, the GP sees one heavy drinker every day. Twice as many people are dependent on alcohol as are dependent on all other drugs put together. Consumption is rising, as it has done almost continuously for the past 50 years. If even a small percentage of those people could be referred to an alcohol health worker at a teachable moment in the GP's surgery, the returns would be huge. Routine screening of new patients and brief intervention delivered opportunistically in primary healthcare is effective in reducing alcohol misuse and saving healthcare resources. Would the Government consider including that in the quality and outcomes framework of the new GMS contract?
In last week's debate on the strategy in another place, the honourable Member for Dudley North contrasted the £95 million spent on alcohol treatment services with the £1 billion spent on drugs services. He also mentioned the £95 million spent by the drinks industry on rebranding Smirnoff. That is bad enough, but my honourable friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland elicited the fact that, in the past seven years, the Department of Health had spent nothing on highlighting the dangers of alcohol misuse. It should fund posters and leaflets about the risks, which could be used in hospitals and GPs' surgeries, as well as in health education classes in schools.
We have heard how weekend binge-drinkers are out of control. The problem is getting worse, as the president of ACPO said on the "Today'. programme yesterday morning. Before that, Deputy Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said that he was concerned about the rise in alcohol-fuelled disorder, fights and disturbances in public places. Similar comments are made by police officers up and down the country, as we
324
saw in the BBC's "Drunk and Dangerous" series. A senior civil servant in the Home Office says that it is more or less impossible for the police to enforce the law in city centres. During one eight-week period in 2002, the duty nurse at Charing Cross police station saw 1,193 detainees and recorded that 37 per cent had identified alcohol as an issue for them. Nearly two thirds of sentenced men prisoners and 39 per cent of sentenced women prisoners admit to hazardous drinking. The Prison Service was to introduce an alcohol strategy for prisoners this spring. Has it yet done so? What are the details?
We shall have an opportunity to discuss the barmy idea that bingers will sober up, if they are given a few more hours in late-night vertical drink factories, when the Licensing Act guidance is approved by the House. Apart from the mayhem on the streets every Friday and Saturday night, alcohol is a factor in half the crimes that are committed and in an even higher proportion of violent crimes: 58 per cent of rapes; 60 to 70 per cent of homicides; 75 per cent of stabbings; 70 per cent of beatings; and 50 per cent of fights and domestic assaults. In 2000, 44 per cent of domestic violence victims said that their attacker was under the influence of alcohol, compared with 33 per cent in 1998. That is one of the evil effects that are increasing. Of those who die in fires, according to the chief of the London Fire Brigade, 23 per cent are over the blood alcohol limit for driving. In England and Wales, violent crimes reported to the police were up by 2 per cent last year; in London, the increase was 4 per cent.
Drink driving and drink-related road accidents and deaths are on the increase, but the number of drivers tested has gone down. The Government have rejected the idea of reducing the blood alcohol limit to 50 mg or allowing the police to test people randomly near pubs and clubs, as the BMA has proposed.
All the problems that we experience in England are found to a greater or lesser degree elsewhere in Europe. Yet, the only action at European level proposed in the strategy—and only if voluntary measures fail —is the compulsory labelling of bottles. There is no mention of the possibility that Europe might harmonise taxes on alcohol with a view to reducing consumption throughout the EU and equalising competition between member states. There is not a word about the WHO's European alcohol action plan and how the strategy connects with it.
Labelling would certainly help drinkers to know whether they are drinking safely. Three out of five drinkers claimed to know what the recommended benchmarks were, but, of those, two fifths had no idea of what they were, and only a third got the answer right. The label should tell drinkers not only how many units they can safely drink in a day but what that means for the stuff in that particular bottle. It should also give a health warning on the dangers of exceeding the safe amount, as suggested by the BMA.

325
Finally, I come to the most calamitous and irrational omission from the strategy: any policy for reducing the level of alcohol consumption, to which harm is directly related. The interim analytical report said:
"Price and availability are important levers on overall consumption: there is clear evidence of links between price and availability and overall consumption, and hence harm".
That is echoed in the report by the Academy of Medical Sciences, Calling Time, which recommends that action should be taken to reduce consumption to 1970 levels by increasing taxes. Research sponsored by the European Commission shows that there is a link between the amount of alcohol consumed and the incidence of harm in Europe as a whole. A WHO report, Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity, found that,
"the net effects of taxation and price increases … are to reduce alcohol use and related problems".
The strategy, perversely, rules out the use of the price mechanism. Instead, it proposes co-operation with the industry in the prevention and minimisation of the consequences of alcohol misuse on a voluntary basis. It is bizarre to trust the people who introduced alcopops and encouraged a huge increase in drinking by 11 to 15 year-olds.
The more the industry is involved in palliative schemes for detoxification, after-care and support, the more difficult it will be for any future government to disentangle themselves from such arrangements and introduce policies that bite on consumption. That cosy relationship will prevent the objective consideration of any measures that would damage the profits of the industry. It is like inviting arms merchants to stop wars or fast food chains to combat obesity.
The interim report shows that alcohol was 49 per cent more affordable in 2000 than it was in 1979. That is the reason for the torrents of alcohol that are engulfing a whole generation. Disposable incomes have increased by over a third during that period, while the real price of all kinds of alcoholic drink— beer, wines and spirits—has gone down. One need not be Adam Smith to understand why more and more people drink far too much. The Government's rejection of the laws of economics, coupled with their unfortunate reliance on the drinks industry, mean that the strategy has little hope of making a real impact on England's most dangerous habit. I beg to move for Papers.
Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing this debate. Alcohol abuse has become an epidemic and the noble Lord is to be applauded for drawing our attention to this blight and the burden it lays on our local authorities, hospitals and accident and emergency services. In economic cost, to say nothing of the human cost, the price tag associated with alcoholism is enormous.
I shall confine my comments today to a specific issue: foetal alcohol syndrome. It is probably true that many people know that drinking while pregnant can cause problems to the unborn baby, but the degree of
326
knowledge today is probably at a similar level to that in the 1950s about tobacco and cancer. The simple issue is this: a pregnant woman who drinks runs the risk of alcohol crossing her placenta and entering the body of her foetus. At early stages in its development, the foetus will have only a rudimentary liver, which clearly will not be able to filter alcohol out of the body. That is the stage when the baby is most vulnerable, but even as the pregnancy develops and the organs become better formed, the exposure is still there.
The problem is that alcohol in the body of the foetus can rob the brain of oxygen, destroy brain cells that can never be regenerated and retard the growth of other organs. The brain suffers from incomplete development, which will permanently affect the body of the baby from birth. Of course, many women drink when they are pregnant. Many drink when not knowing that they are pregnant. Many drink to celebrate that they are pregnant. And many drink because they know no better or because they think that the risk is minimal.
I shall describe what FAS means to a growing child. The problem is that the affected child usually looks normal and, at first glance, acts normally. One can talk to a child with FAS and wonder what all the fuss is about, but they are mentally retarded. Sadly, the ill informed reaction is to admonish such children for being stupid. The incidence of bullying at school is high. Dumb kids get a bad time; dumber kids are humiliated. Such children exhibit difficulties translating hearing into doing, thinking into saying, reading into speaking and feelings into words. They have difficulties perceiving similarities and differences. They cannot generalise and make associations, or compare and contrast, and they have difficulties with patterns, sequences and judgments. They have problems with emotions. Many cannot tell the time. They get lost if left alone. And when they leave school, they cannot hold down even the simplest of jobs. Typically, such children appear normal until they reach early puberty, then they tend to be abandoned by their playmates. They adopt new and younger friends, only to be dropped again when they too reach puberty. Eventually, such children become friendless.
The scale of the issue is massive. Each week, 28 babies are born with FAS. That is more than the combined number of babies born with muscular dystrophy, spina bifida, HIV infection and Down's Syndrome. It is one statistic that seems set to rise. I leave it to your Lordships to calculate the cost to society of FAS, but every one of those who is significantly afflicted becomes a major cost to our health service and to our special needs schools. The tragedy is that much of it could be avoided.
Your Lordships will hear in this debate and read in many learned papers about the effects of the alcohol pandemic. Nowhere is binge drinking more prevalent than in the 16 to 25 year-old female sector of society, and nowhere is it more widespread than in our own country. "Ladette" girls on the lash, getting legless on a Friday night, are prime participants in casual sex and prime candidates for inevitable pregnancy. I know that it is tough enough to persuade those young women to

327
go easy. They would probably retort that they know the risks and "What the hell? Friday night is Friday night". We have daughters and granddaughters and we know how hard it is to urge restraint. However, what those young women do not know is the real risk that they are running as the foetus in their body is being wrecked by their indulgence. It is here that government have a responsibility to be much more proactive in making such knowledge much more widely available.
Sometimes, we in this country stick our heads in the sand about those types of medical issues. The medical profession is not always at the vanguard of recognising new ailments such as FAS, preferring to say perhaps that it is a figment of the imagination. Sadly, so too are government. In the recent Cabinet Office paper, Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, FAS is barely acknowledged. The paper states only,
"that some groups, such as pregnant women and those engaging in potentially dangerous activities (such as operating heavy machinery), should drink less or nothing at all".
That is all right then. Problem sorted.
The United States takes a much more proactive approach to FAS. The medical profession and the caring services have a much greater awareness of the issue. The US Government have taken much more anticipatory action.
Were I to stand here this evening with two cans of Budweiser beer—one can bought in New York and the other bought in London—there would be a noticeable difference. The American can would have printed on it the following:
"GOVERNMENT WARNING: According to the Surgeon General. women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects".
The British can would have no such message. What does that tell us? It means either that we do not know or that we do not care. Either way, it is not very promising. We do not have a Surgeon General in this country, but we do have a Minister from the Department of Health, who will wind up our debate. Will he tell your Lordships' House why American women are entitled to be alerted to that issue whereas our own women are left in almost total ignorance?
Indeed, I read in the Daily Mail, which I admit is not my normal source of information, that government guidance is that mothers-to-be can safely drink up to four units a week. Even assuming that a young person knows what a unit is, which is highly questionable, that advice is wrong and dangerous. The message should be loud and clear: "If you are thinking of getting pregnant, do not drink. If you are pregnant, do not drink". It is a clear message, so why are the Government not giving it?
We live in a culture in which the drinks companies are allowed to target their marketing to young and impressionable women. It is cool to knock back Tequila slammers, Bacardi Breezers and Smirnoff Ice. I talk to people in the industry. They respond with warm platitudes, but they do little. And how about this gem? I can hardly believe that it is true, but I read that
328
Tesco is recruiting pregnant women as wine tasters. Apparently, pregnant women have an enhanced sense of taste and smell and can detect subtle differences. How macabre is that?
I conclude with a plea to the alcohol industry. You are playing a very dangerous game and you will do well to re-read the history of the battle that was waged against the tobacco industry in both the United States and here. In the 1950s, the tobacco companies knew full well of the connection between tobacco and lung cancer, yet they kept the data under wraps. Today, the alcohol companies are in a similar position. They know the correlation between drinking in pregnant women and subsequent birth defects, yet they are keeping quiet. The tobacco companies were sued for many billions of pounds and they nearly went out of business. The alcohol companies could be on a parallel track. My advice to them is to address this problem and to recognise its dangers. They should work closely with government and the voluntary organisations so that this looming tragedy can be avoided.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. My own speech will not remotely have the specialist quality of his. I thank him for having raised a subject of which I had some inkling, although I had no conception of it in terms of the degree of detail which he used. Those remarks are genuine. I join the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, also in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on securing and initiating this debate and on the characteristically well informed and constructive way in which he spoke. As I remarked at the end of the previous debate, both debates today have been secured by Balliol men. As one who has the same college loyalty, I quote again, as I did in the earlier debate, the observation of Phillip Guedalla, a man similarly blessed or afflicted:
"Life is just one damned Balliol man after another".
I dare say that all of us in your Lordships' House who have prepared for this debate have been as depressed by the sombre statistics that we have studied as we have been impressed by the comparative unanimity of the statistics, which saves one from the unproductive effort of comparing and rationalising the various hymn sheets. Ministers, too, such as Hazel Blears and Melanie Johnson, have quoted statistics that we can recognise.
As to the debate's substance as against statistics, the debate was stigmatised for me yesterday within the Palace, but outside the Chamber, as being implicitly the self-indulgence of puritans. Hogarth was quoted to me in the same context, the quoter perhaps forgetting that Hogarth's famous cartoons were to illustrate the virtues of beer and the evils of gin. Of course, it was in any case in Hogarth's lifetime that Mirabeau was the first man in the history of western thought to utter the word "civilisation". Indeed, in the past century proportionate British consumption of alcohol has fallen, although in the past half century, due to the growing enthusiasm for wine, it reversed its decline and rose again.

329
The particularly worrying statistics relate to the behaviour of under 16 year-olds. The proportion drinking has remained fairly constant, but the consumption of those who drink has doubled in a decade, and a third of those under 15 admit to having experienced being drunk by the time they were 13. Only one in 10 French or Italian children says the same. We share with Denmark and Ireland having the heaviest teenager drinkers in Europe, and there is an interesting illustration of our behaviour on the Continent currently available on the London Underground. Our preferred continental destination among stag night cities has moved from Amsterdam to Prague and Tallinn. The illustrations in the lastminute.com advertisements beside the escalators for trips to Prague and Tallinn show that in neither case is the architectural charm of the cities the big draw. The good citizens of Budapest—Anglophiles since the 19th century—had better be warned that they are next in line.
Against that background, I hope that the Government will pay attention to Turning Point's recommendation that young people as well as voluntary sector and community representatives should be involved in planning policy, environmental design, public transport and initiatives on safe places in which to congregate. That would take planning and licensing laws beyond being simply the responsibility of the police and the local authorities. Westminster has always had good community and police liaison, and a good project was developed in the West End during the previous Parliament under the chairmanship of my former Westminster parliamentary colleague, Sir John Wheeler, which could serve as a paradigm.
From my similar previous inner-city constituency responsibility, when I had been the MP for the City of London for a month, a surgical team at Bart's invited me to shadow it for 24 hours to see how its day was spent. I remember being warned late in the evening that I would be roused from my bed in the hospital if emergency surgery had to be carried out on casualties that Friday night from within or without Islington pubs. Of course, Thursdays, Fridays and Saturdays in inner cities provide A&E departments with their heaviest nights.
In a BBC News online broadcast on 18 October 2003, Dr Paul Ransom, the A&E consultant for Brighton and Sussex NHS Trust, said:
"On Thursday, Friday, Saturday nights we could get by with a quarter of the staff on the evening shifts if it wasn't for alcohol".
Seventy per cent of relevant respondents to an opinion poll thought that the number of patients they were treating, whose illness or injuries were the result of alcohol misuse, had increased during the past five years.
The total cost of alcohol-related crime, assaults and disorder in England and Wales is estimated to be up to £7.3 billion. To that is added up to £4.7 billion as a consequence of the human and emotional impact suffered by victims of crime, including, of course, the cost of victim support services. If those combined
330
figures are accurate, they constitute 60 per cent of the £20 billion that Turning Point believes alcohol costs the country each year. That figure presumably includes many of the one in six of NHS staff who the Commission for Health Improvement found had been subject to violence at work. The British crime survey of 2001–02 stated that 47 per cent of all those assailed that year believed that their assaults had been alcohol-influenced.
As to behaviour that may not necessarily lead to violence, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, 6.4 million people have levels of drink consumption over the recommended guidelines. To be fair—or, on the other hand, unfair—to them, almost 50 per cent of the nation do not even know what the guidelines are. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a specific question. Turning Point's Waiting for Change report states that the Department of Health spends 18 times more on funding research into drug treatment, compared with research into alcohol harm reduction. It would be interesting to hear the department's rationale for quite so large a discrepancy.
However, to revert to the Government's strategy, I am interested in why the DCMS does not join with the Home Office and the Department of Health in the shared responsibility across government to make the strategy happen. I acknowledge that the DCMS did not submit the Licensing Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny—that was not the case with its Communications Bill and the draft Gambling Bill. The consequences showed up in your Lordships' House, which received that Bill first. Of the 88 defeats that the Government received in your Lordships' House in the previous Session, one in eight was on the Licensing Bill—the second largest number of any of the 18 measures that suffered defeat at one time or another.
As the Bill went through after a four-year gestation period, it became apparent that many of the premises—I do not mean licensed premises—were faulty. For example, the Government argued that spreading closing times would reduce disorder. By contrast, police in Westminster testified that most crime within the borough occurred at 3 a.m. The Government praised Manchester as a model for its code of practice. By contrast, the City of Manchester said that excessive drinking in the city centre was, inter alia, putting off students from pursuing Manchester as a university destination. The Commons Minister in charge of the Bill then visited Manchester and found that there was a 125 per cent saturation of licensed premises in the city centre, leading to cut-throat, competitive happy hours to attract custom. It says a good deal for putative Mancunian students that the prospect of discounted alcohol might put them off going.
Most of all, however, the Government argued throughout the Bill that alcohol-induced anti-social behaviour outside licensed premises fell outside the scope of the Bill and would be resolved by other means. It says volumes for that attitude that yesterday ACPO's spokesman, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, should have spoken as he did on the

331
radio about the relative incapacity of the police to control such behaviour, and that such attention that they can give is at the price of other policing.
I remark in passing that the strategy is silent on how the police and local authorities will take action against retailers and licensed premises that do not operate in a responsible manner. I also personally regret that the Bill wiped clean the slate of all the undertakings as to their conduct, which local communities had painstakingly secured from landlords in magistrates' courts down the decades.
In conclusion, I fear that I have not found the source of an alleged comment by the Home Office in mid-March this year, though it may have been a quotation of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the new drinking laws would create a crime explosion in cities and town centres; whereas the following week, which I infer was the week in which the strategy was published, the Secretary of State for the DCMS, the right honourable Tessa Jowell, said that the new laws would prevent crime. That is at odds with the Government's exclusion of consideration of antisocial behaviour during the passage of the Licensing Bill, and it seems to me that the link between the licensing laws and the strategy stands in need of strengthening rather than the opposite.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I start by declaring my interests as a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority and as a councillor on Oxfordshire County Council. I am also a member of two crime and disorder partnerships. I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Avebury for introducing this subject for debate.
Dealing with the anti-social behaviour that results from drunkenness is one of the greatest burdens on police resources. Urinating in the streets, throwing missiles— often bottles and glasses—the use of obscene language and causing minor public disorder or damage may seem relatively insignificant, but if left unchallenged these acts lead to a fear of crime, an acceleration in public disorder and a decline in the mixed city economy that we all aim for. The high-visibility police presence required to deter such behaviour is very resource intensive.
The arrest of drunken offenders incurs significant personal risk to police officers. Furthermore, such offenders are vulnerable while in custody. Drunkenness is a common feature of death in custody, which in turn leads to huge inquiries that eat into police time. Drunken prisoners take longer to process, require many more visits from prison doctors—who are always in short supply—need more cell checks and remain in custody longer while they sober up. There are also obvious impacts on cell hygiene, which gives rise to extra costs. Officers are diverted from other law-enforcement duties to deal with alcohol abuse, which obviously has other adverse effects on crime.
The problem we confront is serious and all the available evidence suggests that it is getting worse. Noble Lords have heard enough about that evidence
332
from other speakers in the debate. The new licensing law, for which we still await the guidance notes. has been described as a "leap in the dark" in seeking to tackle the situation. I submit that this has been pushed by the drinks and entertainment industries. They are obsessed with profits, engage in irresponsible sales promotions and ignore the social consequences of alcohol abuse. In my view, the Government are too concerned about being considered "anti business" to take the firm action needed here. They rely heavily on voluntary codes of good practice and a voluntary fund aimed at national level projects to promote social responsibility.
While no doubt it is difficult to judge the effects of the new Licensing Act before it comes into force, research suggests that there will be an increase rather than a decrease in anti-social behaviour. Studies undertaken in recent years in Ireland, Scotland, Holland, Germany and New Zealand where permitted hours have been deregulated all show that this has led to increased disorder by extending binge drinking late into the night which, in turn, increases and extends the need for all sorts of other services, including the police. That puts an extra strain on their resources. Moreover, as a councillor, I can bear witness to the costs incurred by local councils in clearing up the mess resulting from a night of binge drinking.
The British Crime Survey shows that many non-domestic alcohol-related assaults take place in the context of the night-time economy, half of them around clubs and pubs, and 70 per cent at weekends. Most other incidents occur in surrounding public places and on public transport. Half of the incidents involve injury, and in one-fifth of them the aggressor is armed with a glass or a bottle. Under 40 per cent of incidents come to the notice of the police because they are dealt with by that dubious army of quasi-legal individuals called "bouncers", who operate somewhere on the far fringes of the law. Some 50 to 80 per cent of violent crime is committed by an intoxicated person and, as we have heard, much domestic violence is alcohol-related.
I am very glad to see that a health Minister is to reply to the debate because he can take a slightly more dispassionate view of the situation than perhaps was the case while the Licensing Bill was being considered. The licensing law regime should be very tough with the immediate and, if necessary, permanent closure of premises and banning of staff if violence or open drug taking has occurred. I am not interested in closing premises for 24 hours; I really do mean that such premises should be permanently barred.
There should be an immediate start for the treatment and education programmes referred to by my noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. These should be funded by a levy on the drinks and entertainment industries and should cover both the local and the national level, otherwise initiatives like arrest referral schemes and drug and alcohol action teams will not work. At present they are pitifully funded. I have just read the minutes of a meeting of an Oxfordshire drug and alcohol action team. The word "alcohol" was not mentioned in those

333
minutes because the team is struggling just to deal with the drug problem. That is why, as I have said, I am particularly glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is to reply to the debate.
We must ask whether the advertising and promotion of drinks should be outlawed, as is the case for tobacco. I know that drinking is a social pleasure, but it is no excuse for violence, drunken driving or wife beating. Lastly, the offences of serving people who are under age or are already under the influence should not be treated as trivial misdemeanours, but taken seriously and be the cause of the loss of the licence. I say that because there is no doubt that drinking is being taken up at an ever younger age. Those charged with enforcing the law, local authority trading standards departments, are pitifully underfunded, and the number of checks being carried out is very low.
I hope that I have been constructive, but the problem we face is extremely serious and dangerous.
6.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on introducing this debate and concur with his wish for an informed strategic rather than piecemeal approach to dealing with alcohol abuse. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned the long history of the problem. I shall not embarrass noble Lords by bursting into song, but mawkish old ballads such as "Father, dear father", with their melodramatic stories of social disaster because of drink, remain uncomfortably pertinent to this debate, and the need to reduce alcohol consumption.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for mentioning Manchester. It has the largest number of undergraduates of any city in this country and, while I acknowledge his points about the fears of potential applicants, I am glad to report that applications to Manchester's universities remain very strong indeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the number of A&E admissions. The latest figures in Manchester show that two-thirds of all people presenting themselves at the North Manchester Hospital A&E department on Thursday, Friday or Saturday nights are there because of an alcohol-related injury. Some 80 per cent of those attending each night at the Royal Infirmary are there for alcohol-related reasons. Moreover, I am told by our ambulance service that over half of their call-outs in the evenings and at weekends are to incidents where alcohol is a factor. I have also been told of increased violence being meted out to crews and paramedics.
We have just held a summit meeting in Manchester of the police, politicians, academics and the people who work with those whose lives have been damaged by alcohol to assess the level of burdens placed on our local services in the face of the problems indicated. A survey has shown that one in four men in the northwest admit to binge drinking at least once a week. That our local burdens arising from alcohol abuse are not worse is thanks in part to the Greater Manchester
334
police City Centre Safe scheme, which has been rightly praised in the Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy. We are also grateful for the co-ordinated approach to policing and protecting people who seek a good night out. That has been initiated by our police and it has been helpful to hear the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, on policing.
The Manchester experience shows that A&E departments can be relieved of burdens related to alcohol when efforts are made by local authorities and emergency services to co-ordinate transport home, to remove sources of conflict and vulnerability, to promote education in healthy drinking and to encourage licensees to behave more responsibly. As a result of those co-ordinated measures in Manchester, we have seen a fall of 12 per cent in reported violent incidents related to alcohol.
However, the reason why such measures had to be taken in the first place was the rapid growth in the city centre of the number of pubs and clubs which have greatly increased Manchester's alcohol-related problems. I cannot see how the Government can praise City Centre Safe on the one hand, and a moment later argue that the growth and development of licensed premises will have no effect on public order, not to mention the destructive effect on health, which has rightly and alarmingly been described by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell.
In the last year for which we have regional figures, mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol accounted for nearly 9,000 hospital admissions in the north-west. As your Lordships will know that affects more than just the person being treated. Rather alarmingly, case audits in Greater Manchester reveal that 30 per cent of all child protection cases on the at-risk register are alcohol related. In other words, as noble Lords have eloquently demonstrated, this is a multi-faceted problem that has a complex network of tragic effects.
Evidence from Greater Manchester shows that much can be achieved when agencies think strategically and are enabled to work together. The Government's Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy recognises that. But behind those words we need more resources and much clearer warnings from the Government about the all too often disastrous consequences of alcohol. Nationally the voluntary or charity sector provides about 70 per cent of services available to help those suffering from alcohol abuse or misuse.
Through the years those excellent initiatives have grown piecemeal and they are often unevenly located. In Manchester city we have, for example, the Guinness Trust, Turning Point, which has already been mentioned in a national context, community alcohol teams, the NHS alcohol arrest referral scheme, Alcohol and Drug Services, of which I am patron, which has its abstinence based Twelve Step day care service with after care support, the Booth Centre at the cathedral and so on. There are also educational programmes helping both secondary school pupils and those of any age misusing drugs at teachable moments, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, described.

335
All that is impressive, but the trouble is that nearby in a neighbouring district, under a different local authority, there is far less. There are no local in-patient detox beds, no services for alcohol screening and assessment, no day-care provision and so on. The truth is that people in that local authority area do not receive the same level of help. That is a savage paradox. It means that such people end up as a burden on hospitals and other services, not least because their mental or physical conditions have deteriorated because help was not available in the first place.
The message is clear. We need to spend money to save money. That is how we treat other drug addictions. Over £1 billion of public money is invested in other drug services each year. Yet the agency, Alcohol Concern, estimates that only £95 million is spent on alcohol services, primarily from the budgets of primary care trusts and social services. I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I gather that only £7 million is spent directly by central government.
None of the burdens addressed tonight will be eased without the support of the licensing industry. To counter binge drinking, Greater Manchester Police have initiated the Best Bar None scheme where licensees are inspected to ensure that they have proper standards of customer care and our alcohol strategy commissioning group is building links between those who treat people with drink problems and the alcohol industry. I hear the reservations made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about that kind of seemingly cosy arrangement, but we have seen it have a positive effect.
Our public services across the country bear a great burden of care for people who misuse alcohol and those whose lives they touch. By working together and with agencies in the voluntary sector, they are able to achieve much, but they need a coherent strategy. The Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy recognises the desirability of that. However, strategic thinking requires strategic budgeting. So the verdict is so far so good, but let us go further—much further—and try to remove the evils of over-drinking that have blighted the lives of far too many for far too long.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has done us all, and particularly the Government, a very good turn by initiating this debate and for outlining the problem so clearly. The recent publication of the Government, to which many noble Lords have referred, the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy, shows the Government's concern.
As well as outlining the extent of the problem, the document makes a series of proposals for action—the right reverend Prelate described some of them—which, if carried out, may well ameliorate the situation, but nowhere in the strategy did I find mention of a serious attempt to curb the ever-increasing supply, availability and consumption of alcohol. Consumption in the UK has risen from an equivalent of 5.5 litres of pure alcohol her head per
336
annum in 1960 to 11 litres in 2002, a doubling of the figures. Over the same period, while the price of alcoholic drinks, including tax, has of course risen, it has fallen by some 60 per cent in relation to average earnings. At no time in the past century, or perhaps ever, has alcohol been so cheap in this country relative to average salaries or pay.
To attempt to control such a popular addictive habit, when its source material is so easily available, is a Canute-like exercise. It is the equivalent of treating patients with typhoid or cholera while paying no attention to the contaminated water supply. As well as a falling relative cost, consumption is encouraged by subtle advertising, suggesting to young people that drinking certain new products is cool. A Smirnoff Ice Black, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mitchell, sounds very wicked and rather exciting; to drink it surely is a sign of maturity and success. The advertising suggests that one will be a success particularly in sex, whereas experience points in the other direction.
Studies by Saffer and Dave, and others, cited by the Calling Time report from the Academy of Medical Sciences, mentioned by the noble Lord, says that,
"alcohol advertising affects attitudes and behaviour, especially in the young … Among young people, more exposure co alcohol advertising: increases positive beliefs about alcohol and drinking; reduces perception of risk; shapes perception and encourages pro-drinking attitudes; shapes perceptions about acceptable levels of alcohol intake (upwards); [and] increases consumption".
There is an almost perfect correlation between expenditure on alcohol advertising and weekly alcohol consumption by 11 to 15 year-olds. Contrary to the Strategy Unit document, there is evidence that banning advertising can be effective. There is also evidence that hard-hitting counter-advertising works for both alcohol and smoking; but where promotion of alcoholic drinks is widespread the impact of the counter-advertising is swamped. I am aware that there are already restrictions on advertising but, by keeping your eyes open, it is not difficult to see that these are not very effective and are widely breached.
It is interesting to draw a parallel with our other two major public health problems—tobacco smoking and obesity—where industry is promoting the consumption of products harmful to health. In both cases, as with alcohol, industry is able to mobilise far greater resources promoting its products than the Government are in discouraging their consumption. Noble Lords will all remember the powerful rearguard action of the tobacco industry long after the link with lung cancer and heart disease was firmly established. As has already been pointed out, the ban on advertising tobacco products was achieved only after a long struggle and after it was shown that voluntary restrictions did not work. Control of smoking in workplaces has still no legal backing, although the issue is being kept alive in your Lordships' House by the Bills of my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
In regard to the food industry's promotion of "obesogenic"—I like that word—foods to children, the issue is still at the stage of allowing the industry time to put in place a self-regulatory code of practice,

337
with the implication that if this is not effective regulation will be imposed. This is the policy proposed by the strategy paper, where it states:
"If industry actions are not beginning to make an impact in reducing harms"—
by early in the next Parliament—
"Government will assess the case for additional steps, including possibly legislation".
I remain sceptical that the voluntary route will be any more effective than it was with the tobacco industry but I appreciate that, in the words of Tessa Jowell regarding food advertising, the Government,
"doesn't want to pick a fight with the industry".
This is, of course, a theme that has underpinned much of government policy since 1997—let alone the previous government where it was only to be expected. But many of us—not only on these Benches and in the health professions—feel that the Government would have huge popular support if they took a much tougher line with industry when an important public health issue is at stake, as it is here.
To return to the relative reduction in the cost of alcohol over the past 40 years, would not the most obvious step be to start rectifying this by increasing excise duty? Some may argue that with duty on alcohol so low in many countries in the European Union, legal personal importation—with or without additional smuggling—would undermine this. They have an important point.
However, the extremely generous traveller's allowance for carrying alcohol across borders could be reviewed. At present, taking the standard recommended UK limits of 21 units weekly for a male and 14 for a female, permitted importation on a single journey—perhaps with a white van—would amount to two years' supply for a man and three for a woman. Altering this allowance might have to be agreed via the EU, which would delay matters endlessly, but there is a clause, I think in the Treaty of Maastricht, which allows unilateral action by a member state where an important public health issue is involved.
There is little doubt that increases in cost are the single most effective way of reducing consumption. My noble friend Lord Warner may correct me, but I could not find a single reference in the Strategy Unit document to the effect of price or excise duty on consumption. Why is this not being considered when it was explicitly used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the campaign to reduce smoking?
Finally, there is one other issue which is relevant to today's discussion—it has been discussed in much more detail by my noble friend Lord Mitchell—and that is the effect on the foetus of maternal drinking. The foetal alcohol syndrome is now a recognised clinical entity but accurate statistics of its incidence are not available, partly because it is difficult to diagnose. The Department of Health states that there were 95 "finished consultant episodes"—which are not equivalent to cases—in 2000, 90 in 2001 and 128 in 2002, but it can give no further information such as that given to us by my noble friend Lord Mitchell.
338
It is not certain whether the incidence in the UK is higher or lower than in other countries. The World Health Organisation gives the rate as 0.33 to 9 per 1,000 births in various countries. The figures given by my noble friend Lord Mitchell are twice the highest of those figures. I wonder whether my noble friend can account for this discrepancy.
Finally, I agree very much with my noble friend that because alcohol is most damaging to the foetus in the early stages of pregnancy—often before the woman is even aware that she is pregnant—this should be made a very explicit and powerful point in any anti-drinking health education.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important subject today. It is important because alcohol misuse is a very serious health problem with significant social costs because there is an increasing level of alcohol-related crime and public disorder and it is an enormous and increasing burden on the public purse.
In wording the Motion we are debating today, the noble Lord drew attention to the burdens faced by local authorities, emergency services and A&E departments. I suggest that it does not much matter where the burden actually falls: either way it is too great and the taxpayer is footing the bill. Many noble Lords have spoken about the extent of the problem; I should like to talk about possible solutions and focus on those in the Government's strategy paper.
My two opening comments are general. First, it is not a strategy paper; it is entirely tactical. Perhaps one of the reasons the Government make such a meal of things is that they have not learnt the difference between strategy and tactics. The paper is a collection of individual ideas. I think the right reverend Prelate described it as "piecemeal". I do not think he meant that critically, but he is right. Some of the ideas are good, some not so good, but the paper contains no overall strategy except to try to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. It does not really need a strategy paper to conclude that that is a laudable aim.
Secondly, I wonder why it took two-and-a-half or perhaps even three years to produce. I know several people working in this field who could have written the paper in a week or two. Frankly, it is fairly basic stuff. That does not make it bad, but it is fairly basic.
My next comments are indeed criticisms. The paper refers to two categories of problem drinkers—binge drinkers and chronic drinkers. At one stage the paper also refers to the "chronic alcohol syndrome".
At this point I should declare an interest as chairman, for almost 10 years now, of the Drug and Alcohol Foundation, which is one of the leading providers of day care for drug addicts and alcoholics in the City of Westminster; and for 15 years I have been chairman of the Addiction Recovery Foundation, which is now the main provider of information to professionals working in this field.

339
Last week we hosted at Church House the inaugural UK/European Symposium on Addictive Disorders. Some of the leading providers of care for addicts and alcoholics in the world came to our conference and. although I asked every single one that I reasonably could, no one knew what a chronic drinker is and no one had heard of "chronic alcohol syndrome". It is called "alcoholism"; it is an illness. It is chronic, but it is also treatable.
Your Lordships may think that I am being pedantic but accurate definition of the issues is essential if any strategy is to work. Alcoholism is an identifiable, treatable illness. Alcohol misuse or abuse, whichever you want to call it, on the other hand, is not an illness and is therefore not responsive to treatment. All alcoholics misuse alcohol but not all alcohol misusers are alcoholics: to waste expensive and scarce healthcare resources on someone who cannot benefit is clearly absurd. The strategy's failure accurately to identify and differentiate between these two groups makes one of the four "key aims" of the strategy a great deal more difficult to deliver, therefore. That "key aim" is described as the,
"better identification and treatment of alcohol misuse".
It is entirely correct that early identification and referral is vital for any successful treatment programme. The strategy's Chapter 5, headed "Identification and treatment", is very difficult to quarrel with. The real problem is that much of the treatment within the health service is of fairly indifferent quality; and that the NHS and local authority purchasers of care have appeared reluctant over the years to buy from the voluntary sector, where there is often a better quality of care at a lower price. My understanding is that the National Treatment Agency is to be given the responsibility for alcohol treatment. Although it has not yet happened, it is a very significant step forward. I congratulate the Government on that decision, which those of us in the drug and alcohol treatment world have been pressing for for many years—indeed, since long before the NTA was born or thought of.
However, I hope that the Minister is aware of the National Treatment Agency's concern that this added responsibility will not be accompanied by an appropriate increase in resources. To increase the NTA's workload without increasing its budget—as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, suggested—would threaten the progress it has made in drug treatment, while severely handicapping its ability to improve the treatment of alcoholism.
Of course I know that no government paper is ever going to be perfect, but sometimes I am left to wonder. The summary to Chapter 5 in the strategy, states:
"Government will improve the identification and referral of those with alcohol problems by: running pilot programmes to establish whether earlier identification and treatment of those with alcohol problems can improve health, lead to longer-term savings, and be embedded into mainstream health care provision".
340
How can earlier identification and referral not improve things? I really hope that the Government are not going to waste time trying to prove what has already been proven on countless occasions. It is remarks like that that really do cause one to despair.
The second substantive point I wish to make concerns education and communication, which is covered in Chapter 4 of the strategy. These comments apply as much to drugs as they do to alcohol. I started my remarks about treatment with a criticism, and I shall do the same now, if only to get the negatives out of the way.
For some years the Government have insisted on their campaign to encourage "sensible drinking". That has to rate—I have to tell your Lordships—as one of the most irritating and pointless campaigns ever embarked upon. Alcoholics cannot drink sensibly, and binge drinkers, somewhat obviously, have already made the decision not to. The campaign is backed by "guidelines", which suggest the appropriate maximum units that men and women can safely consume daily or weekly. The problem is that no one knows, understands, or even cares what these units are. They are entirely artificial and were invented 15 years ago by the Portman Group, which is an industry group.
At my conference last week, I asked every professional counsellor I could find if he or she knew how many units they could safely drink, and whether he or she found the existence of this advice useful in his or her work. Without exception I was told that the whole exercise is a pointless waste of time and effort. So I ask the Minister to convey to his department the message that the alcohol treatment field would like to see an end to "sensible drinking" and advice about "units".
There is an assumption throughout that giving information—educating people, by which I mean children and young people—about the dangers, will deter them from risky behaviour, and thus reduce harm. At the bottom of page 27 the strategy says,
"provide alcohol education in schools that can change attitudes and behaviour".
In case your Lordships have not noticed, I have just removed my treatment hat, and placed on my head my hat as chairman of Mentor UK, which is part of the International Mentor Foundation, the world's leading organisation in the field of substance misuse prevention. Mentor's extensive experience throughout the world means that I can say without fear of contradiction that there is no evidence whatever that providing drug and/or alcohol education has the slightest positive effect on behaviour. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence to indicate that it may even lead to an increase in drug and alcohol use.
Prevention and education are two completely different things. We do not know how to prevent young people from misusing drugs and alcohol, but there is increasing evidence that there may be some initiatives we can take to help them to alter their behaviour. As yet the Government have failed to understand that, and, without a commitment from the Government anything we do is going to be too little.

341
My organisation is working with three government departments, and we are starting to get some interesting results.
Your Lordships may have seen the coverage in the Times on Monday, and today some interesting letters about a research project we are running in conjunction with the Department of Health and with the support of Defra into drug and alcohol use among young people in rural areas. If the Government are really serious about trying to prevent the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has brought to our attention, this is the way to go about it. I hope that the Minister, when he comes to respond, will make a commitment to developing evidence-based prevention programmes, and have a careful look at the results of the existing education programmes, because I think he will find that they are fairly disappointing.
Assuming that treatment can and will be improved—a big assumption—and that we will cease to waste money on pointless education programmes, and focus on evidence-based prevention, we can make real progress. But it seems to me that in many ways the most difficult area is this subject is that of "binge drinkers". They are a uniquely British phenomenon. There is some evidence that there is some binge drinking in Australia and Denmark, and it is starting in France, but fundamentally it is a British problem. It is a relatively new problem and no one is clear therefore what the solution might be. Those among the binge drinkers who are alcoholic will, in theory, of course get picked up within the improved treatment process that the Government proposes. It is the others—the binge misusers—that present the real problem.
I suspect that part of the solution to the problem of binge drinking and public drunkenness—if I can call it that—lies, as has been suggested, with the alcohol industry itself. The advent of stronger lagers and those revolting, sweet and extremely strong fruit drinks makes the business of getting very drunk extremely easy. The relatively recent concentration of licensed premises in town and city centres only serves to encourage that. But there are solutions. The alcohol industry must accept its share of the responsibility to resolve these issues. That means paying more attention to being good citizens than to increasing profits, because if it does not in the long term I believe the industry's profits will suffer. It needs to realise that the implied threat behind the strategy paper is that if it does not use its considerable financial and structural muscle as an industry to help resolve the issue of public drunkenness and disorder, the Government will quite rightly take steps to do so; and I suspect that the industry will not like those steps.
That leaves me to conclude that the answer to the implied question of the noble lord, Lord Avebury, is that in the foreseeable future this is going to be a considerable drain on the public purse through a number of different agencies. Despite my criticisms I think this strategy paper is a first small step in the right
342
direction. But I do hope that the process of implementation will be a little quicker than the drafting of the original paper.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for instigating this debate on a subject which needs exposing; and data need collecting on alcohol abuse so that positive improvements can be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I serve on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Alcohol Abuse, which is served by Alcohol Concern. This group helps to keep Members of Parliament and Peers up-to-date with changing trends and developments concerning alcohol abuse. The members of the group no doubt have many different reasons for attending. I, for one, have seen several people lose their lives far too early due to alcohol abuse or the combination of drugs and alcohol abuse, or drugs, alcohol and anti-depressants, which can become a lethal cocktail of abuse to the systems of vulnerable people.
The subjects the noble Lord has put down for discussion are admirable, but the hidden problems of alcohol abuse in the home and the desperate plight behind closed doors of the children of alcoholics must not be forgotten, including that of babies who may suffer violent attacks from parents who cannot control their anger due to alcohol. Many children have to try and keep homes running while their parents or mother is incapable due to alcohol.
The unpredictability of an alcoholic mother is a huge problem for school children who are unable to bring a friend from school home in case their mother is drunk and they feel embarrassed and let down. So often in these circumstances children have to cover up and pretend all is well, when they feel the desperate need of help and support.
Not long ago there were some television programmes showing the incredibly difficult job the police have in controlling drunk people after heavy drinking in some city centre areas. When heavy drinkers turn violent, they become a menace to society. With the extension of drinking hours and the problem of alcoholic behaviour in Britain, the message coming out of Parliament is a confused one for everyone.
Some time ago I visited prisoners being kept in Wandsworth police cells, as the prisons were full. One prisoner was being processed by a GP. The prisoner so obviously had a serious alcoholic problem, I said to the GP, "What is going to happen to him?". The answer was, "If only I had a drying-out alcoholic unit to send him to, that is what I would do". We have a huge public health problem on our hands due to alcohol abuse. The long-awaited Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England has at last been published, but unlike the drug strategy—where funds were available—there is already concern that, without resources, progress in harm reduction for alcohol will wither on the vine.
It would be totally wrong if the Government took much-needed money from the health service to fund the alcohol strategy. You only have to look at the

343
desperate need for more intensive paediatric cots for premature babies who have to be shunted round the country, or the vital need for the control of the dreaded MRSA and other hospital infections. The public and press are beginning to know about many of these needs.
Surely the vast drinks industry should help foot the bill of providing rehabilitation facilities for these people who realise alcohol is ruining their lives and that they need help to come off and stay off. I hope the Minister will agree that alcohol abuse and treatment of people with an alcoholic problem needs the combination of primary care trusts and local authorities working together along with voluntary groups. This is where there should be a framework for evaluation, joined-up government and local needs assessment. Alcohol problems cover health, education, social services, probation, police, the Home Office, housing and employment. The people who have had a problem and who attend Alcoholics Anonymous groups seems to find this a useful way of supporting each other when overcoming their addiction.
The concerted effort of many organisations, both government and voluntary, seems to be paying off over smoking, but there is still a long way to go. It seems there should be a concerted effort to tell the public of the dangers of over-indulgence in alcohol. In the long term, the aim should be to change people's behaviour and habits before it is too late. As with smoking, the pictures of damaged lungs can be effective. I think damaged livers from excess drinking of alcohol as well as information might change a few habits.
So many young people who drink way beyond the safe limit just do not think it will happen to them. Last Sunday, knowing of this debate, I called in at the accident and emergency department of my local hospital in North Yorkshire. I was pleased to meet some of the staff who told me three of their nurses were attending training on alcohol abuse and were on a course. What they found most useful was learning how to handle people who had become abusive and difficult. I was told when there is trouble in the A&E department, the police were marvellous and arrived on the scene in minutes.
This is an example of a hospital in a small town which has problems, but these can be controlled as numbers are not too great. The story is quite different in a large, inner-city Yorkshire hospital, where sometimes gangs have had fights and have been known to continue the fight in the A&E department after having delivered a stabbed member of the team.
It is important that ambulance service personnel all have adequate training in dealing with people who become abusive through alcohol. Vomit and urine are easy to cope with; it is the violence which needs careful handling to avoid injury to staff.
I visited an interesting project in Sheffield, run by the charity Turning Point. The project is run from the centre called SHED. Young students from a school with lots of problems are trained to be peer counselors
344
and try to change the attitude of children with alcohol problems within the school. I feel there are some young people doing remarkably good things to try and help other young people understand the dangers of alcohol abuse.
I also visited a school in Huddersfield where school members had a remarkable acting group which showed younger children the dangers of drinking though role-play. It is good that this sort of realistic education is being promoted.
Last week I was talking to a lady who has a flat where people, who are subsidised to live in the building, have alcohol problems. She told me what a nuisance they were and asked what she should do. She said she too had plenty of problems, but she was working her guts out in the local hospital. When she came home she could not get any sleep due to the loud music and disturbance from the alcohol users. Surely the local authority should control their social problem people.
The problems of binge drinkers on the streets are frightening normal people—old people and disabled people are frightened to go out. Time has run out, so I will stop. However, there is a huge amount to do, and I hope the Government will help those people in the community who are trying so hard in this regard.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for giving us this opportunity to discuss this growing public health problem of alcohol abuse and its disruptive effects in community life. As a non-executive director of a primary care trust in Wirral, this debate is particularly relevant.
Wirral has the highest percentage of people who drink alcohol every day in Merseyside, and there is only one acute hospital on the Wirral. All our NHS trusts operate on a budget that has a combined debt—in this year just closed—of almost £10 million, and 40 per cent of that debt belongs to the hospital.
Primary care trusts are now being asked to participate in the treatment of drug addicts including those who have been sentenced to drug testing and treatment orders. Should we not include alcohol abusers in these programmes as well? That, of course, would require trained staff.
As has been mentioned by other noble Lords, the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit published a report on alcohol harm reduction, estimating that the annual cost of alcohol-related crime and public disorder has increased to £7.3 billion, and that is about 10 per cent of the current NHS budget. Therefore, it is certainly time for us to look at how we can reduce and address the problems of alcohol abuse.
The impact of alcohol abuse is found to be most disruptive in the accident and emergency departments of hospitals—and in our local hospital it is no different—at peak times, usually between midnight and five o'clock in the morning on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. At those times nearly seven in 10 cases are due to alcohol. On an annual basis, in England some 23,000 hospital admissions are alcohol-related.

345
People who are drunk and have injured themselves through fights and falls cause fear and alarm in A&E departments by being noisy and threatening. These patients are also responsible for verbal abuse and violent behaviour towards hospital staff. Most of all, they are examples of unnecessary injury among young men and women. Hospital employees are also put under stress when having to cope with antisocial behaviour due to alcohol. Some 35 per cent of all patients who attend A&E departments are there due to alcohol, and they cost the NHS £500 million every year, according to Alcohol Concern, and that will increase.
For a problem that contributes to high expenditure in the NHS, alcohol abuse has not been the subject of a public campaign. No dedicated budget exists for public education and awareness campaigns about the dangers of excessive alcohol consumption. A MORI poll last year found that only 7 per cent of men and 22 per cent of women knew what the Government's recommended level of alcohol consumption was for them.
According to the British Crime Survey, half the victims of violent crime, which causes disruption in community life, report that the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol at the time. Violent crime included domestic violence—an issue that is very important, particularly in view of the domestic violence legislation going through Parliament—and sexual assault. More than half of alcohol-related violence occurs in and around pubs, discos and night clubs, mostly at the weekend. Despite increasing public concern, little has been done until the publication of the report, and it does not go far enough, as noble Lords have stated.
Alcohol misuse causes harm to health, public order, productivity with the loss of 17 million working days, and families, with about a million children affected by their parents' alcohol problem, according to the report. What is required is a campaign to educate the public about the dangers of alcohol abuse. The publication is a start and, in spite of its deficiencies, is to be welcomed. However, what we look for and need are sustained programmes to improve the situation at local level.
The advertising of alcohol on television and in other media should be regulated along the lines of tobacco. I am particularly concerned about alcohol abuse affecting young people from all social, cultural and ethnic backgrounds, including those groups not traditionally associated with alcohol misuse. Children in those groups born and bred here have taken to the regular use of alcohol. Even overseas students—I have information from students from China—have taken up alcohol misuse. Some have been arrested for drink driving, according to the police. At least one car-load of Chinese students has been killed on the roads with, when tested, the driver having high levels of alcohol in his blood.
I support the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Mitchell and Lord Rea, about foetal alcohol syndrome, although the diagnosis of affected babies is
346
not easy to make. However, we desperately need to increase the awareness of the dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy and among young people through all media.
7.14 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on being successful in the ballot. I thank him for his excellent and most comprehensive introduction to the debate, and thank other noble Lords who have contributed to it. In particular, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on the organisation of the inaugural UK-European symposium on addictive disorders. I know, not only from my experience but from what others have told me, that it was extraordinarily successful, with more than 400 people participating in the three-day event the week before last. I also thank Deidre Boyd, the principal organiser, for all the work that she and her colleagues did.
I am urged to move on quickly as we are running out of time, so I shall not go over some of the ground that I had intended except to say that, when the issue came up at Question Time a couple of months ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, was at the Dispatch Box. I said that I felt that, since the Government came to power, we had seen a worsening of the climate of alcohol abuse in the country generally. I also said that I was somewhat disappointed with the nature of the report produced, and expressed very strongly a belief—one that I still hold—that the voluntary approach with the drinks industry would not produce the results needed to reverse the difficulties that we are in. Having listened to my fellow Peers this evening, I do not think that anyone spoke with any great confidence about the voluntary approach producing those results.
I will jump some of the points that I wished to make in statistical terms, and underline two or three points made by other speakers. I shall put them in the form of questions to my noble friend. Given that I am saving him time, I hope that he will endeavour to answer some of them.
Can we expect to see funding allocated to the strategy, whether there be a tactical approach or a strategic document, and at least to the important recommendations made? Will we see a similar allocation of public funds from the Government to the money that they have allocated to the drugs strategy? I again commend the Government for their work and money allocated on drugs. We now need them urgently to address alcohol, too. When will an announcement be made?
Can we expect similar expenditure to that in the anti-drugs strategy on advertising and education? There may be question marks about the effectiveness otherwise, but it is at least important that the Government be asked to address the issue, and we could see whether it would be successful in practice.
I am concerned, too, about some advertising that we currently see on television, which is extraordinarily laddish and loutish in many respects. Noble Lords

347
with long memories will recall that we had a whole bout of that in the 1970s and 1980s, with the drunken bear strolling around on our television screens. That was shortly followed by the soccer tragedy at the Heysel football stadium in Belgium. In the light of that and the complaints made, ITV then withdrew those adverts. I rather sense that we are going through a bout that is not dissimilar. If there is the kind of episode that we witnessed previously, I fear that people will then wish that they had never run such adverts at all. I would like to hear how the Government feel about what is run before us in some of those TV adverts.
I shall turn to the precise nature of the debate. When can we expect better security for staff employed in A&E units? We get constant complaints, understandably so, from those attacked on ever-increasing occasions. Why cannot we ask the licensees within a hospital's catchment area to make a contribution towards the cost of supporting and paying for the personnel needed to assist and support staff when they are faced with such assaults? Would the Minister be prepared to take that back to his department and consider it?
When will the drinks industry be required to display on drinks labels, in an understandable form, the strength of the drinks within the bottles? I am not getting into the units issue, but people need to be given clear guidance on what they are drinking and what the consequences are likely to be for them. That is an area where we are sadly negligent by comparison with what happens in some other countries.
As your Lordships will have gathered, 1 am highly sceptical about the willingness of the drinks industry to accept some social responsibility for its actions. I know that many tenant managers are under extreme pressure to hit targets to deliver results in their pubs. I hear that their area managers do not much care how those results are delivered.
Hence the abundance of "happy hours" on a wide scale everywhere with cheap drinks. In many places, there is under-age drinking in pubs and clubs. If the Minister so wishes, I can take him to places as near as SW4 where this happens regularly and where no action is taken by the police authorities. There may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, explained, good reasons why the police are unable to do that, but on a wide scale substantial amounts of under-age drinking are taking place.
I believe that the Government need to review their approach on pricing policy on alcohol. As noble Lords have demonstrated, the country is much more affluent than it was 20 or 30 years ago, yet in relative terms the cost of alcohol has fallen. It therefore follows that there is more money around to be spent on it and that needs o be addressed by the Government. They must at some point be bold. We need to see some target increases in the cost of alcohol, particularly the drinks which are customised and designed for hooking the younger, under-age drinkers. That is the responsibility of the Treasury, not the Minister, but I trust that he will take it back to the Treasury.
348
In conclusion, I urge the Minister to produce draft legislation on the major issues in the strategy document and establish some form of pre-legislative scrutiny. Parliamentarians can then begin work on it, together with those in the industry who want to see changes of the nature noble Lords have been crying for today. That would force an entirely different response from the industry to the continual delay and pussyfooting which we will encounter with the so-called voluntary approach.
Headlines and paper threats such as those we saw in today's newspapers coming from the Home Secretary will not produce the changes. I believe that unless we start looking at the possibility of introducing legislation and then force the industry to produce a more positive response, matters will only get worse. If that is to be the case, delay will be troublesome for the whole country. It is urgent that we get moving quickly on this and do not have to wait as we have for the production of the strategy document.
7.22 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I want to talk about Friday and Saturday nights and Sunday morning. First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating this important debate. His excellent opening remarks set the scene, supplemented by so many excellent speeches. I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, was particularly important in focusing on a problem insufficiently highlighted in the public domain.
The Minister is used to us all calling for more resources, but I would like him to consider two suggestions which are resource-neutral. The first is the one-minute Paddington alcohol test, which intervenes at a point where hazardous drinkers often encounter healthcare and where they can be moved to nonhazardous behaviours. The second is the establishment of a British Standards Kite Mark for glasses and bottles used in pubs and the move from glass to plastic bottles for drinks. I do not believe those moves would cost money and they would save resources.
Alcohol is a real problem. The pleasant charming girl becomes a weeping wreck in the corner, prone to self-harm when she has had too much to drink. The quiet personable young man becomes aggressive and ends up charged with assault after a fight and has facial injuries which leave him scarred for life.
On Friday and Saturday nights, 80 per cent of A&E attendances are alcohol-related and Professor Shepherd, a colleague of mine in Cardiff, found that they relate to licensing hours. Over 60 per cent of facial injuries are alcohol related. Young men are the most likely victims of assault.
In the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit research conducted through St George's Hospital, the pattern of injuries was remarkably consistent across the UK, particularly face, head, arm or hand injuries. The weapons used were usually fists, knives, hoots or bottles. Only 10 per cent were caused by coshes, glasses or guns.

349
Eighty-five per cent of assault victims have facial injuries. The face is the target and the approximate ratio is four boys to one girl. It used to be a ratio of six to one, but girls seem to be getting into the fights, too. People are brought into casualty by ambulance and about half of them are alcohol-related attendances. Of those brought by the police, almost all are alcohol related.
But we must not forget that some are brought in dead. They are brought in after road traffic accidents, after falling under trains or underground trains, or having been the victims of other accidents. The worst effects are associated with binge drinking, which is on the increase. Alcopops are a real problem because they give children the message that it is okay for kids to drink something with alcohol in it. They taste disgustingly sweet, but their underlying message is so damaging.
My daughter is lucky enough to work in A&E at St Mary's Hospital Paddington. She works with Professor Touquet, who she finds quite inspirational. She has learnt from him that one minute makes a difference. Since 1986, he has been working on the problem of alcohol abuse and the load it puts on acute services. He has discovered the "teachable moment"—the time when the person with an alcohol problem presents in casualty, when he is vulnerable because he is injured or has fallen over and feels ill. That is the point when he will move from pre-contemplation—"I don't have a problem"—to contemplation—"Perhaps I do have a problem"—and even into action—"I have got to do something about this problem". My daughter describes being able to move people in one minute from pre-contemplation to contemplation.
These people are much the worse for wear when they present, but the other interesting finding is that if they are given an appointment with an alcohol worker within 24 hours, 62 per cent of them will attend. But if there is a delay of 48 hours, 62 per cent of them do not attend—they default. It is about catching that "teachable moment" and intervening there and then.
The strategy action point says that this type of measure should be piloted. No, I would say to the Minister, "Just roll it out. Make it one of the targets. Use it for star status or whatever other status you want". One minute where these people encounter health services could make the difference of a lifetime to them. It has been shown that 25 per cent are moved from hazardous drinking to non-hazardous drinking. They need to encounter the question at the time they present with one of the top 10 conditions.
Unfortunately, nurses and doctors themselves have a sad history of alcohol abuse. Eighty-seven of the 210 doctors who the GMC had under medical supervision in 2003 have alcohol implicated in their need for professional rehabilitation to ensure that they practise to the standards required of doctors. But it seems sound that intervention and then letting people help themselves, such as Alcoholics Anonymous has done, are the key to stopping abuse.
350
The next issue I want to address is the injuries which follow. The compensation cost to taxpayers from compensation paid out for injuries on licensed premises alone is about £3 million per annum. This is the tip of the iceberg because it does not include compensation from those known to the criminal justice system, nor time off work, nor the health service costs, nor the cost in road-traffic accidents related to alcohol.
So Professor Shepherd's work, researching toughened glasses, is incredibly important. He has shown that toughened glasses have an impact resistance six times greater than non-toughened ones. They disintegrate into sugar-lump-type fragments, so even when you are hit in the face with one of them, the injury is not as bad as would be caused by shards of shattered glass. Even the thin glasses—the type in which Guinness is served—are more impact-resistant than ordinary tankards if toughened glass is used to make them. Bar workers are at particular risk of glass injury, especially to their hands.
There are a few actions that I seriously believe need to be taken. Some imported toughened glass is not toughened very well and it can prove to be more dangerous. Therefore, the solution is to develop a British standard to protect drinkers and bar staff and then to get the industry to follow the lead such as that taken by Stella Artois and other organisations, which are now using plastic rather than glass bottles. These are plastic bottles with three layers. The inside and outside are plastic and there is a film of nylon in between, which stops oxygen getting through and making the drink deteriorate. Therefore, the liquid tastes just as good as it would out of a can, if one likes that kind of drink.
There is another problem. Young adults migrate from outlying feeder towns into our main cities at peak times for the purpose of drinking. But the problem is that the police do not migrate with them, and the police know the youngsters who are at risk. Therefore, if A&E and the police were linked into crime reduction partnerships, the police could access accurate anonymised data on the amount of alcohol that is behind crime. If they came down with us from the Valleys into Cardiff or into other cities with these youngsters, they might spot the troublemakers. Therefore, the solution is to use crime reduction partnerships, and the next step may be that the clubs which encourage the binge drinkers can be named and shamed and the problem that is out on the streets reduced. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider the two points that I mentioned: the BSI standard for glass and the one-minute PAT test.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Avebury deserves a vote of thanks from the entire House for making us take note of the problems of alcohol misuse. I do not know whether my noble friend would agree that there are no problems with proper alcohol use.

351
When I started to consider this subject, I tried to think about just how deeply alcohol use goes into our society. I came to the conclusion that it is totally impregnated within our society. We have used it for thousands of years. The first story that I can think of that has a reference to alcohol is the original story of Noah. who apparently was a Sumerian who kept himself alive when washed out to sea in the Arabian Gulf by feeding himself and his family on the beer that he was intending to sell up-river.
The whole of modern society has used alcohol. If we go back far enough, we come to the time when beer was considered to be safer than water and alcohol was used to fight infections. It is deeply embedded within our society. The only western society that tried to ban alcohol—the United States—ended up causing major social problems by criminalising large sections of its society, which capitalised on organised crime.
Having said that, there is still, and always has been, the issue of what happens if people drink too much at the wrong time and what happens if the problem is not addressed. As my noble friend Lord Bradshaw said, the only thing that is different now is the intensity of the drinking. That is something that we must square up to. We have known about this matter for years. The problem of people drinking too much has always existed. The young have always been the ones to binge drink. We did not call it that when I was a student. When I was a young rugby player with medical students in the team, I saw binge drinking but we called it something else. However, it existed.
What tended to happen in the past, but which I do not think is happening now, was that there was more frequently a steadying hand on the shoulder. It has now become fashionable not to have a drink in order to relax and enjoy oneself but, more commonly, to get "out of it" and leave responsibility behind.
I read an article in the Times on Friday which talked about the design and development of drinks by the drinks industry. The writer of the article came to the conclusion that I myself have come to: following the fashion for taking ecstasy, clubbing, being completely removed from reality and getting totally "out of it", the very young have moved on to alcohol. We have seen an intensification of that trend. The use of alcohol represses one's inhibitions. It allows people to relax and talk more freely.
To use another historical example, the Spartans in ancient Greece were remarkable because they did not have to pour alcohol into their soldiers to persuade them to kill up close. Alcohol allows people to lose control and to do things that they would not otherwise do. Another instance that I want to give is not too far removed geographically from my previous example. In Bosnia, both sides of the "irregulars" committed atrocities while filling themselves with home-made vodka to help them to get on with the job. Alcohol is something that we can misuse and have frequently misused.
The Government's current policy effectively states, "Oh, there is a problem". It then calls for voluntary cooperation from the drinks industry. The noble Lord,
352
Lord Brooke, who spoke just ahead of me, pointed out the kind of advertising and laddish behaviour that we are now seeing. Let us hope that that is a fashion and not an ongoing trend. Ultimately, it will come back and bite very hard because it goes away from the idea of social relaxation to the idea that it is all right to behave in a totally unacceptable manner.
I turn to the document that has been referred to. I believe that the best summary of it was given by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I shall summarise his summary by saying that it is a start. It is a slightly incoherent, panicky and nervous start, but it is a start. The Government must convince the drinks industry not only that it has a responsibility but that taking action will be directly in its own interests.
Drinks which help a person to remove himself totally from his surroundings—for example, alcopops, which, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, are absolutely disgusting—are very attractive to the young. Indeed, my 18 month-old daughter thinks that they are great when we go past them in a supermarket. They look lovely and come in pretty colours. and the hand goes out towards them. I have heard other small children say to their parents, "Can we have one of these?" because they do not realise that they are something that adults have. I have also read articles reporting that such drinks have had their heyday and that other designer drinks are coming in. Even if that group of drinks will no longer be such a factor, we must persuade the drinks industry to address the fact that it has a responsibility and also a long-term interest.
Ultimately, the Government have sticks as well as carrots available to them. The thing about a stick is that you must be prepared to pick it up and at least wave it around before anyone believes that you are going to do anything with it. Current government policy does not state that the Government will ultimately use sticks if they have to do so. Personally, I believe that we should be using sticks. We should address the fact that the drinks industry, with its constant development of new types of beer, spirits and so on and the marketing of spirits, has a great responsibility for the way that such drinks are used.
If the Government are not prepared to cajole the industry, they must be prepared to do something else. Surely drinks that are targeted towards the young or whose marketing catches the young should he taxed more heavily. I say that purely off my own bat; I have no party authority to say it. But my personal opinion is that that would be the logical conclusion to draw. We must start to address the problem head on.
It may be that the intensity of such drinking at present is a fashion and that it will go out of fashion. It will take time to disappear—all fashions do—but it can also come back. For a long time, the Government as a whole—I include the whole Whitehall and Westminster community—have been very tentative about their policy towards alcohol. They have moved too slowly and often without attacking the problem head on because alcohol is such an important part of our society and something in which we all partake. We

353
must step out of our nice little warm environment in which we say, "Why can't everyone be like me and not drink too much in public?" and, instead, say, "There is a problem here. We must address it and ensure that we have some kind of coherent strategy"
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to shatterproof glasses, which I believe is a point which could he followed up by the Government. I remember that the All Party Beer Group—I put my hand up again—gave out shatterproof glasses three or four years ago saying that that was the way forward. I would suggest that Government guidance stating that they had to be used would not be inappropriate.
7.40 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for initiating the debate and for his brilliant speech. I rather like the advice in the New Testament to take a little wine for your stomach's sake, but my wife reminds me that it does say, "a little" wine.
That advice is being ignored by many thousands of people today who indulge in binge drinking. They seem to be completely oblivious to the great dangers and also the huge burden that alcohol puts on our emergency services. Drinks, even cocktails, are no longer alcoholic enough for the majority of the general public. That has led to them mixing their drinks to achieve a higher alcoholic content. For instance, a turbo shandy, which is now commonly drunk, comprises double vodka, a bottle of Smirnoff Ice and half a bottle of beer. That is being regularly consumed in universities.
Spirits are now very much stronger, with the creation of new concoctions, such as Absinthe, which is 70 per cent alcohol; Sambuca, 40 per cent; and Aftershock, 40 per cent. It is worth noting that one 500 millilitre bottle of Absinthe, which is roughly a pint, is equivalent to 28 standard drinks. Binge drinking seems to have swept the United Kingdom. British bars and clubs have aggravated the situation by promoting "buying in bulk". For example, several wine bars offer the drinks promotion, "Buy two glasses and get the rest of the bottle free".
The environment in which people now drink has changed dramatically. Modern premises are not like the old public houses that one used to go to with friends for a quiet drink. The rapid consumption of drinks tends to be encouraged within these new establishments with promotions such as shots of spirits served in open test tubes, which cannot stand upright on a table—neither can those who drink them—so the encouragement is to drink them straight down in one gulp. That type of shot is served by members of the bar staff who regularly circulate and approach the customers who are still seated, rather than waiting for them to approach the bar.
As those drinking games become increasingly popular, so they become more and more extreme. That is exemplified by a website called www.BarMeister.com, an online guide to drinking,
354
which lists 499 different drinking games. One of those is called "Centurion: 100 shots of beer in 100 minutes". Each person starts with a full shot glass and the timer is set at one minute. When the timer runs out, everyone takes their shot and the timer is reset. That is repeated 100 times. That equates to eight standard drinks in a little over one hour. Most people tend to be sick when they reach 60 shots but the game is continued. The next one is called "Nine Before Nine". The individual has to drink nine pints of beer before nine o'clock in the morning. In order to do that they start at 6 a.m. and drink a pint every 20 minutes.
Many drinking gimmicks have been devised by the younger population in order to make a night of binge drinking more successful. For instance, drinking fines are commonly used for lateness among friends. One university hockey club website states that if a member of the club is arriving late at a venue in the evening, a fine will be imposed. If you are one to 20 minutes late, a beverage has to be purchased and drunk continuously without pausing for breath until it is finished. If you are 10 to 30 minutes late the same procedure is followed yet with a double amount of the beverage to be consumed, and if you are more than half an hour late, three pints of beer must be consumed within 15 minutes.
Drinking games and drinking gimmicks become more extreme the more people get used to them resulting in very dangerous practices becoming just the norm. I refer, for instance, to "The Dentist's Chair". A volunteer is strapped into a dentist's chair and spirit is poured down his throat by someone called "the Dentist" until he can take no more and closes his mouth. The time is then recorded and displayed on a board.
Those university rituals play a large part in the life of students. At many universities, freshers' week is a week of binge drinking. That behaviour gets into the mindset of the fresher that binge drinking is an acceptable part of university life. Powerful peer pressure forces them into binge drinking. Ten per cent of students drink to dangerous levels. The average safe dose for an 11-stone man is 21 units in a week, but he can often consume all of that in a single evening.
Binge drinking is not only common among those who are legally entitled to drink but is being adopted by minors. As many noble Lords have already said, more than one in three 15 year-olds report being drunk at the age of 13 or earlier, which is very different from the situation in France and Italy. A report published in August by doctors working in an accident and emergency department found that children as young as six have needed hospital treatment after going on drinking binges.
Drinking large numbers of units over a relatively short period is likely to be far worse for the general health than consuming the same level of alcohol over a week. After all, alcohol is a poison. Its action is to depress the function of the brain, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, emphasised. The apparent stimulation is due to suppression of inhibition and

355
repeated instances of binge drinking have been linked to strokes, kidney damage, memory loss and an increased risk of breast cancer in women.
Alcohol-related problems are responsible for 22,000 deaths each year and 150,000 people being admitted to hospital. Around 40 per cent of accident and emergency admissions are alcohol related and between midnight and 5 a.m. that figure rises to 70 per cent. The severe implications of alcohol to health are indisputable. Prolonged heavy drinking damages one's liver. In the short term that may be reversible but the damage can become permanent and life-threatening. Cirrhosis is the main cause of death in very heavy drinkers.
The main part of the brain to be affected is the frontal lobe which controls our social behaviour and suppresses our more primitive instincts. Judgment is also seriously impaired, which makes driving dangerous, even with small quantities of alcohol. Prolonged heavy drinking over many years can lead to significant brain damage and loss of intellectual ability. Heavy drinkers who substitute alcohol for healthy food are prone to nutritional deficiencies. Alcohol is also very high in calories. Four pints of beer can contain over 1,000 calories. As a result, weight gain becomes quite a common problem.
The burden which alcohol creates for our police force is vast. That has already been dealt with by many noble Lords. The burden on the fire service is also considerable, as has been mentioned several times. We could save an enormous amount every year if this problem were really tackled. It is not being tackled properly at all. Drinking to excess seems to have become socially acceptable among most age groups and genders. We must do something about it. The Family Spending Report of February 2004 states that British households spend on average £5.90 a week on spirits, wine, beer and alcopops for home consumption; and only £5.40 on fresh fruit and vegetables.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. We must seize the teachable moments to try to stop this appalling scourge. One good idea is to label all drinks with the number of units they contain.
7.50 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on securing this debate and on his telling analysis. We accept that alcohol misuse is a significant problem that needs to be addressed by our society. This has been reflected in the important contributions in today's debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me a copy of the excellent lecture on the social problems of alcohol that he gave in 1981. This illustrates that the problem has been around for some time and is not peculiar to this Government's term of office, and it shows, as this debate has shown, that the manifestations of the problem do change.
The Government have been taking action to try to combat the harms caused by alcohol misuse by improving education, by improving health care, and
356
by tackling crime and disorder. I do not suggest that we have all the answers, but we have shown a way forward in our work on trying to set out a coherent and comprehensive alcohol harm reduction strategy for England. I noticed that this document has not totally endeared itself to all parts of your Lordships' House. This is the only Government to have produced such a comprehensive strategy that honestly acknowledges the gaps in our knowledge. I am deeply impressed by the action research of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in this area. I shall certainly not compete with him on the knowledge that he has shown of the drinking habits of students, which is impressive.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, some students.
Lord Warner: My Lords, it is not the purpose of this Government to demean students. We are actually trying to improve their access to university.
One of the strategy document's key strengths is its cross-cutting nature. It recognises also that the Government alone cannot solve the problems caused by alcohol misuse. That is why the strategy tries to involve and bring together a wide range of government departments, a range of people in the NHS, police, local authorities, voluntary organisations and the drinks industry in a partnership to try to tackle misuse. The Government agree with all noble Lords who have said that we need integrated responses from all the agencies, both at the national and the local level.
The Department of Health and the Home Office will be jointly responsible for implementing the strategy, but the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and other departments will be very much involved. Let me make that clear to noble Lords who have expressed concerns in that regard. A number of noble Lords have questioned why we do not, to put it crudely, price the problem out of existence. There is evidence that population measures such as high prices, taxes, restricted availability and restrictions or bans on advertising do not always deliver the required results. Countries such as Britain, with historically high alcohol taxes and restricted hours of availability, have seen a rise in alcohol consumption, while in other countries such as France and Italy, consumption has decreased independently of any government measures. There is plenty of evidence for this, which was used by the Strategy Unit. I will not run over all the sources, but there are seven or eight that I can communicate to noble Lords if they wish.
Action on education is an important issue. We know that people need relevant and easily accessible information about alcohol to help them make decisions about their drinking. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we need better evidence on what works in education on this topic. I know from my time as chairman of the Youth Justice Board that young people are starting to drink earlier. There is good research evidence on that, and I agree with noble Lords who have raised that issue. That is why giving information about alcohol must start early. That is why the Government have ensured that alcohol

357
education is built into the national curriculum for science from the age of seven. Alcohol education also forms part of personal health and social education. The DfES has invested £3 million in the 2001–04 period to improve teacher training on drugs, alcohol and tobacco education. New, improved guidance on drug education was issued to schools in March of this year.
A number of noble Lords have raised issues around communications. The Department of Health has set aside a central budget of about £0.5 million each year for alcohol health promotion work. I accept that that is probably not enough. We produce a range of leaflets and other materials that advise the public of the dangers of alcohol misuse. We produce specific leaflets for parents and young people, and we produce leaflets in key minority ethnic community languages. Every day, NHS health promotion units, as well as doctors and nurses, provide advice on sensible alcohol consumption to their patients. We will certainly look at whether the new quality and outcomes framework for the GP contract can be used in this area when it is reviewed. Furthermore, when the opportunities present themselves, A & E and arrest referral schemes try to get messages across on heavy drinking.
Most people respond, and they drink sensibly and responsibly, and do not cause harm to themselves or to others. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that there is a need to continue with some kind of sensible drinking message for many people. It is not appropriate for everyone, as the noble Lord has said. Our research shows that those people who do not drink sensibly simply do not wish to do so. Many of those whose drinking is heavy at times still think that they are operating within normal boundaries. We do have a serious problem here. Communicating with these drinkers is a real challenge for this Government, and would be for any government. That is why we are reassessing the sensible drinking message to try to find a format that people can relate to in their everyday lives and drinking experiences. It is important to get this right. There would be no point in replacing the current message with one that does not work any better.
We aim to complete a reassessment of this area and have revised messages ready by the end of June 2005. Whether we express any new messages on units depends on the research that we are currently carrying out. This work will determine our expenditure on promoting our messages. My noble friend Lord Brooke asked about that. We have already made a start, and that is why we want to commission more work in this area to try to understand how people absorb and act on communication methods and messages. We are also developing communication work targeted specifically on binge drinkers and chronic drinkers. This will be the time to consider increasing expenditure on promoting those messages.
We recognise the concern that has been expressed about alcohol advertising, especially about advertisements that may appeal to children and young people. We currently have a framework of statutory and non-statutory rules on advertising, which states
358
that advertisements should not appeal to children and should not give a false impression of alcohol. Advertisements should not imply that drinking alcohol improves a person's mental or physical abilities, or that it can be associated with social or sexual success. The strategy recommended a review of these rules to ensure that they were working as intended.
Ofcom has been asked to oversee this review. We understand that Ofcom proposes to consult a range of stakeholders in this area and complete the review by the end of 2004. This review will focus in particular on ensuring that advertisements do not target under-eighteens, that they do not encourage irresponsible behaviour, and that Ofcom's publicity stresses the regulator's role in relation to broadcast advertising and complaints.
A number of noble Lords have stressed the importance of action to tackle the long-term effects of alcohol misuse, which can have a devastating effect on health. The link between alcohol and liver cirrhosis is well known. The Chief Medical Officer has made it clear and noted in his reports that the death rate from liver cirrhosis is rising significantly, particularly among people aged under 65. Over the past 10 years the number of men aged under 65 dying from liver disease and cirrhosis rose from just over 1,000 to nearly 2,500. The number of deaths among women has roughly doubled in the same period.
Chronic long-term drinking can also be associated with an increased risk of heart disease, stroke and certain cancers. There have been a number of local initiatives in this area where the NHS has tried to work with patients to try to improve their understanding of the damage that they are doing to themselves. There has been a particularly effective one at the Royal Liverpool Hospital.
The short-term health effects of alcohol misuse are clearly visible, as a number of noble Lords have said, in our A&E departments. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe asked about safety measures in A&E departments. The Department of Health counter fraud and security services, working with the NHS, try to improve security in a number of areas, particularly in A&E departments. But I will take back the question about whether licensees should be contributing to this particular activity.
Binge drinking can be linked with accidents and injuries, as a number of noble Lords said. I pay tribute to the work done by Colin Drummond in his report on A&E attendances, which found that on average 40 per cent of all A&E attendances are alcohol related. This rises to 70 per cent of attendances between midnight and 5 a.m. over the weekend. We are extremely grateful to Professor Drummond for his report and the insight that it provides.
I would also like to pay tribute to the work done by Professor Jonathan Shepherd in Cardiff A&E, which I first encountered when I was in the Home Office. He has done a huge amount of work to show the importance of A&E departments in helping to produce local strategies that can improve our response. The

359
work that he has done with the police and other local agencies—and the impact that that has had on national policy—is very significant.
We plan to pilot a range of models of screenings and interventions to establish whether the encouraging results from initiatives such as Jonathan Shepherd's can be achieved across NHS treatment structures. I am sure that he and others will be pleased to learn that at least one of the pilot sites will be an A&E department. The pilots will also help to establish whether these interventions can save the NHS the cost of more complex and costly healthcare for these patients at a later date.
The Government's strategy documents note that very little information has been collected on alcohol treatment and that it has been given very little priority at the national and local level. That is typical of the honesty with which the Government have approached this area. Therefore, the first step is to plug these information gaps.
The Department of Health will conduct a national audit of demand for, and provision of, alcohol treatment. That will be completed by the end of January 2005. The results of this audit will be used to develop a programme of improvements to treatments. I accept that there has probably been less research on alcohol dependence than on drugs, which has been a high priority for the Government. However, I draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that alcohol treatment itself tends to be funded by PCTs at the local level. That is why figures in this area at the national level are modest, as several noble Lords have said.
A number of noble Lords have drawn attention to the effects of excessive drinking during pregnancy, which may affect the brain of the developing foetus. The Government have recommended that women who are pregnant or are trying to get pregnant should not drink more than one to two units of alcohol per week. We have good reason to believe that the majority of women are aware of and follow this advice. The infant feeding survey of 2000 indicated that 71 per cent of pregnant women who drank during pregnancy drank less than one unit per week on average. Only 3 per cent drank more than seven units per week and only 1 per cent of women drank more than 14 units per week.
I am not sure where my noble friend Lord Mitchell obtained his figures on the number of FAS cases. Our hospital episodes statistics show that 128 children were diagnosed with Foetal Alcohol Syndrome during 2002–03. That is admittedly more than the previous year, but clearly substantially lower than the figure that he cited.
The Government plan to publish a White Paper on public health later this year. We are currently conducting a consultation exercise asking for views on priorities for action. That will end on 28 May. I cannot speculate on the details of what might be in the White Paper, but I would urge anyone who has an interest in public health to contribute to that consultation. Certainly the Government will consider very carefully the points made in the debate today.
360
A number of noble Lords raised issues concerning labelling. Unit labelling is currently governed by EU law, which does not allow for compulsory unit labelling. The Department of Health will examine whether that can be changed at the EU level. In the meantime we will be encouraging drinks manufacturers to put unit labels on bottles. There is no evidence from the USA that health warnings work. That is why the strategy calls for more information about sensible drinking to be placed on bottles.
I should like to turn to some of the issues that have been raised relating to alcohol-related crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour. Alcohol-related crime and disorder and under-age drinking are major concerns to many of our communities, especially in town and city centres. The Home Office has been trying to combat these concerns. This was discussed by the Home Secretary and the ACPO conference yesterday, a point to which a number of noble Lords have alluded.
There are many excellent examples of localities which have developed good approaches to tackling alcohol-related crime. The Home Office published a development and practice report alongside the alcohol strategy, called Alcohol audits strategies and initiatives:lessons from crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. That sets out examples of approaches to dealing with alcohol-related problems locally.
One such example is the Leicester Nightrider scheme, which was set up to deal with the problems caused by the slow dispersal of crowds leaving clubs and late-night bars. A number of noble Lords have referred to Manchester. The Manchester City Safe scheme was set up to co-ordinate approaches to alcohol-fuelled violent crime. It targets people with safer drinking messages, using posters, for example, and enforces penalties for anti-social behaviour to achieve the maximum deterrent effect. It works closely with the industry and brings together a range of statutory authorities to ensure effective management of the night-time infrastructure. As a result of the scheme, late-night disorder was reduced by 8.5 per cent in the first year and 12.3 per cent in the second year. There are good practical examples of how the police and the other agencies are having an effect.
All licensed premises in Burnley are, having paid a joining fee, members of Burnley Against Night-time Disorder. Those arrested in Burnley for violent crime, disorder or supplying drugs are photographed by the police and put under an interim ban that prevents them entering licensed premises in the town centre until the next BAND meeting reaches a decision on whether to uphold the ban. The decision is reached after a vote by licensees, and the banned person's details are circulated in town centre licensed premises.
Police commanders have the flexibility to deploy officers according to demand. In addition, most forces have operational support units. I say gently to your Lordships that police funding has been increased substantially by this Government, and the number of police officers is at a record high. There are resources available to tackle the issue in many of our police force areas. Police in inner-city areas have already made

361
effective use of fixed penalty notices for disorder. Such notices have had a good effect on attempts to deal with people who are drunk and disorderly. Lancashire police recently launched a penalty notice for disorder scheme in Blackpool and have made effective use of the street issue of notices.
During the summer of 2004, we will crack down through a new enforcement campaign on under-age drinking and alcohol-related violent crime. Police forces will conduct announced and unannounced action against retailers who sell alcohol to under-18s and to those who are already drunk. We want to make it clear that operating outside the law will not be tolerated. Naming and shaming is another new idea that is being considered and is well worth further consideration as part of local initiatives to tackle crime.
Several noble Lords asked about plastic glasses. People such as Professor Shepherd, whom I have already mentioned, have done a lot of work in that area. There is an issue about establishing whether there could be a kitemark. As I understand it, there is no kitemark at present. There is also an issue about the capacity to produce more plastic bottles. Those issues are being considered with the industry, and I will write to the noble Baroness with more detail.
I do not have time to deal with all the questions that were raised, but I will write to noble Lords on the issues that I have not had time to answer them on. Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for introducing the debate. I have tried to give examples of how the Government are trying to tackle the issue. Now, I propose to save my throat and go and have a sensible drink.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I warmly thank all those who took part in the debate. It has made a significant contribution towards discussion of the Government's alcohol strategy. I hope that it is not the only contribution that we shall make in your Lordships' House on the subject. It is a moving target.
The Government must encourage a wider debate on the strategy outside the House. It is important that the views expressed this evening, many of which echo those of professionals in the health service—many distinguished members of the health service have taken part—deserve a thorough airing in a climate in which the Government listen to suggestions for improving the strategy, where it can be modified at the edges. I think that we have established that some of your Lordships are not satisfied with the fundamental basis of the strategy, which is that we have eschewed the price mechanism and embarked on a policy of collaboration with the drinks industry. Many of your Lordships expressed scepticism about that.
As for the other ideas that came up, we were encouraged to hear what the Minister said about cracking down on retailers who sell drink to children under 18. I wonder only why it has taken so long to get round to doing that, when everybody knows what is
362
happening. I also suggest to the Minister that it would be difficult for police officers to enter premises such as the large vertical drinking factories in the West End to establish whether anybody on the premises was under the age of 18.
We have heard an enormous amount about the funding of alcohol treatment schemes and I was disappointed to hear the Minister say that they will not be promoted until the national audit of such ideas is completed in January 2005. Why identify the strategy and then embark on a series of further studies? I rather sympathise with the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that we have enough of pilots and that we need to get on with it.
I conclude by mentioning the identification and referral of patients who come to accident and emergency departments or to general practitioners. Everyone has acknowledged that there is a treatable moment. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for example, spoke about the Paddington scheme, which allows patients to be referred immediately, or in a short period of time, to an alcohol treatment worker. To set up further pilots when that work has been going on, to my knowledge, for around 15 years would be a waste of time. That would be a disappointing result to all the work that has been put in to the strategy.
However, we are grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive reply. I am only sorry that we do not have further time to go into the issue in more detail, but we shall come back to it soon. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 2004
8.15 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26 February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004.
Your Lordships will be aware that Parliament is asked to consider an order of this nature in most years as part of the process by which Parliament continues in force the service discipline Acts. The main element of that process is the five-yearly Armed Forces Acts. The most recent of those, the 2001 Act, extended the lives of the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 by a further five years. However, that is subject to both Houses approving an order such as this in each intervening year.
The service discipline Acts provide the statutory basis for discipline in the Armed Forces. They are of critical importance and so, therefore, is this order as the means of ensuring that the discipline Acts remain in force. It was considered in another place on 29 April.
Before I move on, I should make one observation about the order. The Government have given an undertaking that Ministers moving instruments which are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure will tell the House whether they are satisfied that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The order is of course a brief document, and it raises Convention issues only in that it continues in force three Acts that have been developed over the years to reflect the Convention rights.
In last year's debate, I mentioned that the Government were awaiting a European Court of Human Rights judgment in the cases of Cooper v United Kingdom and Grieves v United Kingdom to determine whether the involvement of non-judicial authorities in the review of court martial findings and sentences impaired the independence of the court martial and thus potentially infringed Article 6 of the Convention. The court's judgment of 16 December 2003 ruled, in Cooper's case, that the review process did not breach Article 6. However, in Grieves' case, it ruled that,
"the position of naval Judge Advocates cannot be considered to constitute a strong guarantee of the independence of naval court martials".
As a result, the Government laid the Human Rights Act (Remedial) Order in January, which your Lordships will be considering this evening. Thanks to the order, the service discipline Acts are compatible with the Convention rights and so is the present order that continues the Acts.
I move on to our plans to replace the service discipline Acts with a single tri-service Act. The triservice Act will replace the current and separate systems of naval, Army and Air Force law with a single system. It will better support the Armed Forces in the joint environment in which they increasingly carry out their training and operational tasks. The single system of service law will be underpinned by unified tri-service institutions dealing in particular with the administration and prosecution of courts martial.
I mentioned in last year's debate that work on policy development was taking longer than expected. I am pleased that agreement has now been reached on the harmonisation of summary and court martial disciplinary powers and processes across the three services. The harmonised system has evolved from the present powers and reflects the basic principles of fairness, consistency and efficiency, combined with the need to support operational effectiveness, particularly through the better and transparent alignment of discipline with command. As well as harmonising service discipline, the Act will provide an opportunity for a sensible modernisation and the statutory basis for service discipline for the next generation.
I undertook during last year's debate to assist the House by providing details of the main proposals for the tri-service Act once we had firmed these up. The main changes proposed include a range of harmonised summary offences and powers that would in essence involve a reduction of naval commanding officers' powers and some increases for army and RAF commanding officers. But there will be safeguards,
364
applicable to all three services, to check the exercise of their current and proposed wider powers. This is not a revolutionary approach. Rather, it represents an evolution from present procedures, so that the fundamentals of summary discipline as the means of dealing with most offences, with trial by court martial for the more serious cases, are unaffected.
The other main proposals involve commanding officers having powers to deal with officers and warrant officers in addition to powers to deal with non-commissioned personnel; the removal of the current power of the reviewing authority to quash a commanding officer's finding in exceptional cases, with all such cases being referred to the summary appeal court; the creation of a joint prosecuting authority and courts administration system; the introduction of "one type of court martial, comprising a judge advocate and three or five lay members depending on the charge; the establishment of a standing court martial and a single appointing authority for judge advocates in all three services. Work is continuing on other areas covered by the legislation, such as the system for members of the Armed Forces making complaints and boards of inquiry.
The Government and the Armed Forces attach considerable importance to the tri-service Act project. Although the work on policy development is taking longer than originally envisaged, it is not affecting our overall timetable. In any case, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, it really is essential that we get the policy right.
We hope that the next five-yearly Armed Forces Bill, due in the 2005–06 Session, can be the vehicle for the tri-service legislation. That will obviously be subject to the availability of parliamentary time for what is expected to be a very large Bill. In the mean time, it is our intention to assist Parliament in its consideration of our proposals. We shall give further thought to how that might best be done. I am keen to draw particularly on the experience and knowledge of Members of this House in the scrutiny of service law.
As I have mentioned, the need for a tri-service Act derives from the importance of having a better disciplinary framework in the many situations in which the services work together. Operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have demonstrated the professional, disciplined approach of our Armed Forces, and it is that operational effectiveness that we must support through any changes to service discipline law.
I turn to the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004. This remedial order was made pursuant to the urgent procedure prescribed in paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998 and requires both Houses to approve the order by passing a resolution within 120 days of the order being made. Those special procedures allow for the speedy remedying of an incompatibility between domestic law and the convention's rights established under that Act.
The remedial order amends sections of the Naval Discipline Act to provide that the Judge Advocate of Her Majesty's Fleet, rather than the Chief NavalJudge

365
Advocate (as he then was), appoints judicial officers and judge advocates. The order also makes consequential amendments to the Courts Martial (Royal Navy) Rules 1997, the Naval Custody Rules 2000, the Summary Appeal Court (Navy) Rules 2000 and the Administration of Oaths (Summary Appeal Court) (Navy) Order 2000.
The reason for making the remedial order is that in its judgment of 16 December 2003 in the case of Grieves v United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in that the position of the judge advocate in the applicant's trial by court martial did not provide a sufficient guarantee of the independence of the court martial. One of the factors that put the judge advocate in that position was provided for in legislation whereby a judge advocate must be appointed by the Chief Naval Judge Advocate, who is a serving naval officer.
Although the court's judgment considered only naval courts martial, it applies equally to naval judge advocates appointed to the naval Summary Appeal Court and to naval judicial officers appointed for naval disciplinary purposes.
A remedial order has been used to make these legislative changes as it is essential for the administration of justice, as well as for the maintenance of discipline within the Royal Navy, that trials and hearings under the Naval Discipline Act continue without delay. The incompatibility with Article 6 of the convention had to be removed as soon as possible so that trials and hearings could continue.
Noble Lords will be aware from my Written Statement dated 19 April that no representations had been received concerning the order during the 60-day period following the date of 16 January when the order came into force. The Government therefore do not intend to amend or replace the order currently before the House.
Noble Lords will also be aware that the Joint Committee on Human Rights is required to report to each House on each instance of the use of these powers by a Minister and I am pleased to be able to say that the Committee has recommended that the order be approved. It did, however, make an observation concerning the undesirability of waiting for an adverse finding before introducing the changes necessary to bring the Royal Navy's courts martial system into line with those of the other two armed services in respect of this particular issue of compliance. It considered that a more dynamic approach to giving effect to previous observations by the European Court would have led to the conclusion that this latest finding of incompatibility was very likely. In response, I would say that the majority of measures introduced as a result of Findlay v United Kingdom (1997) applied to the three services equally and that the Court Martial Appeal Court, in the case of Skuse (2002) found in our favour with regard to uniformed judge advocates. We considered, therefore, that there were sufficient safeguards in place.
On a more general point, I want to take the opportunity to remind noble Lords that it was the European Court's judgment in Cooper v United Kingdom which was handed down on the same day as Grieves that confirmed that the Royal Air Force and, by implication, the Army procedures satisfied the requirements of Article 6. The Cooper judgment reaffirmed earlier decisions that there is nothing in the provisions of Article 6 that would, in principle, exclude the determination by service tribunals of criminal charges against service personnel. However, we fully accept the views of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and are grateful for its work.
The Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004, made in accordance with the "urgent" procedure under Section 10 and Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998, has removed the incompatibility between the Naval Discipline Act and Article 6 of the convention.
I am sure that noble Lords would not expect me to conclude without paying a warm tribute to the fortitude, resolve and discipline that are in evidence in the personnel of all our Armed Forces. I know that these qualities are fully valued in all parts of your Lordships' House. I have already moved the continuation order.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th February be approved. [11 th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for explaining these two orders. I should like to start by joining the Minister in paying tribute to the men and women, and the families, of our Armed Forces, not only members of the regular services but also our reservists. It is important for them to know that they will be treated fairly and effectively in matters of discipline. The fair application of military discipline, good and sound training, and military ethos, form the cornerstone of effective military operations. I look forward very much to the contribution of my noble friend Lord Attlee, who will bring first-hand experience to this short debate from his service in Iraq.
We support the continuation of the service discipline Acts which form the statutory basis for discipline in our Armed Forces. The Minister has promised the House a single tri-service Bill to be brought forward, it is hoped, during the 2005–06 parliamentary Session. I look forward very much to contributing to that Bill and its pre-legislative scrutiny.
Two years ago, my noble and very much missed kinsman Lord Vivian raised the issue that due to the differing nature of the three services and their different roles, there may be a need to introduce some parts of the Bill applicable to one specific service. Can the Minister say what progress has been made in relation to the possible need for that?
We understand the reason for the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order and support it. The incompatibility with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has to be removed as soon as possible so that trials and hearings can

367
continue without delay. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work carried out over many years by serving officers in that capacity in many courts martial.
Finally, debating these service discipline orders gives me the chance to touch briefly on the situation in Iraq in the context of a possible breakdown of discipline. We on this side of the House soundly condemn any abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war, whoever has committed it. I praise the continued superb conduct of the vast majority of our Armed Forces. The British Army, far from being a bunch of thugs, as the Mirror has claimed recently, is, apart from a very few exceptions, made up of decent, disciplined people doing a difficult job in very dangerous circumstances.
When we debated these orders in July last year, my kinsman Lord Vivian raised the specific issue of accusations of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners of war by British forces. My kinsman was assured by the Minister that the Government knew of the accusations. Moreover, the Minister affirmed that the Government took the allegations very seriously and that full investigations were taking place. According to the Observer on 9 May the MoD confirmed that three British military personnel were stationed at Abu Ghraib prison. To whom did those British servicemen report? Were they aware of the mistreatment and abuses that were going on? Did they at any point complain to their superiors? Did those superiors report to Ministers? Bearing in mind that we were, and still are, officially co-occupiers of Iraq, with the United States, and therefore are jointly responsible, were any representations made to the United States?
8.30 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the two orders and I support the introduction of the tri-service Bill which has been mooted on many occasions in the House. We look forward to debating it on the Floor of the House, whenever government time allows.
My noble friend Lord Lester will raise a number of issues, but I have two brief questions to ask the Minister. First, the evidence coming from Iraq at the moment, through the International Committee of the Red Cross, indicates that certain operating procedures undertaken by the British Army could have been in contravention of the Geneva Convention. If that is the case, the soldiers who undertook actions using the standard operating procedures may well have broken the code, but who is ultimately responsible in the chain of command for those standard operating procedures? Is the responsibility within the Army or is it within the MoD and do Ministers have a responsibility?
Secondly, considering the court case yesterday, that has just been reviewed—I have raised this matter three times in the past week—can the Minister say, on the basis of the judicial review that will probably be undertaken, whether the European Convention on Human Rights is now to be viewed by the MoD and the Army as applicable to those serving in Iraq?
Lord Judd: My Lords, we all want to take this opportunity to state our admiration for what the
368
armed services do on our behalf. Some years ago, as a Minister for defence, I had responsibility for speaking from the Front Bench on defence affairs, so I know how fortunate we are to have the calibre of services that we have.
As a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I can say that everyone on the committee was impressed by the commendable speed with which the Government moved on the issue of the Naval Discipline Act when difficulties arose. There is an argument about why action was not taken before but, when the issue arose, it has to be recognised that the Government could not have moved more rapidly. What has been done and the way in which it has been done deserves commendation.
I should like to make a couple of points. One cannot look at the discipline Acts in isolation from the defence task and the issues with which our armed services are asked to grapple. We all know that the challenge to the services has changed dramatically in the recent decade. The task which we have set our armed services now is usually that of peace-keeping, peace-making and supporting the international community when it decides to grapple with a particular issue somewhere in the world. This is putting new and, in many ways, unimagined demands upon the armed services.
Personnel within the armed services, not only at the most senior level but at junior officer level, NCO level and the level of the ordinary soldier, rating and airman, are frequently asked to be ambassadors, diplomats, social workers and so on. The strategy upon which they are embarked is often not simply a technical military strategy but the strategy of winning hearts and minds. I think that many in the House believe that the British armed services have built-up some enviable standards in this respect. In my view, we should not be reticent in bringing home those standards to others in the world, even to those with whom we are co-operating most closely—for example, in Iraq. I am proud of what has been learnt and what is being applied in that context.
But, of course, it is not a lesson that has yet been accepted, fully appreciated and understood by everyone to the same degree. It is there to a commendable level of commitment but we know that there are backslidings and allegations of backslidings, to which reference has already been made in the debate. The point I wish to make is that we shall not get discipline right if we look upon it as a constraint.
We would not get very far with the effectiveness of the armed services—I have often heard this point made by those with responsibility for leadership in the armed services—if everyone with responsibility for leadership was going around with a copy of the Queen's regulations under their arms, looking up the appropriate regulation and saying, "You must do this because of this regulation". We would not get very far with fulfilling the spirit of the Geneva Convention, let alone abiding by its principles, if all our officers and senior NCOs were expected to carry around in their pockets a copy of the Geneva Convention, to which they could make reference at any particular moment.

369
Leadership in this context depends upon a culture. That culture means that these matters are absorbed, understood and felt by all those concerned. So while we need the discipline Acts, just as we need the law in society as a whole, they are most effective when they are there to reinforce and underline the culture and the set of values which apply.
From that standpoint it seems to me that, when discussing the issues that we are discussing this evening, we need to give some thought to the training, the education and the preparation of our servicemen for the task in which they are involved. Human rights should not be something that people have to remember just because they have to give account of their conduct in terms of human rights. The purpose and culture of preserving human rights should be central to the task.
If we have moved into this new phase of recognising new forms of challenge in international strategy, as I have said already, the issue of hearts and minds is central. Hearts and minds can only be won if at all times conduct is exemplary—and conduct is exemplary not just technically but because those undertaking the task can be seen to represent those values in action. That is a tremendous challenge to leadership, to training, to education and preparation.
I would find it very reassuring if my noble friend in responding to this brief exchange could say something about the positive things being done within the services to make these issues central to their culture for every serving man and woman.
Having said all that, I conclude by saying that I am delighted to hear of the work being done on a common approach to discipline across the three services. As the whole task of security and defence becomes much more integrated and a co-operative task between the services, this is a logical development which recognises the new realities and is altogether sensible. I am sure the House will want to give it all possible support when it is put before us.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I join the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in greatly welcoming not only the remedial order but also what the Minister said in his response to the recommendations of the Joint Committee, which I am sure will be welcomed by all noble Lords.
On 17 May 2001, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, there was a remarkable and memorable debate in this House at the instigation of my party, introduced by my noble friend Lord Goodhart, calling attention to the UK's obligations under international law concerning the use of armed force. My own speech concentrated on the limits imposed by international humanitarian law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, in her reply assured the House, as one would expect, that the Government would give the Armed Forces and civil servants clear guidance about their obligations under humanitarian law. I hope and believe that the Minister will be able to confirm that
370
such clear guidance was given before the conflict. I share the Minister's view and that of the whole House about the courage, fortitude and good discipline of the overwhelming majority of members of the Armed Forces.
Unfortunately, last Sunday the Prime Minister had to give—as he properly did—a public apology to anyone who has been mistreated by British soldiers. And he gave an assurance that:
"Those who are responsible for this—if they behaved in this appalling way—they will be punished according to army discipline and rules".
The order we are asked to approve this evening properly ensures continuity so far as the service discipline Acts are concerned. They are really the frameworks to which the Prime Minister was referring when he talked of discipline and punishment. What the order does not do is to provide any means of redress for any Iraqi victims of the abuse of power by members of the Armed Forces, and that is the issue on which I should like to focus.
On 4 May, the noble Lord, Lord Bach told the House that UK personnel in Iraq,
"are subject to UK law, as they would be in the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 4/5/04; col. 1030.]
In the United Kingdom, the victim of a violation of human rights is able to claim legal redress under the Human Rights Act, including compensation. He or she also has rights under the general law. It is important at this time for the House to be fully informed this evening as to the precise position about the accountability of UK personnel in Iraq—to the Iraqi victims of any abuse of human rights, and their entitlement to any compensation.
In the debate in the other place on Monday, the right honourable Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, revealed that British troops had used unlawful interrogation techniques in the aftermath of the conflict—notably by hooding prisoners. That practice was apparently stopped in September. It is more than 30 years since I had the privilege of acting as co-counsel with Brian Hutton QC as he then was, led by the Attorney-General, Sam Silkin QC, defending the United Kingdom before the European Court of Human Rights in the case brought by the Irish Republic complaining of the use of inhuman and degrading interrogation techniques in Northern Ireland. We undertook to the court that the five interrogation techniques condemned by the court as involving serious breaches of Article 3 of the European Convention—including covering a detainee's head with a hood—would no longer be used. Instructions were therefore given to the Armed Forces to ensure compliance with that undertaking.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is therefore quite deplorable that instructions that have been in place for some 30 years should have been breached in the aftermath of the Iraqi conflict. The report of the International Committee of the Red Cross of February described hooding as:
"used to prevent people from seeing and to disorient them, and also to prevent them from breathing freely. One or sometimes two bags, sometimes with an elastic blindfold over the eyes which,

371
when slipped down, further impeded proper breathing. Hooding was sometimes used in conjunction with beatings thus increasing anxiety as to when blows would come. The practice of hooding also allowed the interrogators to remain anonymous and thus to act with impunity. Hooding could last for periods from a few hours to up to two-to-four consecutive days, during which hoods were lifted only for drinking, eating or going to the toilet".
The report describes some of what occurred—only some—as "tantamount to torture".
That is the practice that was described by the report in paragraph 25, together with what is called other unacceptable techniques of physical and psychological coercion, as having been,
"used by the military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information or other forms of cooperation from persons who had been arrested in connection with suspected security offences or deemed to have an 'intelligence value".
I have written to the Minister asking him to inform the House in this debate, first, when and in what circumstances this practice—in serious breach of international human rights law—came to the attention of Ministers. Secondly, how systematic was this unlawful practice and by whom was it carried out? How was the practice brought to an end? What disciplinary action was taken to punish the perpetrators? What redress had been given to the victims of the practice? What legal redress is available to them—whether in Iraq or in this country—by way of compensation?
I should also like to know whether the other examples of physical and psychological coercion described by the report have been abandoned, and whether the United Kingdom has complied with the request made by the International Committee of the Red Cross to take corrective action. The committee asked the authorities of the coalition forces,
"to respect at all times the human dignity, physical integrity and cultural sensitivity of the persons deprived of their liberty held under their control; to set up a system of notifications of arrest to ensure quick and accurate transmission of information to the families of persons deprived of their liberty; to prevent all forms of ill-treatment … to set up an internment regime which ensures the respect of the psychological integrity and human dignity of the persons deprived of their liberty".
The authorities are asked,
"to define and apply regulations and sanctions compatible with International Humanitarian Law and to ensure that persons deprived of their liberty are fully informed".
They are also asked to investigate thoroughly the violations alleged. The next request will particularly appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, as it is,
"to ensure that battle group units arresting individuals and staff in charge of internment facilities receive adequate training enabling them to operate in a proper manner",
and so on. It would be welcome to know that the Government are complying with those sensible recommendations.
I have also written to the Minister asking him to clarify the legal status of troops and their detainees in Iraq now and after the 30 June transfer of sovereignty. I am afraid that I have tabled lots of Questions for Written Answer on that important subject, but am still
372
unclear about the position. In an Answer given on Monday by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, she explained that:
"If an investigation concludes that there was wrongdoing on the part of UK personnel, appropriate disciplinary measures will be taken, including criminal proceedings where necessary". — [Official Report, 10/5/04; col. WA 10.]
But my Question asked also what recourse was available to the people of Iraq for breaches of their human rights. I have asked the Minister kindly to clarify that.
At a time when it is vital to win the peace and to restore democracy under the rule of law in Iraq—an aim that we all share—and at a time when public trust and confidence in the Government has been regrettably undermined, it is essential for full and complete information to be given to the House before we approve the necessary orders.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House that I have an interest, as I am a serving TA officer and subject to military discipline as we speak. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about carrying a copy of the Queen's Regulations under his arm. I assure him that it is impossible; they are far too heavy and bulky.
The Minister mentioned a proposed new power for the commanding officer to discipline an officer. In principle, that is welcome, particularly for minor offences such as a road traffic offence, which currently have to be dealt with by the brigadier. However, we will need to look very carefully at the range of offences that can be dealt with by the commanding officer.
On Tuesday, the Minister was insistent that everyone deployed on Operation TELIC was properly trained on the law of armed conflict. Prior to deployment on Operation TELIC, I received such training: I saw the same video that I had watched for the past 20 years. I received no training on the rules of engagement. There is a very simple reason for that; namely, that the rules had not been agreed by Ministers at that point.They were agreed very much later.
The Army has very interesting courses for equal opportunities, food hygiene and many other subjects. However, I ask the Minister—he may prefer to write to me—whether there is a requirement for instructors on law of armed conflict to attend a course. Indeed, is there a course available for those instructing on the subject? I have to say that the quality of instruction that I have seen from regular warrant officers is not very high.
During the passage of the Armed Forces Discipline Act, I mentioned some difficulties that arise with disciplining a TA soldier who commits an offence while technically off duty. Is it correct that, in a recent case where a TA soldier impersonated an officer—a very serious military offence—no disciplinary action was possible because the soldier was not on duty? Unfortunately, I was not able to pursue the issue at the quinquennial review, because the general election truncated our deliberations on the Armed Forces Bill.

373
I am aware of changing standards, particularly in the Army; in other words, slackness. A few examples may be helpful. About two years ago, I reported to the Royal Military Police a REME recovery vehicle being driven recklessly. It was on the A303 and it was travelling at about 65 to 70 miles an hour. I know because he passed me when I was driving my Discovery. Furthermore, it was towing a heavy eight-wheel vehicle.
I reported this incident to the Royal Military Police, but they did not bother to take a statement. They said that they would contact the unit. This really means that no disciplinary action will be taken—and that is despite having evidence from an expert witness. I suspect that nowadays it is too difficult to deal with. No wonder the Army has a horrendous road traffic accident record.
I believe that the ECHR severely damages military discipline. We have moved away from a system of military discipline to a system attempting to be one of perfect military justice.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I speak as a former national service officer during the Suez War. Is he aware that in the 1950s the standards on human rights law and humanitarian law were all incorporated into our manual of military law and that those basic standards of human dignity and decency have not altered?
Earl Attlee: My Lords, in some ways I agree with the noble Lord and I shall move on to subjects about which he has spoken.
A good example is the difficulty of dealing with disorderly soldiers. It used not to be a problem—they were just put into the guardroom until they calmed down. Now, I am told, they cannot be detained because the conditions of the Bail Act apply. In order to detain a soldier, there needs to be evidence that he will interfere with witnesses or abscond. The danger is further disorder and I have been told of cases in which innocent soldiers have been seriously assaulted by a soldier who is disorderly. In days of old, he would have been put into the guardroom until he had calmed down. I feel that that is unfair and unjust to the soldiers assaulted.
But even worse, instead of the disorderly soldier being disciplined by the commanding officer for a relatively minor offence that will not damage his career, he is now facing serious disciplinary offences and probably a court martial and severe punishment. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, rightly covered some of the difficulties we are experiencing in Iraq. Obviously, I am extremely concerned about the claims made in the Mirror. It is generally accepted that the photographs are fake—the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, the other day identified difficulties with them. We are still anxious that these photographs may depict real events.
374
The question arises: are these allegations well-founded? Much thought has been given to this by experts and I have been thinking about it. The allegations referred to a traditional beating with the butt of a rifle, among other claims. I do not find that claim at all convincing. The SA80 rifle is a very short weapon, unlike the 303 Lee Enfield or the SLR. It is not very good for a prodding assault—not even very good as a club because it could break and certainly be damaged. I suspect that other weaknesses have been identified.
But I have several concerns. The first is the time that is taken to investigate these alleged offences. It goes back to my point about military discipline or perfect justice. Secondly, it may be that junior soldiers have behaved badly, but we place incredible demands on these soldiers, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. They represent a very ordinary cross-section of society—they are not carefully selected, as are officers.
It appears that the Americans are falling into the trap of subjecting junior soldiers to courts martial, but what about the officers? It is their duty to keep their soldiers under control and that is where I support the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. We do not always agree, but I believe that the officers have an onerous duty to keep their soldiers under control. It is not easy, especially in the heat of the moment and with increased bureaucracy and difficulty in applying military discipline.
9 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I think that, without exception, all noble Lords have supported the orders. Some important speeches have been made and important questions have been asked. I shall do my best briefly to answer them.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for mentioning his kinsman Lord Vivian. He played an important part in these debates and he is still missed.
In consideration of a tri-service Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked what had happened in relation to the points raised by Lord Vivian last year concerning the different needs of each service. Thus far, agreement has been reached on harmonised provisions for all the services on all disciplinary matters, but I do not think that the noble Lord will be surprised to hear that there may still be differences on minor details.
The noble Lord said that I had promised that there would be legislation, although he was careful enough not to say that that would be in 2005–06. I cannot promise legislation—would that I could—but I can say that the Government very much hope that there will be legislation. It is certainly needed in this field.
The noble Lord asked about the UK presence at Abu Ghraib—the United States detention centre. It is right that three UK military personnel worked in that prison from January until April this year. Those three personnel were from the Army Intelligence Corps. One was a captain interrogator; two were debriefers. The team was made up of specially trained personnel. As

375
the noble Lord will know, interrogators are specially trained in questioning a non-co-operative witness. The interrogator left on 26 March. The debriefers, on the other hand, are specially trained in questioning a cooperative witness. They were present at the request of the United States authorities in order to speed up the process of questioning the detainees. They questioned about 20 in all. They did not leave because of allegations. The team went to the prison at the request of US Central Command. In March/April, it was concluded that their presence was no longer essential.
I was asked whether those personnel had any contact with personnel currently under investigation. The answer is: no. By January 2004, the US unit and the individuals under investigation left the prison. Did they witness any abuse? The answer is: no. They were not aware of any allegations or actual incidences of abuse during their time at the prison. The incidents under investigation took place prior to their arrival. A lieutenant witnessed one incident of what he considered to be rough handling by US personnel. That was immediately reported to the US authorities. The leader of the team was asked whether he or any of his team had seen or heard of any abuse. I have dealt with that matter in some detail. It is an important question and the noble Lord is entitled to a decent answer.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. He asked about the judicial review. As I understand it, a full hearing has now been given. I cannot tell the noble Lord that the Ministry of Defence will not argue that the European Convention on Human Rights does not apply. He will understand that we accept absolutely that international law, the Geneva Conventions and UK law apply. However, there is an issue about whether the Convention applies, which may well have to be argued.
As to the noble Lord's point about where the buck stops—I think that is a fair way of putting it—the Chief of Joint Operations is responsible for standard operating procedures. Is he potentially liable for breaches? The answer is that he promulgates the procedures in his name but the political responsibility for the conduct and operations of the Armed Forces lies ultimately with the Secretary of State. The service discipline Acts provide mechanisms to ensure that the political responsibility is met by the punishment of offenders.
I am grateful for the speech of my noble friend Lord Judd, who was a distinguished defence Minister. He made some important points, in particular in relation to the job that our Armed Forces at all levels now have to do, not just in Iraq but around the world. He asked whether they are trained to do that job. I do not have a full answer except to say that great efforts are made to ensure that soldiers and other members of the Armed Forces are properly trained for the tasks that they now meet, which in many ways are somewhat different from those they may have met in the past. It may be that there is more we can do in that regard. The defence training review proposed a coherent set of interlinked measures to deliver a training and education system that is more integrated between the
376
services and between service and civilian training; more aligned to operational and business needs, more responsive to change and more cost effective. We are always seeking to do better.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way and for what he said in response to my point. However, can he specifically tell the House how far there is training throughout the armed services in the importance of human rights, their observation and our commitment to them in the undertaking of all the work that is done?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I understand it, before any of the Armed Forces went to Iraq, as part of their training they would be informed of and taught the importance of their obligations under the law: the Geneva Convention, international law and English—British—law. At present I cannot say more than that.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would allow me to mention one matter for him to reflect on. During the debates on the International Criminal Court Bill I raised the point about the manual of military law and the parts written by Sir Hersch Lauterpact and Colonel Gerald Draper. I asked whether that manual might be reissued because it proved so valuable to us during the Suez period. As I recall, the Minister indicated that that was an interesting idea. I wonder whether that kind of idea of published guidance that the public can see and that the Armed Forces may have available provides benchmarks on which we can all rely in future.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful. Again, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will take back that idea. However, I do not want to mislead the House by saying more is done than is done, nor the other way round. Clearly, there is some training in this field. I suspect the issue will be whether that is sufficient given the kind of jobs they now have to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was kind enough to write to me and inform me of the issues that he was to raise. I think there may be a misunderstanding between us. I have looked carefully at Monday's Hansard for another place and I do not believe my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said—even though it was put to him that he said—that hooding was used not on detainees but for interrogation purposes. It was put to him in a question:
"The Secretary of State has just confirmed that hoods were used on detainees in Iraq between April and September last year".
I do not believe that my right honourable friend had ever said that. Clearly, there had been allegations. My right honourable friend replied:
"The policy did not change, and it was stopped".—[Official Report, Commons, 10/5/04; cols. 34–35.]
I appreciate very much the important role that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has played over the years in establishing the rule that was announced in this House on 2 March 1972. It applied, as he said, to the interrogation of prisoners.

377
I shall now answer the noble Lord's questions. Hooding may be justifiably used in very limited circumstances; for example, on arrest, in order to maintain the anonymity of a suspect. We all know of examples where that happens, and it may be in the arrested person's best interests, particularly if he is seen being arrested and it is suspected that he may later turn out to assist us.
All UK interrogators are highly trained. Their training includes specific instruction that hooding must not be used as an interrogation technique. In Iraq during operation TELIC we are confident that interrogators have not used hooding as a technique. If allegations are made that suggest that they have, of course we will consider them very seriously.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I fully understand what has been said. My puzzlement is that the Red Cross report deals, at paragraph 25, with hooding among other things as methods of ill treatment most frequently alleged during interrogation. Paragraph 26 states:
"These methods of physical and psychological coercion were used by military intelligence in a systematic way to gain confessions and extract information".
It is very careful to acquit the coalition forces of other forms of systematic ill treatment. But, as I read the report, it seems to say that this is one example—and only in the early aftermath of the war—where a practice of hooding was used coercively in that way. On reading the report, I was concerned that the position as outlined by the Minister had not been followed—that the practice of unacceptable use of hooding had been discontinued. Perhaps that can be cleared up, because obviously it is very important. Why was it discontinued? How did it come to our notice, and how was it discontinued?
Lord Bach: My Lords, my only challenge to the noble Lord would be to suggest that the Secretary of State was not conceding that there had been proven examples of hooding being used in interrogation, as the noble Lord suggested. All hooding was stopped on 26 September 2003. Ministers were made aware on that date that the permanent joint headquarters had issued direction that the practice should cease forthwith. That means hooding on arrest as much as any other hooding of detainees, whether or not they were being interrogated. I hope that that makes the position slightly clearer.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting at this late hour, but obviously we will return to this issue many times in future. My understanding was that the British Army stopped using hooding in 1971. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that it was not a new procedure being used in Iraq.
Lord Bach: My Lords, that is not the position as I understand it. The Parker report and a Statement made to both Houses on 2 March 1972, which I have
378
taken the trouble to read before coming into the Chamber, made clear that what was being talked about were a number of methods of interrogation, including hooding. As I have said, it has always been accepted that on rare occasions—perhaps on arrest—hooding may be acceptable. There is certainly nothing in the Statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this House to suggest that that was not true.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I entirely agree with that. What I still do not understand is that if there was nothing wrong with hooding, and if it was not being used in interrogation techniques, what was it that caused the practice to be abandoned? Did it in any way relate to what the Red Cross had been saying, not in the February report, but in earlier conversations with the authorities?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord will have to do with the fact that hooding was stopped. It was stopped at that time. I am not in a position to give the actual reason why that order was given, but it was given, and since that time, there has been no hooding of any kind.
The noble Lord asked what disciplinary actions were taken to punish the perpetrators. Any allegations will be taken seriously and thoroughly investigated, and if British forces are found to have acted unlawfully, appropriate action will be taken. As far as redress is concerned, there is a standard procedure for making claims against the UK authorities. I am advised that the redress that is available is that an Iraqi civilian may bring a claim against the UK authorities under UK national law. That procedure was established under the auspices of the Coalition Provisional Authority. I hope that that more or less goes some way to answering the questions asked by the noble Lord, but I suspect that it is not entirely satisfactory, given the look on his face.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, on that last point—
Lord Judd: My Lords, before we leave this point, will my noble friend the Minister write to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and place a copy of the letter in the Library? There is a difficulty here. When the Minister says that he is not in a position to say why the order was given, is he suggesting that he is not in a position on security grounds, or that he does not know? I have been a Minister, and you cannot possibly know everything. Points are raised in debate that sometimes need to be looked into and answered afterwards. There is some anxiety as to how far the Ministers are in the driving seat. Therefore, it would be helpful if we could have some more information about the rationale for that very appropriate and right decision having been made when it was.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the reason why—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I have such a sad life that I have read the law of administration for

379
the state of Iraq for the transitional period. It is terribly important, and I am grateful to the Minister. Contrary to my reading of the law, what the Minister has just said is that victims of any abuses in Iraq have a remedy in Iraq under the administrative law in Iraq, or have a remedy in this country. That is very important, if that is the case. And if that is the case, it greatly reassures me, because it means that we are properly accountable in those very rare cases where there have been abuses.
I have read this 8 March 2004 law obtaining in Iraq, and although it protects the human rights of Iraqis against Iraqi institutions, I did not read it as giving any remedy against the coalition forces under that law. I could not find any other law under which there would be compensatory remedies—civil redress, as distinct from English criminal sanctions and so on. I wrote to the Minister to try to clarify that.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that we should not extract information like pulling teeth at this time of night. It is a messy way of doing it. I am not suggesting that the Minister is not being entirely coherent, but if a coherent, comprehensive, statement could be placed in the Library, that would certainly meet all my legitimate needs.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I would like to support—
Lord Bach: My Lords, let me deal with these points first if I may.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, should be careful in quoting me. I will read again what I said: any Iraqi civilian may bring a claim against UK authorities under UK national law. That procedure was established under the auspices of the Coalition Provisional Authority. It made no comment as to in which country or how that should be done. I have to stand by that.
It is a sensible idea that I write in due course to the noble Lords dealing with these difficult and complicated matters and put a copy of the letter in the House Library. The noble Lord having been gracious enough to let me know what his questions were, my purpose today was to try to answer him as frankly as
380
I could. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that it is not accepted that hooding has been used in the course of interrogation in Iraq.
If allegations are made to that effect, they will be taken extremely seriously.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Can his response include the difference between war fighting operations, peace support operations and counter-terrorism operations?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I will consider the noble Earl's suggestion. I come to his speech now, and I will be brief. He suggests that I write to him about those separate questions, and that is exactly what I will do.
It is always good to hear from the noble Earl because of his experience in the field as a serving officer of the Territorial Army. I thank him for what he has said and I will write to him in due course.
We have had a good debate on an important subject at an important time. I hope that the House will feel that it has been treated fairly this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Naval Discipline Act 1957 (Remedial) Order 2004
9.21 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 15 January be approved.—(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill
Bill returned from the Commons With the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Civil Partnership Bill [H.L.]
  (Second Day)
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): I should like to say first that there is a revised list of groupings that includes the amendments that have already been debated. The previous list did not, which was a little confusing, as the first two amendments were excluded, but the revised list includes them. So we shall be working from the revised list and I wanted to ensure that everyone has received it.
  Clause 3 [Eligibility]:
  [Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
  Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 17:
  Page 2, line 35, leave out paragraph (d).
  The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment that would alter Clause 3, which outlines categories of eligibility for registering a civil partnership. The Bill as drafted requires that people thinking of entering civil partnerships are of the same sex, not lawfully married or already in a civil partnership and over 16. Our amendment focuses on the last requirement by leaving out the provision on prohibited degrees of relationship. That goes directly to the heart of an issue that threatens to turn a Bill that is aimed to be about justice for a group of people who live in long and stable relationships but who cannot legally marry, into a Bill that highlights and perpetuates an injustice to other people who have made similar life choices to live together and to care for each other but who, equally, cannot marry.
  The Committee will be familiar with the argument, with which I know that many noble Lords—although, sadly, it seems not on the government Front Bench— sympathise. Let me be quite clear where I am coming from. I made that clear on Second Reading. I said then, and I say now, that I welcome the intent behind the Bill, as it is tackling issues of discrimination. I understand the force of feeling and sense of injustice that motivates those who have proposed it. I recall a powerful speech in the Chamber some years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Alli, spoke passionately about the unfairness that inheritance tax might drive a partner from a shared home when the other partner died. The noble Lord spoke from the heart that day.
  Many noble Lords have recalled the tragic death of Lord Montague of Oxford, which was referred to the day before yesterday by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I would like to think that he and all those who support the Bill would have a shared feeling for the same burning sense of injustice felt by those about whom I speak again under this amendment. There should be no conflict between the people of whom I speak and the proponents of the Bill. The Government should not be allowed to play one group off against the other.
  The Government said the day before yesterday that this is a Bill about relationships, not finance. That is a cop-out, and a pretty unconvincing one to me. I said on Second Reading that the financial implications of the Bill, which are massive—as, day by day, our discussion in Committee makes clear—should be explored and debated alongside the relationship legislation. That must be so; it cannot be otherwise. Even an increasingly disjoined Government must see that. Indeed, the proponents of the Bill accept that; they know that the Bill has financial implications, both good and bad. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, for whom I have the utmost respect, was wrong to say the day before yesterday that the House could not discuss those financial matters. Of course we can, although the other place has the final say on matters of finance.
  Our society offers financial advantages to those who are married—sadly, and troublingly, increasingly few advantages; but advantages none the less. They include, not least, as we discussed, exemption from the vile and destructive inheritance tax on the death of a spouse. It offers those advantages in return for the recognition of the aspiration towards lifelong union that two people stand and make together in public. The people who make that commitment accept responsibility, make sacrifices and become in many other ways financially worse off. For better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health—the words are not so bad even four and a half centuries down the line.
  Perhaps there are some things that are not out of place even in new Labour's modern Britain. If that is the spirit that illumines this Bill, it would be a great thing indeed. Married couples accept, for example, that they will be worse off in relation to many benefits and, indeed, in relation to pensions, than two single people living separately. We will no doubt explore that later in Committee.
  The financial consequences of a vow of lifelong partnership are inextricably bound to the reality of that relationship. You cannot pretend otherwise; those who are behind this Bill recognise that. Indeed, Stonewall is explicit in saying it accepts that in some cases civil partners will be financially worse off, just as they will benefit from other changes such as inheritance tax. So let us have no humbug about this. The Government should bring forward, and be ready to debate fully, honestly and openly, the explicit Financial implications of the Bill, as we asked them to do at Second Reading. We still reserve the right to table amendments at a later stage to explore this.
  There was some discussion of inheritance tax in Committee the day before yesterday. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, somewhat brutally said that extending the ambit of civil partnerships rendered the Bill a tax avoidance scheme. Do I take it, therefore, that the Liberal Democrat Party opposes an exemption from inheritance tax for civil partners? The noble Lords, Lord Alli and Lord Tebbit, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, more humanely were clear that inheritance tax must be an issue. Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention that civil partners should be exempt from inheritance tax in the same way as married couples now are? If that is the case, a great benefit will be bestowed on those same-sex couples who can become civil partners.
  But there is another category of people joined by the same affirmation of love and of affection, the same sense of duty to each other and the same commitment to a long life together as the same-sex couples who are the subject of this Bill and who in the same way cannot marry: unmarried siblings who share a long commitment to each other and share the home together for many long years—dare I say, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health? They cannot marry. They are bound by love and fate not to be able to do so. No society would ever allow that they should. But they are surely just as capable of making and practising the same vow as others who wish to become civil partners.
  There is another group too—that quiet, devoted army not so large in number, but weighty beyond measure in its value to society, of family carers who look after aged, often disabled, parents and who stay unmarried in the family home to do so. At Second Reading I gave the example of a son who selflessly lives with an ageing father to look after him in his last years. The same could be said of daughter and mother and, indeed—although I do not open it out in this amendment—of an unmarried son and a mother or an unmarried daughter and a father. All these are cases of people who cannot marry but whose love and ties, and the value they give back to society, should surely deserve the same recognition as the couples allowed new privileges under this Bill. Yet the Government will still discriminate against any such people after the passage of this Bill. There are many other categories of people who will still be discriminated against, for example, many elderly brothers and sisters living together. Perhaps their husbands and wives have passed away or perhaps they have never been married but living with a relative provides comfort and security. They too will still be discriminated against and are not included in the Bill.
  I recognise that the day before yesterday the opinions of the Committee were divided on this issue but I am keen to state early on in these Grand Committee proceedings that this is an issue upon which we are unlikely to change our minds. I will not go away. We will fight for justice for these people with the same vigour as many of the people in this room have fought for another group of people who cannot marry.
  How can it be right for a pair of gay civil partners to be given the same protection against inheritance tax as a married couple on the grounds of their chosen relationship and their inability to marry and yet right for an elderly sister or a 60 year-old son who has spent a lifetime caring for a parent to be brutally tossed out of the home in which they have spent their lives by the capricious operation of inheritance tax when a loved one dies? Such people cannot marry each other. They have committed to each other across decades. Surely their devoting cries out to have a mechanism of partnership for its recognition. Surely the injustice done to them by inheritance tax taking away their lifelong home, as we debated, cries out to be addressed just as much as the cases before us in the Bill.
  Many of these people are not wealthy. They have made sacrifices to care for others, to care for people in their old age or disability who would otherwise be a major call upon the state. Parliament has the opportunity in the Bill to stretch out a hand to them. Will we do so or will we pass on by? Will we take satisfaction, just satisfaction, in a success for gay rights but turn our backs on a call for natural justice for others whose partnership is just as deep but who cannot marry? I cannot accept that we should. Cannot the Government look at ways to open the benefits and responsibilities, and the burdens and costs, of the Bill to them? Cannot we explore ways to limit any tax costs by confining the benefits to those siblings and other close relations who cannot marry and who have lived together for many years?
  Surely that is what this Committee should be for and what this House, which has so often stood up for natural justice, as in the case of war widows for example, should also be for. It is easy to say no to spinster sisters who have shared a life or to the devoted son who has shopped and shared for 50 years. But surely we should take time to see if there is not a better way and so to make this an even better Bill. It does not seem so hard and if the Chancellor is the man responsible for setting the Government's teeth against it, can he not see that in the case of unmarried siblings or unmarried children there is no risk of indefinite erosion of the tax base or the immunity of a property from inheritance tax by passing it on from one partner to another? It is simply a case of liability deferred, but deferred in a way that avoids brutal pain when someone with whom one has shared a lifetime but cannot marry, dies.
  I call from the heart to the Government, and I plead with those in the gay community who argued for the Bill and who understand the pain of not being able to affirm a relationship and having to suffer the fiscal consequences, to think again on this matter and to extend some means of affirmation to these people. These are good and deserving people—none better. It is a sad truth that many of them are left in a terrible financial state when one or other of them dies. What a poor reflection it would be on how we look on family and treat the elderly in our society if we heard their call and passed on by. I beg to move.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: When the leader of the Conservative Party, the right honourable Michael Howard, announced that his party was in favour of this Bill, I was very greatly heartened. I thought that the Conservative Party would deal with the Bill on a consensual basis, seeking to promote its objectives and not to undermine it with amendments whose effect, if not their purpose, would be to make it impossible for the Bill to be enacted either speedily or at all.
  I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, that there should be no humbug about this. It is, I am afraid, humbug to seek to point to other disadvantaged groups and to seek to widen the Bill to deal with them when that is not the central purpose of the Bill.
  The central purpose of the Bill is clearly explained in the admirable Explanatory Notes, which I bring to the attention of Members of the Committee because we have been over this ground not once but several times already. Paragraph 3 states:
  "The purpose of the Civil Partnership Bill is to enable same-sex couples to obtain legal recognition of their relationship by forming a civil partnership which they may do by registering as civil partners of each other provided: they are of the same sex; they are not already in an existing civil partnership or lawfully married; they are not within the prohibited degrees of relationships; they are both over the age of eighteen or are over sixteen and have consent of the appropriate people or bodies".
  That is the purpose that I had thought that the Conservative Party, through its leader, completely endorses. It is a way of giving much needed legal recognition to a vulnerable group of persons who are prevented by law from being able to marry.
  The main reason that marriage is considered to be good for society, in a non-religious sense, is that committed relationships help to settle individuals into stable homes and families. Marriage does that by establishing collective rules of conduct that strengthen the obligations to a spouse and often to children. We offer that right in civil law because society generally tries to encourage as many people as possible to live stable and productive lives. Marriage helps society to achieve that goal.
  The primary purpose of the Bill is not about taxation. I am astonished and depressed to hear again and again the purposes of the Bill being reduced to coarse materialism. It may be what obsesses certain Members of the Committee —taxation and property— but, again, if one looks at the Bill, it becomes self-evident that it is not a tax Bill. Indeed, a tax bill is what the Finance Bill will deal with later.
  I am sorry to have to point out what is elementary, but I do: Chapter 3 of the Bill deals with property and financial arrangements, including, for example, actions in tort between civil partners, assurance policies, wills, administration of estates and family provision, and so forth. Chapter 5 deals with the important subject of children. Chapter 6 deals with housing and tenancies, with family homes and domestic violence and with fatal accidents claims. Much of that has nothing whatever to do with taxation; it has everything to do with giving a floor of
  GC 120
  legal protection that is needed for this vulnerable group and not needed, perhaps I may say, for the other vulnerable groups of hardship to which the noble Baroness and others have referred.
  I very much hope that these proceedings will be able to go ahead without too much repetition of points that are made on particular amendments, but we shall see. The touchstone that we in this party will use when we look at any amendment is to ask ourselves whether it seeks to advance the purposes of the Bill as described in the Explanatory Notes or whether it really seeks to frustrate that purpose. If the amendment seeks to frustrate that purpose, we will oppose it. If it is a genuine attempt to strengthen the rights and obligations of same-sex couples in loving relationships, we will support it. On that basis, we are wholly opposed to this amendment and all the other amendments of a similar ilk.
  My noble friend Lord Goodhart will no doubt want to speak on the issue of inheritance tax, about which he knows a great deal more than I shall ever learn.
  Lord Alli: I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, said. It was a very impassioned speech, but my feeling was that it was a speech for a different Bill. I have reflected very carefully on Monday's proceedings over the past 48 hours, rereading Hansard, and I concluded that the Conservative Party has fundamentally understood the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is very much as the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, outlined. I was given great cheer when the noble Baroness stood at the Dispatch Box at Second Reading and said very clearly and proudly,
  "I hope that the Minister will feel encouraged that the Official Opposition support the Civil Partnership Bill. I and my leader in another place do so in principle. We wish it well on its passage through this House".—[Official Report, 22/04/04; col. 395;]
  The noble Baroness recognised the words of Michael Howard, who said the he wanted to support the Bill because he did not believe it downgraded marriage but in fact gave respect to people who want to live their lives in different ways.
  However, it has become clear with this amendment and the others in the group that the noble Baroness is unfortunately allying herself with those in her party who seek to torpedo the Bill. These are seductive arguments, and I have given my support to pursuing them outside the Bill. There are many deserving causes such as carers and spinster sisters, and inheritance tax is an important issue. But this is not an inheritance tax Bill, and trying to convert it into such plays into the hands of those would have the Bill destroyed In fact, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said on Monday that this was not a relationship Bill but a tax Bill. I genuinely believe that that is where the noble Baroness is coming from. I said that I did not believe that inheritance tax was the principal concern of the Bill.
  I am concerned that the Conservative Party Front-Bench Members are moving back to a position which we hoped they had moved away from. Indeed, they had given every indication that they had done so. But if you table amendments that appear to oppose the

  GC 121
  Bill, if you act as if you oppose the Bill, if you speak as if you oppose the Bill, then it is only reasonable for people to assume that you oppose the Bill. It is not just people in this House or the other place who will make that assumption. There are people up and down the country who are looking for indications of the change in the Conservative Party. This was that touchstone issue, and these amendments undermine that position.
  I do not wish to engage in arguments about whether one group is more deserving than another. Same-sex couples who are currently invisible in the eyes of the law are a deserving group. The Bill deals with exactly that. Discussions about other groups are not for this Bill. I accept that there is a need to press the Government to look at some of those cases, but not in this Bill.
  I know that it is sometimes hard to imagine new Labour not being in power, but we have been here for only six years.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Seven.
  Lord Alli: Going on for seven—no, seven. The Conservative Party was in power for a very long time. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was in the Treasury for some of that time. If the Conservatives were so impassioned about these issues, why did they not make changes when they were in government? If those inheritance tax issues were so burning and you believed in them with so much passion and vigour, why did you not take the opportunity that you had to make them?
  I believe that many of these are spoiling amendments designed to make the Bill unworkable. I urge my noble friend the Minister to resist them just as she did on Monday. We will see these amendments again on future occasions. I urge those on the Conservative Front Bench, please, to rethink their strategy on the Bill. We would like it to go through by consent.
  Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I can intervene from the Cross Benches to say that the Conservative Party is not alone in being concerned about the situation of other members of the family. I very much regret that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, did not have the courage to stick to his original Bill when those issues might have been dealt with. However, I would not like the Conservative Party to be attacked on the basis that it is just causing trouble, because it is not; this is a very real issue. I do not think that I need to say more at the moment.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am not sure that a lack of courage is the concern. My Bill dealt only with same-sex and opposite-sex couples. I have already said previously in Committee that I regret that this Bill cannot deal with both. However, I certainly had no intention of dealing with carers or other vulnerable
  GC 122
  groups. Nor do I think it would be appropriate in this particular Bill, much as other law reforms might be desirable.
  Lord Northbourne: I accept that the noble Lord's reference to carers is probably right. But the same-sex and other-sex couples that he had included are, to me, hugely important.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I agree.
  Lord Tebbit: First, perhaps I may say something to the Chair as well as to other Members of the Committee and particularly to the Minister. I find it remarkable that although the Bill has been in gestation for several years, we are today faced with 120 pages of government amendments, to a Bill consisting of only 255 pages. I will not go on about it, but it seems an extraordinarily poor way in which to manage legislation, particularly so long after Second Reading. I just have to wonder when the Government realised that there was the need for 120 pages of government amendments to a 255-page Bill. I may have the precise number wrong—it is a rough number—but just look at it. It is not a satisfactory way in which to conduct business.
  I should like to comment on one or two things that have been said so far in the debate. I say at once that the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Wilcox has my support.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lester, said that the Bill is for same-sex couples. Actually, inherently, it is a Bill for some same-sex couples. It specifically excludes a number of same-sex couples. He would have been more accurate if he had said it is a Bill for some same-sex couples. He also waxed eloquent on the Explanatory Notes. However, as we all know, Explanatory Notes have no legislative force whatever. In those famous words of one of Her Majesty's Ministers, they would—I think these are his actual words—have no more effect than a copy of the Beano. I remember the words very well, and I suspect that he probably does too; he has had to eat them often enough since. However, I suggest that if the noble Lord, Lord Lester, appeared in court in a case and started quoting not the legislation but the Explanatory Notes to the Bill when it had gone through the House, the judge would not let him get too far with it.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is perfectly right that the Explanatory Notes have no legal consequence in a court of law, normally at any rate. That is absolutely right. I was simply quoting the Explanatory Notes as a parliamentarian, since they are designed to explain to parliamentarians what the Government consider to be the statutory purpose. If it were necessary, because there were any doubt about the matter, then what is in that paragraph could be incorporated in the Bill. But unless the Minister tells me that I am mistaken, the Explanatory Notes seem to me to be very well designed to explain to any parliamentarian who reads them what is the statutory purpose. Of course, the Explanatory Notes

  GC 123
  are of no greater value than the Beano to a court construing a provision of the Act when enacted. But that is a wholly different matter.
  Lord Tebbit: I am grateful for the at least halfhearted consent of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to the proposition that I put. I suppose I ought to declare a potential or a contingent interest in this amendment at this stage. Should I pre-decease my wife, someone will have to fulfil the role that I have fulfilled for her since Sinn Fein tried to murder the Prime Minister and a number of the rest of us and succeeded in murdering a number of people. Should that be one of our children, is the noble Lord, Lord Lester, really saying that he does not want to take advantage of the possibility of bringing into the Bill a provision that would put my daughter or one of my sons in the same position as a same-sex couple in relation to inheritance tax? I cannot believe that that is his view.
  The noble Lord says he would like to do that, but not now, not in this Bill, although there is nothing in the Long Title of the Bill that would preclude it. He may suspect, and I think that he might be right, that the Treasury would be reluctant to extend to other couples who may not be married or who may be prohibited from marrying the same protection from inheritance tax that it is intended that this Bill would do.
  The noble Lord, Lord Alli, said that this Bill is not really about inheritance tax. Well, that is fine. If it is not, why does the Minister not say that the Government will not make any changes in inheritance tax as a consequence of the Bill? If it is all about status, recognition or those other sections of the Bill, why are we talking about inheritance tax at all? The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, says that we are not talking about inheritance tax. She may not be talking about inheritance tax, but everybody else is. Everybody knows perfectly well that the Government have said that in the next available Finance Bill they will bring in provisions relating to inheritance tax which spring from the Bill; indeed the noble Baroness herself said so the clay before yesterday. It is about inheritance tax.
  I do not say that that is the centre of the Bill, it is not. If the Government were to say that they would not make any changes in the inheritance tax regime the Bill could still go ahead. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who said that all the provisions about the private property of the individuals concerned are contained in the Bill. So the Bill could go ahead. We need have no worry for the Treasury at all. It would then be appropriate for the Government, in due time, to bring forward a Bill about inheritance tax in the proper manner, in the Finance Bill.
  The noble Lord, Lord Alli, asked my noble friend Lord Higgins why, if the Conservative Party believes that something should be done about inheritance tax as it effects, for example, children who have cared for parents, it did not do it when the Conservative government were in office. I might equally well say to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that if the Government care
  GC 124
  about this Bill, why did they not bring it in when they were in office years ago? It is a pretty poor argument to say, "You didn't do it in your time a decade ago".
  Lord Alli: I consider that a weak argument. This Bill is being introduced within a reasonable time frame. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept the following point. One of the reasons I find the amendments that we are discussing, which stand in his name and those of his noble friends, particularly difficult to understand—I believe that they are counter-productive and that the noble Lord is trying to torpedo the Bill—is due to history. I refer to the way in which the noble Lord has approached this subject historically, the way in which he has voted on these issues historically and the way in which he has opposed these issues historically. I have not seen the evidence of the counter-argument regarding the work that has been done on inheritance tax. When the noble Lord's party was in government it laid no foundation for that. Now, when we are discussing a Bill that affects gay men and women, the noble Lord adopts the same position that he has adopted on all other equality legislation.
  Lord Tebbit: First, I have always taken the view that it is better to judge people by their deeds and not by their words. Secondly, the inheritance tax problem was not a severe problem until recent years. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Alli, shaking his head. It is only in recent years that an enormous number of houses have risen in price to the level where they cause an inheritance tax liability. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head. Everyone in this room knows perfectly well that that is the case. That is why it has become an acute problem. It was not an acute problem 20 years ago. Surely the noble Lord knows that there has been an escalation of property prices and that the starting level of inheritance tax has not risen in accordance with it. Indeed, if the noble Lord forces me to wax eloquently about the matter, if I can do such a thing, I point out that inheritance tax is an entirely unfair tax as it is a postcode tax. It depends where you live, not what sort of house you live in, whether or not that tax will be levied. So let us not have any of that.
  As to whether these are wrecking amendments, if they were, they would not have been permitted by the Chair. It is no good noble Lords laughing; that is a fact. You cannot have wrecking amendments of the kind that the noble Lord suggests. The amendments would not wreck this Bill unless, of course, it is about inheritance tax and the Chancellor said, "I am not having that Bill with those amendments". It would be the Chancellor who would wreck the Bill if he so wished; it would not be a case of these amendments wrecking the Bill.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree with me on the following point. If I told him that I wanted to go to Glasgow quickly and he said, "You can go to Glasgow quickly, but you have to go via Truro and Penzance", his counter-offer might be regarded as wrecking my plan to go to Glasgow quickly. Are we not discussing exactly the same point with regard to these

  GC 125
  amendments? Of course, they are not wrecking amendments in the sense that they cannot be tabled as a matter of procedure but they are wrecking amendments in that their thrust is to try to widen the Bill in a way that would make it practically impossible—quite apart from any action on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—for the Bill to be enacted and become law before the next general election.
  Lord Tebbit: If the noble Lord, Lord Lester, were to make me an offer that he would go to Glasgow by the most expeditious route I might just possibly accept it. I would not trouble him to go via Truro. There is nothing in these amendments that need delay the Bill going through—nothing whatever. It is rather unwise of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to put forward such an argument.
  Amendments standing in my name are included in the grouping that we are discussing—Amendments Nos. 18 and 37. My amendments are slightly different to that of my noble friend. Her amendment is much more akin to the amendments that I moved the day before yesterday—it is more sweeping. Mine are more modest. They are about removing the consanguinity clauses.
  I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, read out a note the day before yesterday that stated that these provisions had nothing to do with concern about inheritance of birth or genetic defects or the incest provisions, but were all to do with the doctrine of the Catholic Church several hundred years ago. I am not sure whether she is necessarily overwhelmingly right or wrong about that but, above all, those restrictions on marriage between persons of opposite sex are related to the potential problems of children of the marriage.
  My amendments would remove those provisions that prohibit persons of the same sex entering a civil partnership on the grounds that they are within the prohibited degrees of relationship. It is as simple as that, when one takes it in short. Those amendments are to pages 98 and 76 of the Bill. They would be useful additions because they would, for example, allow brothers to enter a same-sex partnership. If the Bill is about same-sex partnerships, why not brothers? That is not a big amendment. It would not wreck the Bill. I am not sure how long the noble Lord, Lord Lester, thinks that it would delay the Bill—certainly for no longer than a flight to Glasgow. So I do not know why there is any resistance to this, except, possibly, Treasury resistance to any expansion of the narrow group for whom the Bill has tax advantages. No more needs to be said.
  Lord Goodhart: I start by saying that I used to know a good deal about inheritance tax because, when I was in practice at the Bar, I advised a number of people on it. Whether that helped them to reduce their liability to inheritance tax, I should not like to say. What is clear is that the purpose of the Bill is to give legal and public recognition to the status of civil partner between couples of the same sex. The tax consequences are just that—they are merely consequential on that
  GC 126
  relationship, which is the important element. The purpose of the Conservative amendments is entirely different. As I said before and repeat, it is to turn the Bill into a tax avoidance or, at best, tax reduction—I suppose that one could politely call it—Bill.
  Not a single argument has been put forward by anyone on the Conservative Benches or by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, from the Cross-Benches, as to why there should be any extension to other people—for instance, people within the prohibited degree—except that it will save them from inheritance tax, which has now become a problem because of the increase in house prices. The arguments are purely on the basis that if those people are not allowed to enter into civil partnerships they will suffer a tax burden that they might otherwise be able to avoid. It is purely and simply a tax avoidance issue.
  4.15 p.m.
  There is a seriously arguable case that there are circumstances—for example, that of a carer looking after an elderly parent—where some form of tax relief would be justified. But this is not the Bill or the occasion on which that issue should be raised. If the Conservative amendments should succeed, we would be left with a situation where some people who ought to benefit from tax relief would fail to do so; for example, because they are married to someone else. I entirely see the personal point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, which I look on with great sympathy. I do not know whether his daughter or his sons are married. But, if so, they would be unable to benefit even from the Bill as it is now proposed to be amended.
  If there is such a strong case for relief, it should not have to depend on people entering into a formal civil partnership with all that it implies in terms of the complications of dissolution or nullification. It should be based simply on the nature of the relationship; that is, being able to establish that there was co-residence, that there was a caring obligation and that it was undertaken without pay.
  However, the Conservative amendments would give tax benefits to a number of people who should not be entitled to benefit. For instance, there is nothing in the Conservative amendments that we are debating that requires a formal co-residence. I think that there was one the other day that did require that, but these do not.
  Perhaps I am wasting time here, but I certainly do not intend to speak to this issue again. I believe that we are wasting time that would be better spent on considering the actual details of this Bill and whether or how we could improve it so that it can achieve the objects for which it was introduced.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I may refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has just said about people not having to live in the same house for the purposes of the amendment. That is true, of course.

  GC 127
  After speaking to my amendments in Grand Committee on Monday, although I withdrew them, I said that I would bring them back at Report stage.
  Lord Northbourne: The reason that I am so concerned in this matter is rather on the same basis. My grandchildren say to me that it is not fair if a single-sex couple, because they live together, are to enjoy certain advantages. Why should two brothers who are living together be excluded from those advantages?
  Lord Tebbit: In the most interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, he said that we had not established why those benefits or exemption from inheritance tax on a house, for example, should be given to the group of people who would receive them under this amendment. He did not make any case for them being given to the group who would receive them under the Bill.
  The case is that it is unfair because the benefits are given to married couples, but they are not given to same-sex couples who cannot marry; that is, who cannot marry each other. They can marry other people if they wish, but they cannot marry each other. The argument all the way through has been that it is unfair: "It's unfair. It's unfair". But that is the argument that we put. It is unfair. It is far more unfair to a far larger group than those who will receive benefits under the Bill. The problem, as I have said, is that my noble friend's amendment would bring too many people too much benefit. That is the Treasury argument. We could solve that by saying that no one would benefit as a result of this Bill from inheritance tax changes.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): I should like to say from the inception that I do not feel able to accept the amendment. I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Lester and Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lord Alli. Perhaps I may turn to some of the specific issues that were raised in relation to the number of amendments. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, makes complaint about the volume of amendments.
  Members of the Committee will know that on 27 November the usual channels were made aware that the Northern Ireland provisions would be on this scale and to this timetable. That is one of the reasons why the Government sought agreement to publish the Bill in draft and to introduce it later in the Session for carry over.
  At Second Reading, I made plain—at cols. 390 and 391 of the Official Report for 22 April 2004—that this was the proposal, and I gave the reasons. I wrote again to Members of the Committee on 29 April setting those reasons out. Your Lordships will see that the amendments that we have tabled mirror the provisions elsewhere in the Bill that we have for England and Wales, and Scotland, save, of course, the modification that takes into account the Northern Irish structure. With the greatest respect, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that his criticisms on that regard are misplaced.
  GC 128
  I shall deal with the technical issues first before I turn to the substance. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, commented on the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in relation to the Explanatory Notes. In case there is any doubt, the Explanatory Notes are correct. They outline the purpose of the Bill. I say that on a Pepper v Hart basis. Having said that, the court, if in any doubt, may turn to these statements in order to accurately construe the intention of Parliament when we were debating these issues.
  I now turn to the powerful speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. Of course, I hear the concern that she has expressed, which has been echoed by others, for those who are in a significantly different position than those who wish now to enter into same-sex partnerships. I am a little surprised by the terms that she used in describing inheritance tax. I hope that the noble Baroness will correct me in case I have incorrectly noted her words, but I believe that she called it "the vile inheritance tax".
  I say that I am surprised because I know that the government under the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, has been called many things—people have been quite pejorative in some of their comments about the tax issues brought in by that government—but I would remind Members of the Committee opposite that it was, in fact, the government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, who introduced inheritance tax in 1986. It replaced the capital transfer tax that went before it.
  So "the vile inheritance tax" has its origins on the other side. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will remember it well. At that stage, he was chairman of the party. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, can suffer some relief because I believe that during that period he was not responsible for the matter at the Treasury.
  I therefore understand why my noble friend Lord Alli echoes surprise that, if these issues are of such burning importance, they were not addressed in the 18 years of Tory government. However, it is perhaps unseemly for us to exchange words about the history—who was responsible for one or another aspect. We are dealing with the situation in which we now find ourselves.
  On Monday, I said that there were significant differences between the arrangements currently available for members of a family in terms of both intestacy rights and tenancies. We went through many of the provisions that are currently available to those who are family members. If one were to take the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, to their final conclusion, one would be able to have perpetual partnerships within a family that could avoid inheritance tax in perpetuity. So elder son could marry son in effect, which is what those opposite say is happening. A partnership could go from brother to sister, father to uncle, thereby avoiding inheritance tax for ever. That may be a consummation devoutly to be wished by those who sit on the Benches opposite, but it is not the purpose for which this Bill was intended and it is not a course that we would in any event endorse.

  GC 129
  I made it plain in our deliberations in Committee on Monday that the Bill is intended to give recognition to the relationship between same-sex couples who cannot marry. People with close family ties, such as parents and children, already have a relationship that is recognised in law. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was therefore right to say that the Bill's purport goes much wider than the mere inheritance tax provisions. I am, obviously, aware of the wish of some to widen it beyond that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, again raised the issue of the purpose and justification for continuing the prohibited degrees. The justification, as the noble Lord knows, is twofold. The first, of course, is to avoid defects arising in the offspring of two closely blood-related people. However, equally important, it is to discourage what are considered inappropriate relationships within families that can cause that family to become seriously dysfunctional, by which society is disadvantaged as the family network becomes destabilised. We are all too familiar with the consequences of such instability. The genetic justification is not relevant to same-sex couples who intend to register as civil partners of each other. However, the second justification is relevant.
  We see that as sufficient justification to resist the amendment and to follow, for civil partnerships, the prohibited degrees of relationship by reason of kindred and affinity in marriage law. By applying these prohibited degrees of relationship in the Civil Partnership Bill, the Government aim to reinforce their policy of supporting stable families, ensuring that the trust and integrity of family relationships are not put at risk. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, laughs at that, but I assure him that those who enter into long-term stable, same-sex partnerships feel the same degree of attachment to the members within those relationships as do others who enjoy the real benefits of opposite-sex relationships.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Tebbit: Once again, the noble Baroness should not think that I am laughing or smiling at one matter when it is another. I was smiling at the Government's claim that they are so supportive of the family. Well, I think that there are many people who would not quite accept that.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hear what the noble Lord says. The effect of Clause 157(2)(b) is that if an overseas relationship has been registered by a person who was domiciled in England and Wales, then the two people concerned are not to be treated as having formed a civil partnership if they would have been within the prohibited degrees of relationship in Schedule 1 had they been registering as civil partners of each other in England and Wales.
  Amendment No. 18 would allow close relatives to register as civil partners of each other, so long as they are not of the opposite sex. That would mean that the prohibited degrees of relationship in Schedule 1 would apply only to opposite-sex couples and not to same-sex
  GC 130
  couples. Of course, under this Bill, civil partnership is not open to opposite-sex couples, but I recognise that the noble Lord has tabled amendments to include them within the remit of the Bill.
  We have always been clear that this Bill would not be open to opposite-sex couples as, through marriage, they already have the opportunity to gain legal status for their relationships. That is not the mischief that we seek to cure. The mischief that we seek to cure is the disadvantage that is currently experienced by those same-sex couples whose relationship in law is invisible at the moment. We wish to give them that visibility, but, just as importantly, we wish to give them the considerable responsibilities which they will, it is to be hoped, honourably discharge in the way that we wish opposite-sex couples to honourably discharge their duties.
  I therefore say to the noble Lady and the noble Lord that I expect them to return to this matter at Report. They will be aware that my opposition to these provisions is likely to remain as resolute as it is now.
  Baroness Wilcox: I am grateful for having had the opportunity to put to the Committee what was, as I said at the beginning, a probing amendment. So I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, needs to worry that I am trying to torpedo the Bill. As he has said, the leader of my party in another place and I support the Bill. But I will take this opportunity to repeat that, unlike the Government and Liberal Democrat Benches, our Benches have a free vote on this matter. There are some on our Benches who do not agree with the leader of my party and I, but I have already spoken on this subject, particularly regarding gay partnerships, when the noble Lord, Lord Lester, brought a similar Bill forward. So I am on record there, and I am on record again at my speech at Second Reading.
  This is a great opportunity, a wonderful opportunity. The Government are right to bring it forward. My leader and I are delighted to support the noble Baroness in this Bill. We are trying to see whether we cannot make what we hope is a good Bill an awful lot better. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said it does not seem fair to have ring-fenced a very small group of people from a larger group of people who cannot marry.
  I heard the Minister's response. As always, she is good mannered, gracious and uses legal phrases of which I sometimes know naught—sometimes I do not think that she knows that she does it, but I am no lawyer. I will carefully read her response and, as she says, I am likely to bring these amendments back at Report. I hope that I can bring them back in a way that will find favour with her. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Parental etc. consent where proposed civil partner is under 18]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: We gave notice of our intention to oppose the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill. Our intention is probing, as it was with the previous amendment. Perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words about the previous exchanges. I was not a Treasury Minister in the Government of my noble friend Lady Thatcher. In fact, during the entire period I was a member of the Treasury Committee and for more than a decade chaired the Treasury Committee, which was anxious to ensure that the Treasury kept on the right lines during that period. To what extent I was successful I leave the Committee to judge.
  I also want to make a serious point. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, referring to Pepper v Hart, sought to say what is the purpose of the Bill. I do not recall a Minister ever referring to Pepper v Hart in the overall sense of the purpose of a Bill. The long title—or, indeed, the short title—is concerned with that, but for the Government to rely on Pepper v Hart and a ministerial statement to define the purpose of the Bill seems an interesting constitutional innovation. I am surrounded by Liberal lawyers who know infinitely more about that. My view has always been that one lawyer in the family is enough. None the less, the point is important.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am sure that I could never possibly be the quality of lawyer of the noble Lord's spouse and civil partner, Dame Rosalyn Higgins, but I am the guilty counsel who won the case of Pepper v Hart. I have often regretted having done so and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that one would not normally use the Pepper v Hart principle except in exceptional circumstances to construe legislation that was dodgy on its face.
  The noble Lord, Lord Renton, has long considered whether a purpose clause should be included in Bills to put their purpose beyond doubt. I seem to remember that my Bill included a purpose clause to make its purpose clear. Speaking for myself, I should like to consider whether there should be a purpose clause to reflect what is in the Explanatory Notes as the main purpose of the Bill and put the matter beyond doubt. So I have considerable sympathy with what the noble Lord said about the possible misuse of my victory in Pepper v Hart.
  Lord Higgins: These are very deep legal waters. I shall consider very carefully what the noble Lord has just said. If there is to be a purpose clause, of course, there ought to be such a clause, but I do not think that you can do it through Pepper v Hart. I am reassured by what the noble Lord has just said in that regard.
  A short time ago—it seems rather a long time ago now—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that we should concentrate on improving the Bill and clarifying its intentions. That is what I propose to do in my comments on the clause that we are discussing.
  GC 132
  The clause is concerned with parental consent and so forth. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on the following points. I do not understand Clause 4(3), which states:
  "The requirement of consent under subsection (1) does not apply if the child is a surviving civil partner".
  I have difficulty in understanding who or what this individual is, or how he or she got into this strange position. If it is a child, are we to understand that it is a child who is "a surviving civil partner"? I presume that the measure refers to someone who as a child has already entered into a civil partnership and then the question arises whether he or she can enter another civil partnership, which I would assume they cannot. The matter is very unclear to me. Perhaps the noble Baroness, on a Pepper v Hart basis, can clarify the situation.
  I refer to another important matter. Who the appropriate persons to give consent are is set out in Schedule 2 but I am not clear how any of this information is to be conveyed to people who might be considering registering a partnership where the individual concerned is a child. Is there to be a general booklet explaining when you can and cannot register a civil partnership and so on?
  Finally, Clause 4(5) states:
  "In this Part 'child', except where used to express a relationship, means a person who is under 18".
  Am I right in assuming that that provision applies as it does in the case of a marriage involving two people of different sexes? I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify those points.
  Lord Tebbit: I hope that I may intervene briefly. I know that if I am not careful the Chair will rule me out of order, so I am prepared to sit down very quickly. I merely say, please dear Lord save us from legislation with general purpose clauses. That will be a recipe for sloppily drafted legislation of which we have too much already. It will be a recipe for more litigation and more and richer lawyers. We have seen that come into effect with European law which allows judges to make law instead of interpreting it.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I hope that I will be able to give the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, the answer he seeks. I almost wish to apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for even talking about Pepper v Hart. The reason I did it was because there was an interesting debate between the noble Lords, Lord Tebbit and Lord Lester, in which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, suggested that the referring of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to the purpose clause would have no effect. I was addressing the matter of when the courts can use the proceedings in Hansard to help them to interpret a matter if they think that is necessary. I did not suggest that they would necessarily do so.
  I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, regarding subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 4. The Government have always made it clear that marriage and civil partnerships are different in status. Accordingly, we did not consider that consent to one should automatically constitute consent to the other.

  GC 133
  In either case a bereaved person—that is what is meant by "a surviving civil partner"; namely, a person whose civil partner has died—will be able to enter into another relationship of the same kind without further consent. That is, a widow or a widower will be able to remarry and a bereaved civil partner will be able to enter into another civil partnership without having to ask for any further consent if they are below the age of 18.
  However, we think that it is right to require fresh consent when someone below the age of 18, whose first marriage or civil partnership has ended with the death of a partner, wishes to enter into a legal relationship with a partner of the opposite sex from the deceased. So, if parental consent is given once for one purpose, we are saying, in essence, that it does not automatically mean that it would be given for another purpose. If we take an example where, if one were to agree to a 16 year-old son entering into a marriage and that partner died, it would still be possible for the parent to say, "I wish to consider whether I wish to give my consent to my child entering into another relationship of a different sort"—and vice versa—"I may accept that my child has told me that they will be of one gender orientation forever". That just gives parents an opportunity to give their consent or dissent, as appropriate. I believe that those were the two matters that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised with me.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: I am sorry, but I simply do not understand that. Is Clause 4(3) designed to deal with someone who is a child, in the sense of being under 18, but is a surviving civil partner? Does it relate to where someone under 18, who has already had a civil partnership and the other partner has died, wants to obtain consent again? It seems frightfully bad luck for the individual concerned.
  Baroness Scotland: Yes.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Place of registration]:
  Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 20:
  Page 3, line 35, leave out paragraph (b).
  The noble Baroness said: I turn now to Clause 6, which details the places where people may register as civil partners and, perhaps more importantly, where they cannot. Here I am wearing my consumer choice hat, because I declare an interest as chairman of the National Consumer Council.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, made it clear in her helpful briefing meeting that civil partnerships are secular. She went on to say that, as such, they should not be registered in religious buildings or premises. So, can the Minister explain exactly what the clause covers? Which premises fall under this clause and can thus be discounted from being a place of registration?
  The Citizens' Advice Bureau has contacted me on this point; it says that it should be up to individual religious leaders of Christian and other faiths whether
  GC 134
  they felt that civil partnerships could or could not be registered in their premises. As always, I am looking for the widest possible choice and access for the British consumer, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
  The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: I am aware that the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Oxford, raised this matter on Second Reading, when I indicated that I did not entirely agree with his comments. However, while I cannot speak for other religious groups, I believe that I speak for many of my colleagues and others in the Church of England who take the view that the Government's proposals are appropriate.
  They do that because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has already said, this is a civil, indeed a secular partnership and registration is, therefore, appropriate on civil secular premises. The Government are not legislating for what religious groups may or may not do subsequent to registration. That is up to the religious group concerned and if it wishes to add a religious ceremony it is free to do so. As I understand the legislation, there is no restriction on that. That would meet the concerns raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
  I believe that I am right in saying that the provision also parallels the situation in a marriage in a register office, which may or may not be followed by a religious ceremony. The possibility that that exists should meet the concern raised by the Citizens' Advice Bureau. It would be perfectly possible for someone of religious faith to ask their own religious authorities whether they may add such a ceremony after the civil registration. For those reasons I do not believe that the clause intrudes on religious freedom and it is perfectly acceptable as it stands.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: It is probably unnecessary for me add to what the right reverend Prelate has just said, but that is certainly our understanding of Clause 6. As I understand it, the motivation behind the amendment is that heterosexual couples can choose to marry either under a civil or religious ceremony. Under the current proposals, same-sex couples will not have that choice; they could only have a civil procedure under the Bill. There is no discrimination in the provisions relating to a civil registration between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, because neither can take place in religious premises or with a religious ceremony at the same time.
  There have been some misguided criticisms that prohibiting the use of any religious premises for a ceremony for civil partnerships would be discriminatory—but that is not correct, I believe. The Bill does not say that no religious premises or ceremonies could be used for a religious partnership, for example. That would be discriminatory, but the Bill is silent on that point and leaves it entirely for the Church of England or any other Church or religious body to follow its own course on whether to give special blessings or religious validity to same-sex relationships—eventually, perhaps, including gay marriage. It would be inappropriate for the secular

  GC 135
  branch of the state to dictate to the Churches about that—that matter is entirely for them. Therefore, I respectfully agree with the right reverend Prelate that Church and state are properly acting within their separate spheres, that nothing in the Bill encroaches upon freedom of religion, nor should it do so. For that reason, we regard this amendment as unnecessary and based on a misunderstanding.
  Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I do not quite understand. My understanding is that this will be the only civil contract which can be entered into by citizens which may not be entered into in a Church. When I was a vicar I saw absolutely no reason why, if my parishioners wished to enter into contracts about leases or any other matter that might come up in civil affairs, they should not be conducted in church. I do not see any reason why they should be conducted in church and I do not believe that they ever were. But I am not aware of anything in either civil law or—and the right reverend Prelate can correct me if I am wrong—in canon law which would stop any ordinary civil contract being performed in a church. If that is so, why is this the only one which cannot be performed in a church?
  Baroness O'Cathain: It is no secret that I regard this Bill as essentially creating civil marriage for homosexual couples and, I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, feels that too.
  The amendment of my noble friend Lady Wilcox would permit a kind of religious homosexual marriage. Amendment No. 20 would legalise civil partnership registration in a church, a mosque, a synagogue or temple.
  I recognise that my noble friend may be merely probing the Government's position. But a great many clergy would regard it as totally unacceptable for a Government Bill to permit civil partnerships to be registered in a place of worship. I will go on to argue that, in effect, the amendment will lead directly to litigation against churches which refuse to conduct registrations under the Bill in their places of worship.
  This amendment directly concerns matters of religious belief. It is not about civil rights, since under the Bill a civil ceremony is freely available. It is, however, about theology and the views that religious people hold on homosexual practice. The amendment directly affects the internal affairs of religious bodies. It is a path down which the Government have so far feared to tread.
  That is not the case with my noble friend, whose amendment might just be prompted by the briefing from the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement dated 14 April. I, too, received that briefing. It is clear that that movement regards civil partnership as a form of marriage. They refer to the,
  "strict parallelism"
  between marriage and civil partnership and they see this amendment as a way of furthering that.
  The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who I am sorry is not here today, both argue that the
  GC 136
  Government should permit the registration of civil partnerships in churches. On Second Reading, the right reverend Prelate said that Clause 6(1)(b),
  "infringes the proper freedom of religious authorities to control"—[Official Report, 22/4/04; col. 399.]—
  their premises.
  It is interesting to me that there suddenly seems to be a keen interest in allowing Churches to set their own internal policies on controversial issues of sexual ethics. Just a few weeks ago I was arguing for Churches to have freedom to set their own policies in relation to trans-sexual people who wanted to be Church members. I wanted the Churches to be protected from legal interference as a result of the Gender Recognition Bill. I said that the Bill breached religious liberties. Some weeks later, an opinion by James Dingemans QC came to exactly the same conclusion.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: There is a genuine misunderstanding here. Under our present law, my understanding is that there is a prohibition on a civil marriage taking place in a church or in religious premises. This clause contains the same prohibition in respect of registration of civil partnerships. It does the same for gay and lesbian couples as is done for heterosexual couples who are married. It has nothing whatever to do with what the Churches choose to do, which is a matter for them. That is all that it is doing. That is my understanding, unless I am wrong and the Minister may correct me.
  Baroness O'Cathain: My understanding is that that is not the case. I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in all of these issues, but will he hear me out on this matter?
  I find it ironic that some of those who opposed me on that question in the Gender Recognition Bill now argue for state-sanctioned gay marriage in church on the basis of religious freedom. The right reverend Prelate is supported in his calls for gay marriage in church by an organisation calling itself the Grace Catholic Church, which sent a circular, dated 10 May, to Members of your Lordships' House. It has unearthed an ancient rite, apparently used in some eastern Churches, which it claims is a form of homosexual union comparable to the Civil Partnership Bill. It is crystal clear, even from that organisation's own literature, that this obscure ceremony held centuries ago was nothing more than a celebration of same-sex friendship.
  I understand that no serious scholars regard this ritual as pertaining to an erotic relationship. Grace Catholic Church's own literature calls it a "brother-making" ceremony. Brotherhood is not a sexual relationship. After all, the vast majority of friendships amongst those of the same sex are not remotely sexual.
  It is obvious that what Amendment No. 20 permits runs contrary to the long-established, orthodox beliefs of mainstream religion. Those within the Anglican communion, such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who advocate homosexual partnership ceremonies in church, are very much out on a theological limb regarding the Anglican Church

  GC 137
  worldwide. This was clearly shown by the 1998 Lambeth conference of the Anglican Communion. The conference endorsed the teaching of the Bible which states that sex is reserved solely for marriage.
  The Lambeth conference passed a clear resolution, by 526 bishops to 70, stating that it,
  "cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions".
  While calling on all Anglicans to,
  "minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation",
  it rejected homosexual practice as "incompatible with Scripture".
  5 p.m.
  Within the worldwide Anglican communion, this is the overwhelming view. There are more Anglicans in each of the provinces of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, for example, than in the whole of the United States, Canada and Britain put together. These provinces, as we all know, strongly disagree with liberal fundamentalists within the hierarchy of the Church in the West who seek to promote the acceptability of homosexual activity.
  The effect of my noble friend's amendment would be to take sides with the dissenting minority liberal view within the Anglian communion, alongside the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford.
  The legal position of the Church of England is set out in the Synod Motion of 1987 which argues that homosexual acts should be repented of. I was interested to discover that Canon C18 relating to diocesan bishops places upon them a duty,
  "to teach and to uphold sound and wholesome doctrine and to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange opinions".
  A bishop must uphold the orthodox views of the Church—its "wholesome doctrine". Wholesome doctrine is defined by the Church of England (Worship and Doctrine) Measure 1974. It highlights Canon A5, which says that the doctrine of the Church of England is,
  "grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said scriptures [and] in particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal".
  The 39 articles, the Book of Common Prayer and the ordinal do not support the blessing of homosexual unions.
  Those who call for homosexual civil partnerships to be celebrated in church cannot claim to represent official or orthodox Anglican opinion. The reality is that the overwhelming majority of places of worship—not just Anglican churches—would not wish to host a gay marriage ceremony. The problem is that under English law, parishioners have a legal right to be married in their local church.
  Introducing state-sponsored civil partnership registration in churches will simply create yet more scope for legal action against churches that take the traditional line. Currently, if a homosexual couple
  GC 138
  approach a church and ask to be married there, the church can say, "No. Same-sex marriage is against the law". If Amendment No. 20 were to succeed, the church would no longer have this straightforward defence. Although not present in statute, human rights litigation will undoubtedly seek to establish a legal right for parishioners to have a civil partnership registered in their parish church.
  A homosexual couple could seek to sue their local parish church for refusing to carry out a lawful civil partnership ceremony. They would no doubt allege that marriage was a public function under the terms of the Human Rights Act and that therefore refusing to conduct civil partnership registration in church was a breach of convention rights.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am sorry to intervene on the noble Baroness and am grateful to her for giving way. May I draw to her attention what the Marriage Act 1949 says, as it has apparently not been drawn to her attention? Any argument of that kind would be completely untenable.
  The Act says:
  "No religious ceremony shall be used at any marriage solemnized in the office of a superintendent registrar".
  Then it says:
  "No religious service shall be used at a marriage on approved premises".
  Then it says:
  "Any reading, music, words or performance which forms part of the ceremony of marriage …must be secular in nature"—
  which the provision goes on to explain. On places of registration, it says that marriages must be on approved premises, and so on.
  The amendment would simply mirror the provision in the Marriage Act applying to the marriage of heterosexual couples. It contains the same prohibition as one finds in the Marriage Act, there is no discrimination of any kind, and it has nothing to do with anything that any church might wish to do in Croydon, or elsewhere, to carry out some kind of religious ceremony. That is a matter for them. James Dingemans' opinion does not deal with this; if it did, it would, with great respect, be manifestly misguided.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I shall certainly read what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said. All the research that I have done has not given me that answer.
  I believe that the amendment, if it were passed, would be an affront to many people. I am sure that that was not the intention of my noble friend but that, I believe, is the effect, and I hope that the Government will resist it.
  Lord Alli: I hesitate to speak in this debate, but I certainly wanted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, in her amendment; there have been few on which I have been able to support her. The need for this probing amendment has been amply demonstrated. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has perhaps demonstrated the need for clarity in this area.

  GC 139
  It may be useful for the Government to look at the form of words to make very clear the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill—that the prohibition is on the use of a premises and not on a blessing, should the Church sanction that. I agree very much with the comment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, at Second Reading, when he said that it is not for the state to dictate what the Church or any religious organisation should or should not do within their premises; it is up to them to decide on that.
  I shall raise one other point to which I think the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, herself referred. It really is hypocritical to say that she opposes the provision in this Bill when—if I remember correctly her words in the debate on the Gender Recognition Bill, on 10 February—she said that it is important to allow people of faith to worship God and conduct their own religious activities according to their own faith. She said that Churches are private bodies and make their own rules of membership. I could say it no better myself.
  The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Alli, agrees that the clause as drafted does not inhibit or prevent religious bodies doing what they wish on their own premises; it simply says that a civil registrar should conduct a civil ceremony on civil premises, entirely in line with the 1949 Act which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, quoted. So while I would agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, in resisting the amendment, I do so on very different grounds from those she was advocating. I entirely support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on the present law on marriage, which I think should be extended as the Government have done in the Bill.
  Lord Alli: I am not a lawyer, but I suspect that Pepper v Hart may be useful in this debate.
  Lord Tebbit: Perhaps I may say briefly—I hope it does not undermine the confidence of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in her own legislation—that I think the current drafting is quite correct.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I could have no better accolade than that just given me by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit.
  I may be able to take this briefly. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is right in referring to the 1949 Act. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Peterborough, is also absolutely correct. Perhaps this debate has made clear why the Government decided to ensure that these partnerships stay absolutely within the secular field and do not trespass on the different and sometimes conflicting religious beliefs of others, who may adhere to a plethora of religions. Just as with civil marriage, these unions will be entirely secular and the restrictions on religious content and religious premises therefore mirror the position for civil marriage. Civil marriage can take place either in a registry office or in a building that has been approved for the purpose. The same will be true for partnerships.
  GC 140
  The Churches and the religious community can do with the partnerships what they will. If blessings are deemed to be appropriate in accordance with the tenets of their faith then they are free to arrange them. If they are outwith their faith then they will be free not to permit them.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. If a church refuses to bless or hold a civil partnership ceremony for a parishioner in his church, will the church be open to litigation?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: These provisions specifically provide that this procedure cannot be undertaken on religious premises. They are entirely secular. Therefore, to carry them out on religious premises would be in breach of the law that we are currently seeking to implement. So they would not be in peril of any such criticism or opportunity for litigation.
  This debate has demonstrated how sensitive these issues are. I said on Second Reading that we have tried to chart a path which understands those sensitivities and gives voice to the humanity which is evident in these relationships so they are able to be acknowledged. However, that does not mean that any other individual has to approve or disapprove of their existence. We are merely acknowledging the reality of what is.
  Baroness Wilcox: I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough for establishing the Church of England's position on this. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, really had the measure of the question I was asking. Having spent 10 years as chairman of the National Consumer Council, I am perfectly used to asking the unaskable. I really did not want to take part in a barrage of religious exchanges, but that is one aspect of consumer choice that will be barred to us all. Having had the explanation and heard the exchange, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Notice of proposed civil partnership and declaration]:
  Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 21:
  Page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Baroness said: Clause 8 deals with the procedure for civil partnerships—in particular, with notice of a proposed partnership and declaration of the same.
  The group of amendments covers two specific points of concern in Clause 8, and I hope that the Committee will not mind if I take a moment to outline them individually.
  Clause 8 outlines the "standard procedure" for notice and declaration of civil partnerships. Amendment No. 21 would leave out subsection (2) which states that a notice must contain any information as may be prescribed by regulations.
  As I have already stated, there is a large amount of detail on the face of this great big Bill, yet it seems that something as important as what information will be required on the notice that will be on public display has yet to be decided.
  Once again, the Government are asking us to pass a Bill in which some of the detail is missing. I am sure that none of us would sign a blank cheque. Can the Minister explain why this information is missing from the Bill? Is the decision yet to be taken or is there some other reason why this has been left out of the Bill?
  Amendment No. 22 addresses a point which was raised on Second Reading. It is clear from the rest of the Bill that a civil partnership is not something to be entered into lightly. I refer in particular to those clauses on annulment, to which I will return to in more detail later. However, nowhere in the Bill is there a provision to state that a partnership is for life. Is this an oversight on the Government's part or is it their intention that this important provision is not on the face of the Bill? If so, do they envisage that people will enter into civil partnerships for just a few years, rather than for a long-term commitment?
  Our amendment would correct this error, if it is such, and make it clear to those entering into a civil partnership that this step should not be taken lightly. Such a commitment should involve careful thought and consideration, and we believe that this should be made clear. Our amendment would ensure that those entering into a civil partnership would have to declare in writing that they were entering into this commitment for life. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: May I say a brief word about Amendment No. 22? We have considerable sympathy with the purpose of the amendment, although not its form. If one is trying to make a comparison with the position so far as marriage is concerned, the Marriage Act includes, for civil marriage, various prescribed declarations that are options to be followed. However, none of them is exactly in parallel. For example, one of them is:
  "I call upon these persons here present to witness that I, AB, do take thee, CD, to be my lawful wedded wife (or husband)".
  It would be very hard to find an exact parallel.
  The point raised on Second Reading by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford about the need for a verbal understanding that this is a commitment of two human beings to one another through all the vicissitudes of human existence is important. I do not think that the amendment would be apt because there is nothing equivalent about a commitment for life in the prescribed statutory language for civil marriage. However, it might be worth considering whether appropriate words of commitment on the registration document could be required to be signed by both
  GC 142
  parties. That seems to us a constructive way of meeting the object of the amendment but in a rather different way.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand that this is a probing amendment. The provisions here, just as in the Marriage Act 1949, make no reference to commitment for life. It is not that it is not proposed that these will be long lasting, but in the secular provisions of the 1949 Act, there is no reference to that commitment being for life either.
  If we were to adopt Amendment No. 21, it would make necessary checks quite difficult to achieve, for example, for consent requirements, if a date of birth is not provided by the proposed civil partners on their notice of proposed civil partnership.
  Clause 9 gives the registration authority power to require evidence to support any information given in a notice of proposed civil partnership. If this amendment is accepted, the Registrar General would lose the ability to make regulations to prescribe the information that the notice should contain and lose the flexibility to make changes to that information from time to time.
  This will result in administrative difficulties in relation to establishing the eligibility of proposed civil partners and may also result in inconsistencies in the content of the register if different registration authorities go on to require different information from proposed civil partners.
  Regulations to be made under subsection (2) are likely to prescribe a person's name, age, occupation, address and marital/civil partnership status—that is, single, divorced, previous civil partnership dissolved, widowed, surviving civil partner or marriage annulled.
  Amendment No. 22 would insert a further declaration to those contained in a notice of proposed civil partnership. This would be a declaration that the intended civil partners state that the civil partnership is for life.
  Clause 8 requires that for two people to register as civil partners, they must each give a notice of proposed civil partnership. The notice must contain a declaration about the parties' kindred, affinity or other lawful impediment, and their residence. Regulations may require other information to be given.
  The current declaration assists in determining the eligibility of each of the proposed civil partners to form a civil partnership. However, the amendment would introduce an expression of intent rather than information that assists in the determination of the eligibility of the proposed civil partners.
  Noble Lords expressed concerns on Second Reading that intending civil partners may not be aware of the many rights and responsibilities that flow from registering as civil partners of each other. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, says in relation to the way in which these matters could be dealt with.
  We recognise this concern and are considering ways in which potential parties to a civil partnership are educated about the new legal relationship and what it

  GC 143
  entails. The Government have made it clear that they are providing civil partnerships for couples willing to undertake a serious, mutually supportive and indefinite commitment. That is apparent by virtue of the ancillary issues in terms of how a partnership gets annulled, how it is brought to an end, the consequences for maintenance and support, and so on. These are provisions which speak to long-term, as opposed to transitory, commitment. In particular, the ways in which one can get out of these partnerships demonstrate that. We have designed the rights and responsibilities on the basis that commitments will be long term.
  We think that the formal procedure should be the simple but solemn process of registration which we have put in the Bill. It is right that the intending partners should be aware of the responsibilities they will be undertaking, but we do not see the need to add specific words or declarations to the registration procedure.
  It is not the purpose of the notice under Clause 8 to set out declarations of intent and we think it would be wrong, for the reasons I have stated, to make this amendment.
  I very much take on board what people have said about understanding consequences generally. One of the criticisms that has been made about entering marriage is that partners do not often fully understand what they are signing up to. Similarly, those who do not enter marriage do not always fully understand what they are forsaking. There is the whole issue of how we can better inform those who enter into these estates about the consequence of what they are seeking to do.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. In my Bill, I think I was sufficiently coercive and conservative to require a couple to take legal advice before they entered into the registration, because I was so concerned that they should know what their obligations were, as well as their rights. I can perfectly understand the Government not doing that, because it would discriminate against gay couples compared with heterosexual couples who do not have, as the Minister said, to take legal advice of any kind as a condition.
  I also understand that the Marriage Act does not, in its prescribed words, require a statement of commitment for civil marriage. I would be very interested to know what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, thinks about that. I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford is not right in saying that at least some words of commitment would be desirable. Without prescribing this on the face of the statute, could there not be a power to have prescribed words included in the registration document, not in a bureaucratic way but in a way which would achieve the object about which the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, are concerned?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have indicated that information is an issue that we are considering. I also highlight the fact that these provisions are similar
  GC 144
  although not identical to those that currently prevail for those entering the secular state of secular marriage. That is why there is a wider debate, and many religions, as I remember well, have quite extensive marriage preparation classes. It has been known for people to think again, having gone through the process.
  Lord Alli: Before the Minister sits down, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, that I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that it is a good idea for an oath of some description to be made. However, I am completely certain that we should not be involved in any way, shape or form in putting such an oath together. I can only take a guess at the kind of oath that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, or the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, who are not in their place, might draft. I suspect that it would put many of us off at this stage.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Can the noble Baroness give us any idea of what the cost of registering a civil partnership is likely to be? Perhaps that is a stupid question; I suppose that the cost may vary a good deal from one place to another. If a civil partnership is to be quite an expensive operation, then nobody is likely to enter into one lightly.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There is certainly no intention on the Government's part to make civil partnerships excessively or inappropriately expensive so that those who wish to enter into them may be discouraged. We have apportioned other costs on a cost-recovery basis. The cost of a civil partnership will, I imagine, be similar to the fees that currently prevail in relation to civil marriage. I cannot say whether it will be identical, but I imagine that it will be similar in terms of the bracket, because those fees are settled on a cost-recovery basis as well.
  Baroness Wilcox: I am very grateful to the Minister for putting me right on civil marriage—there is no reference to life, so that is that one out of the way. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, was able to approve the proposal in substance, if not in form. Given that he has worked so hard on his previous Bill, I take it as a great support that he feels we are on the right track.
  It would have been nice to see what the words will be. That was really all I was asking for, almost as a point of information. However, having listened to the exchange, I can see that some words of commitment seem to be a good idea, if only to prove to the people taking part in this debate that this is not just a money and a property Bill; it is not just a deal—it is something else. I have no choice but to withdraw the amendment, but may return with it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Wilcox: We have just had a long debate on Clause 8, so I will keep this very short. There is a provision in the clause which requires the person applying for a civil partnership to have resided in England or Wales for seven days. This does not seem like a lot of time to have lived here before entering into such a large commitment. I am hoping that the Government will be able to explain the meaning behind the thinking on this point.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am more than happy to explain why we have done this. The noble Baroness is absolutely right—Clause 8 provides that in order for two people to form a civil partnership under the standard procedure, each of them must have resided here, in England and Wales, for seven days or more before giving the notice. Those provisions are exactly the same in terms of the period of time that prevails for secular marriage. The notice must contain such information as may be prescribed by the regulations. The information to be given in the notice is to enable the public to identify the individual concerned when certain information contained in the notice is later publicised. It will also enable the registration authority to verify the proposed civil partners' eligibility.
  The power allows the flexibility to prescribe such information as is considered necessary and to make changes to the prescribed form from time to time. The regulations may have to be amended to reflect technological and other changes.
  The notice must also contain a solemn declaration in writing that the proposed civil partner believes that there is no impediment of kindred or affinity or other lawful hindrance. The declaration must further state that each of the proposed civil partners has met the residence requirements before giving notice.
  5.30 p.m.
  The declaration must be made and signed in the presence of an authorised person and the authorised person is then required to attest the declaration by adding his or her name, description and place of residence. As soon as possible on receipt of the notice, the registration authority must record in the register the fact that the notice has been given and the information contained in it. The fact that the authorised person has attested the declaration must also be recorded. Clause 8 provides that an authorised person is an employee or other person provided by a registration authority who is authorised by that authority to attest notices. It is a very formal procedure, similar to, but not identical with, that which prevails for civil marriage.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Power to require evidence of name etc.]:
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 5, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble Lord said: This follows on from the discussion that we had a moment or two ago. In the light of that debate, and as this clause requires evidence that the individuals have been resident for seven days, I am not sure why the seven-day period has been selected. Also, the Minister referred to the fact that the application has to be recorded but I was not clear to what extent it has to be published. Indeed, I am not aware of what the rules are with regard to an ordinary civil marriage. Of course, as far as a religious Church of England service is concerned, the banns have to be read for three weeks and so on. I am not clear about the relationship between what is proposed here, which is not, of course, a marriage procedure, and that situation.
  At some stage, when one is going through the real nitty-gritty of a Bill, one always begins to wonder whether the draftsman has had a nervous breakdown. I began to get that feeling here in the light of what the Minister just said. Clause 9(1)(b) states that,
  "if the registration authority considers that the circumstances are exceptional",
  he can require the information regarding both people rather than just one of the two. But the Minister said that both people have to produce evidence that they were in England or Wales for the period of seven days beforehand. The two things do not seem to be consistent. It would seem that the registration authority can either have the evidence it requires from one person or, in exceptional circumstances, from two but the Minister seemed to say that the registration authority would always need to establish that both persons have been in England or Wales for the relevant period.
  I am also not clear why the Registrar General has to issue guidance when the details are set out in very clear terms in the Bill. These are fairly narrow and technical points, but I think that it would be helpful if they could be clarified as there seems to be inconsistency between what the Minister said and what the Bill says in Clause 9. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I understand that, in essence, this is a probing amendment. I understood Lord Higgins to say that the purpose of the amendment is to remove Clause 9(3) so that the specified evidence referred to in Clause 9(1) is not defined. Subsection (3) merely contains the definition of specified evidence.
  The subsection defines the term "specified evidence" by reference to guidance which will be issued by the Registrar General to specify the acceptable forms of evidence that will support information about proposed civil partners—that is, the types of evidential matter that they have to present in order to be able to satisfy the registrar. This is the information given by a proposed civil partner when he or she gives notice to the registration authority. It is required so that the registration authorities may verify a person's eligibility to form a civil partnership.
  Registration officers already collect evidence in respect of those wishing to enter into a marriage. They are familiar with the types of evidence that may be

  GC 147
  accepted and have considerable experience of dealing with those who may have difficulty in producing such evidence. More significantly, they can be confident that there is consistency across registration districts about what evidence is required before authority for a marriage to proceed is given. This is particularly significant where a registration officer is to conduct a marriage on the strength of an authority issued in a different registration district.
  For civil partnership, subsection (3) lists the information in question as the person's name and surname, age, status (for example, whether single or previously in a civil partnership or marriage and, if so, whether widowed or divorced), nationality and usual address. Listing in the Bill the information that civil partners will need to supply, and in relation to which the Registrar General may specify acceptable evidence, will assist the proposed civil partners. Retaining this subsection will help to make the verification process open as well as effective.
  Requiring evidence to support information given by proposed civil partners assists registration authorities and the Registrar General to establish eligibility. Establishing eligibility is important. If the Registrar General issues guidance stating what evidence is acceptable to support this information there will be a consistent approach across registration authorities as to how they establish whether a person meets the eligibility criteria. If subsection (3) is removed, the types of information that will have to be supported by the evidence specified in guidance will no longer be clear in the Bill. We think that that would be likely to lead to confusion and difficulty. The guidance will set out what may be sufficient evidence of the information listed and we think that that will make it fit together. Now that there is so much mobility between different parts of the country, consistency is ever more important.
  Lord Higgins: I am still not absolutely clear whether the registrar has to take evidence from both individuals rather than only one, except in exceptional circumstances.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It would usually be from both individuals, who would have to produce evidence of name, residence and the other criteria which would have be supplied in relation for both parties entering into that union.
  Lord Higgins: With respect, I do not think that that is what it says in Clause 9(1)(b). If I understand it correctly, he has only to look at both in exceptional circumstances, not normally.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. Certainly the drafting does not indicate that it is normally both.
  Lord Higgins: I think that the draftsman has got it wrong. Perhaps the Minister will look at it again.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: What it says in the Bill is that the information has to be taken from the person
  GC 148
  giving the notice and can be requested from the other. That is the way the Bill is structured. What sort of evidence would verify that would be in the guidance and the regulations—birth certificates, or whatever. I hope that that is clear, but I will happily look at it again.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: The problem is that the way Clause 9(1) is structured suggests that asking both is exceptional, not normal.
  Lord Higgins: If we can agree that the Minister will look at it again, I will withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It may be that it is because of the temperature. I believe that I am being clear but I may not be as clear as I believe and therefore I will look at this matter and I hope to write succinctly to noble Lords to make sure that the definition is as robust as we would like it to be.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Power to shorten the waiting period]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: This is a way of probing the Government on the precise provisions with regard to power to shorten the waiting period, which is only 15 days. I have difficulty in envisaging what circumstances might exist, which the Government seek to cover in this clause, that would make it so urgent that a civil partnership should be created that the period of even 15 days is too long. It is difficult to know what the Government have in mind. It may be related to some of the later clauses that we will come to fairly soon concerning situations in hospitals or, effectively, deathbed situations and so on. It seems to be going a very long way to say that the matter is of such urgency that the wait has to be not 15 days but as short a period as the Registrar General—I presume that it would be some official of the Registrar General in practice—will determine.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I very much hope that Clause 12 will be agreed as it stands because it includes a very necessary compassionate power. Lord Higgins has indicated when it would be expected to be used—for example, if a gay or lesbian couple have lived together for 30 years and one is on his or her deathbed or suffering from a terminal illness and they wish to register before that partner dies in order that the surviving partner will have survivor's benefits. Therefore one needs this benevolent discretion. Knowing the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, as I do, I am quite sure that he would not wish to fetter that discretion, provided that it was exercised in the way that Clause 12 states.
  Lord Alli: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, about what I suspect this clause is trying to do, particularly in circumstances where someone is terminally ill or dying and there is a request to reduce

  GC 149
  the waiting period. I would be sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would not wish to fetter that discretion were it not for Amendments Nos. 26 and Clause 19, which both stand in his name. There are circumstances that cannot be specified in the Bill. There are always circumstances that we cannot envisage, but there are sufficient that we can. I think that this clause is very workable and a necessary part of the Bill.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: There are in fact two sets of provisions. The provision with which Clause 8 deals is different from the special procedures to which we will come that deal with the separate situation that arises when someone may be dying. The relevant provision in Clause 12 states:
  "If the Registrar General … is satisfied that there are compelling reasons because of the exceptional circumstances of the case for shortening the period … he may shorten it".
  One example would be an unexpected military posting overseas. If someone suddenly discovered that he is to be posted to Iraq then that might be a compelling reason if there were not time to complete the required 15-day waiting period. Those are exceptional circumstances. He could produce his orders and the registrar might say, "Very well. I will foreshorten the notice period".
  Subsection (2) states:
  "Regulations may make provision with respect to the making, and granting, of applications"
  to shorten the waiting period. Subsection (3) states:
  "Regulations under subsection (2) may provide for … the power"—
  to shorten the waiting period—
  "… to be exercised by a registration authority on behalf of the Registrar General in such classes of case as are prescribed by the regulations".
  The regulations may also provide for,
  "the making of an appeal to the Registrar General against a decision taken by a registration authority"
  on the Registrar General's behalf.
  In those types of exceptional circumstances, which cannot be foreseen but which are absolutely understandable, the Registrar General can exercise his discretion in favour of the couple. I saw the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, nodding. I hope he therefore understands why I think Clause 12 should stand part.
  Lord Higgins: It is always helpful to have examples, when the drafting may be somewhat obscure, of what is really in the mind of the Government and also the draftsmen.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Issue of civil partnership schedule]:
  [Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Frivolous objections and representations: liability for costs etc.]:
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 25:
  Page 7, line 32, leave out "purporting to be"
  The noble Lord said: This, too, is a fairly narrow—indeed, semantic—point, but it is not quite clear. The section as a whole deals with frivolous objections and representations. However, subsection (4) states:
  "For the purpose of enabling any person to recover any such costs and damages, a copy of a declaration of the Registrar General purporting to be sealed with the seal of the General Register Office is evidence that the Registrar General has made the declaration".
  There seems to be an implication that everyone is going round sealing these declarations, when in fact they are not able to do so, but if they succeed in wrongly sealing such a declaration—that is, they are not authorised to do so—it will none the less have effect. I find that slightly curious, but no doubt the noble Baroness can explain it from a legal point of view.
  Baroness Crawley: I hope that I will be able to make this clear to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, even if it is not from a legal point of view as far as I am concerned.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 25 appears to be to require proof that the seal of the General Register Office has been attached to a copy of a declaration issued by the Registrar General relating to a frivolous objection. As we see it, the effect of the amendment is that the person producing the copy declaration will have to prove that the seal actually is the seal of the GRO. This would have to be done by asking the person who attached it to appear to confirm the position or to ensure that there was a witness statement that confirmed it.
  We believe that this is unnecessary. The term "purporting to" first appeared in the Marriages and Registration Amendment Act 1837 and has served us well in the intervening years. It fact, it appears in the Marriage Act 1949 and the Marriage (Registrar General's Licence) Act 1970. It is not necessary at this stage to introduce a difference between the civil partnership legislation and the marriage legislation in this respect. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
  Lord Higgins: I am trying to remember whether in 1837 we had a Conservative government. I am still somewhat puzzled by this clause. We may be perpetuating a most grievous error because I do not understand who is going to challenge the fact that someone has forged the seal on the document, at any rate for purposes of this nature that, after all, are not a matter of life and death. But if the Government are satisfied that we should go along with precedent, I would not wish to object to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 16 agreed to.
  Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Detained persons]:
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 9, line 7, leave out from "detentions))" to end of line 8.
  The noble Lord said: This is a clause that is concerned with people wishing to register as civil partners of each other when one of them is detained. I presume that it applies also if both of them are detained, rather than only one. Be that as it may, we seem to be going into the most incredible detail on all of this. When we come to the really crucial issues on tax credits or whatever, the whole matter is handled by order. I find the balance of the Bill somewhat bizarre. In all events, for the purpose of establishing the Government's position, this amendment suggests that we should knock out the suggestion that someone who is in prison, or another place to which the Prison Act 1952 applies, should be able to engage in a civil partnership. I am not the least bit clear what the situation is as far as a normal two-sex marriage is concerned and whether existing legislation on marriage makes specific provision of the kind that we have in this clause. That is essentially the point on which it would be helpful to have the Government's views. I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My memory is notoriously bad, and I shall be corrected by government legal advisers if I am mistaken, but I believe that the origin of this is in a case called Hamer v the United Kingdom where a prisoner complained that he was not allowed to marry while detained in prison. The European Court of Human Rights held that to be a breach of his human rights. As a result, I believe, but I could be quite wrong, that the law had to be changed.
  What this provision does is to provide exactly the same right for a homosexual prisoner as is provided for a heterosexual prisoner. That seems to me to be right if we are seeking to remove an inequality. Of course, delicate and difficult matters arise when prisoners marry and I have often heard fanciful ideas that, for example, once married, they could both be in prison together or share the same cell or, if they had babies, they should be able to have them with them. I think that those arguments are incorrect under the Human Rights Act because it is quite clear that proportionate restrictions that may be placed on the rights of prisoners in the interests of good order and discipline in prison conditions must be complied with. So I do not think that in fact homosexual registrations of prisoners with other prisoners or free partners give rise to any greater problems than heterosexual marriages, except that, of course, we do not have co-educational prisons in which men and women normally stay together.
  Those kinds of human rights arguments might be considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights when it comes to scrutinise the Bill. I cannot speak for what our Committee will say about that, but it does not seem to me that there is any objection in principle
  GC 152
  to treating detained people who are homosexual in the same way as those who are heterosexual, so far as this is concerned.
  Lord Alli: I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I think that the Bill as drafted is right.
  The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has returned to his theme on several occasions. The theme runs something like this: he does not understand why this Bill is so detailed in the parts that deal with relationships and he is very confused as to why there is no detail in the more important part of the Bill, the meat of the Bill as he calls it, the financial aspects. I suspect that the reason is that fundamentally he has failed to understand that the Bill deals with the relationship and that is the most substantive part.
  The second thing that I hope the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will take on board is that, given that the institutions of marriage and civil marriage have been around for a very long time, it seems to me to be sensible for the Government to use the experience of all the circumstances which they have previously had to deal with, to read them directly across to the Bill, and to put in a level of detail that will save having to reinterpret every time that circumstances are difficult. I think that the Government are to be applauded for the detail in the Bill because I think that, in the end, it will save a huge amount of heartache for individuals who will not have to go to court to test this legislation over and over again. I do not think that the Minister need apologise for the detail and I think this a very good example of why this should stay in the Bill.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The noble Lord, Lord Lester, dealt with the kernel of the issue, but I understand the need of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for clarity and am happy to provide it.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 26 is to restrict the provision for detained persons to form civil partnerships at their place of detention to those detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. It would remove the provision for those detained in a prison to form a civil partnership at their place of detention. Straight away, I accept that it is a probing amendment, but if the intention is not to allow any prisoners to enter civil partnerships, it fails. However, from what the noble Lord said, I do not think that that was his intention.
  Low-risk prisoners may be allowed temporarily to leave their place of detention to give a notice of proposed civil partnership and be subsequently released to attend a place for the registration of the civil partnership. That happens for civil marriage—or marriage—at present. We should also consider the impact that the amendment would have on the proposed partners of those detained in prison who could not be allowed to leave their place of detention to form a civil partnership. The amendment would introduce a difference between the eligibility

  GC 153
  requirements and procedure for civil partnership and equivalent arrangements for civil marriage, which is unacceptable.
  As my noble friend Lord Alli said, what we have done is to consider our experience and how we have dealt with those who are detained who want to enter the estate of marriage and consider the analogous arrangements that may need to be transported over if such persons want to enter a civil partnership. It is important to emphasise that, throughout the Bill, we have sought parity of treatment—here, parity of treatment between those detained in prison and their partners who want to marry, and those detained in prison and their partners who want to form a civil partnership.
  Accepting the amendment would send a message contrary to the Bill, a message that says that same-sex couples should be treated significantly differently and therefore, many would say, unfairly, in their access to legal recognition for their relationships. I know that that is not the intention of the noble Lord or the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and I hope that that explains why we have mirrored the provisions as we have.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I do not think that she has answered my first point, which refers to Clause 19(1), which states:
  "if two people wish to register as civil partners of the other at the place where one of them is detained".
  What is the situation if both of them are detained in that place? The provision seems to exclude that possibility. I take the points made about the clause by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and, in general terms, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alli. There are two aspects: is most of it too detailed; are the financial and other aspects insufficiently detailed? I am more concerned about the second, because we really do not know what on earth is going on and the Government remain extraordinarily reluctant to spell it out or to write it into the Bill. Too much is done by regulation.
  As to the first point—whether we need as much detail as we have—that has been something of an emotional problem for the Government. They say that they are anxious—we support them on this—that civil partnerships are not marriage, but none the less they duplicate in incredible detail throughout the provisions that would exist if they were married. One cannot help but wonder whether it would not have been simpler to recognise that it is not marriage but to say that the same provisions will apply throughout and we could get away with half a dozen clauses, which would have saved everyone a great deal of trouble.
  I raise another point in this context: the proposition that a wife cannot give evidence against her husband, and I assume that the reverse is true. What is the situation if a couple are in prison and suddenly form a civil partnership, which may be relevant to whether one of them is required to give evidence?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The consequences of having entered into the partnership are that they will
  GC 154
  have a similar advantage to those who have entered into a marriage, so they would not be compellable witnesses.
  Lord Higgins: I thank the Minister for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Lord, the Deputy Chairman, for elucidating the procedure about what one does if one has tabled an amendment to leave out the clause—namely, that one does not have to do that. On the face of it, that may seem rather strange. Personally, I fear that I am still somewhat wedded to the House of Commons procedure, which is that there is a stand part debate on every clause in which one can pick up the points made in earlier amendments and one does not have to go through this rather strange procedure. Still, I am sure that it predates even 1867, when we may or may not have had a Conservative Government.
  I turn to the other part of the clause, with which we have not dealt in discussing prisons: namely, the situation regarding hospitals. I fully appreciate that there may be a very strong case for people in hospital to be able to engage in a civil partnership, even if the person involved is seriously ill. That may bring out rather too strongly the points about inheritance tax to which the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is anxious for us not to draw attention, but I am not clear exactly what the Government have in mind.
  In particular, I am not clear why the establishment—in this case, the hospital—has to make supporting statements giving information in manners to be prescribed by regulation. That is a combination of the two problems that we were facing earlier: on the one hand, the Bill is extremely detailed; but when we come to the crunch, provision must be made by regulation. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell us what kind of information will be required and, indeed, why the establishment concerned should be required to provide it.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Once again, the provisions echo similar provisions to be found elsewhere. As the Committee will know, Clause 19 allows two people to register as civil partners of each other at the place where one of them is detained. For these purposes, detained means detained as a patient in a hospital or detained in a prison or other place to which the Prison Act 1952 applies. Subsection (3) provides that the procedure for detained persons is the same as the standard procedure, with a number of exceptions.
  First, each notice of proposed civil partnership must be accompanied by a supporting statement that must have been made more than 21 days before the date on which the notice was recorded. Secondly, the supporting statement must have been received and recorded in the register; and, thirdly, the applicable period during which the registration may take place is

  GC 155
  reduced to three months from the day on which the notice is reported in the register. The supporting statement is made by the hospital's manager or the officer in charge of the prison and must identify the establishment where the person is detained. It must state that the manager or officer has no objection to that establishment being specified in the notice as the place of registration. Regulations may also prescribe information that must be contained in the supporting statement.
  Those issues are important. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, talked earlier about issues of discipline, whether marriage is to be permitted or not, release and other matters. It is for those reasons—sensible, practical, pragmatic reasons—that the clause has been structured as it has.
  Lord Higgins: Taking the case of hospitals rather than that of prisons, I am not clear why the hospital authority needs to provide the statement, unless it is simply as an indication of residence—which, anyway, is only for a period of seven days, whereas the noble Baroness said that they must provide a statement 21 days ahead and also referred to a period of three months. What is the relevance of the supporting statement? It may be in existing law as regards marriages, but what is its purpose?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The purpose is to guarantee that either the hospital or the prison agrees to its premises being so used. There may be important security reasons as a result of the nature or the cause of why the person has been detained. It may be that for various reasons either the hospital or the prison concerned does not consent to its premises being used for that purpose. The provision also takes into account the fact that the registrar attending for registration might have to make further or other arrangements.
  The statement is the evidence that the establishment, having taken into consideration the particular and sometimes peculiar needs of the case, is satisfied that the establishment is, for security or other reasons, an appropriate place for the registration. Those issues are slightly more complex than if one is just going to registered premises that a local authority makes available.
  Lord Higgins: I have only one further point to make about that, which is that if the hospital or prison refuses to allow the process to proceed—this is more the type of point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, than by me—is the hospital or prison authority protected from any action as a result of having deprived the people concerned of the right to enter a civil partnership?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: It all depends on the authority having acted reasonably. Any authority that fails to act reasonably within given circumstances could he subject to some form of review. The provisions are predicated on the acceptance and acknowledgement that those running hospitals—including hospitals for the mentally ill or special hospitals, where there are even more trenchant
  GC 156
  security concerns—and prisons need to be consulted about the use of their premises and whether they can provide the sort of support that would make a registration possible.
  For instance, the Committee need only consider times when there may be heightened security or other reasons and the hospital or prison may simply say that it is sorry, but that at that precise time and because of the circumstances, it simply cannot agree to the premises being used in the manner proposed.
  Lord Higgins: I am most grateful.
  Clause 19 agreed to.
  Clause 20 [Modified procedures for certain non-residents]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 10, line 29, at end insert—
  "( ) section 31 applies as if in subsections (1)(a) and (2)(c) for "each notice" there were substituted "B's notice"."
  The noble Baroness said: These government amendments were not expected to be considered before Monday 17 May, seven days after we tabled them. The purpose of Amendment No. 27 is to modify the application of Clauses 31(1)(a) and (2)(c), to take account of the fact that in the circumstances in which Clause 20 applies, only one notice of proposed civil partnership will be given. These clauses deal with criminal offences.
  Under Clause 20, only the proposed civil partner resident in England and Wales is required to give notice of proposed civil partnership to a registration authority in England and Wales. The other proposed civil partner gives notice in Scotland or Northern Ireland or, where he or she is a member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces serving outside the United Kingdom, to his or her commanding officer. This would be under an Order in Council made under Clause 174. This is a technical amendment that helps to clarify the position regarding the offences in Clauses 31(1)(a) and (2)(c). Combined with Amendments Nos. 29 and 30, there will be no room for doubt.
  Where a registration procedure requires two notices of proposed civil partnership to be given, it will be an offence for the civil partnership schedule to be issued before the end of the waiting period in respect of each notice of proposed civil partnership. However, where only one notice is required, as in the circumstances in which Clause 20 applies, it will be an offence for the civil partnership schedule to be issued before the end of the waiting period relating to that notice.
  6.15 p.m.
  The purpose of Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 is to clarify in Clauses 31(1)(a) and (2)(c) the circumstances in which a criminal offence may have been committed relating to the issue and the signing of the civil partnership schedule. As they stand, Clauses 31(1)(a) and (2)(c) state that it is an offence either to issue or to officiate at the signing of a civil partnership schedule before the end of the waiting period. However, notices

  GC 157
  of proposed civil partnership may be given by the proposed civil partners on different days. If that is the case, the waiting periods will not be concurrent but will start and end at different times.
  The amendments will therefore make it clear that it is an offence to issue or to officiate at the signing of a civil partnership schedule before the end of the waiting period of each notice of civil partnership. That is regardless of whether the notices were given on the same or different days. I beg to move.
  Lord Higgins: This is the first government amendment that we have considered. After this, the deluge. My noble friend Lord Tebbit has already made some comments about the extent of government amendments to the Bill. There was, I suppose, a reasonable number to the main part of the Bill but since, as a result of the Government's reconsideration of particular areas, especially Northern Ireland, we have had more than 100 pages of amendments. As my noble friend rightly said, this is in no sense a happy way to proceed.
  I see little point in protesting at great length about this, but I feel bound to say that it would have been far better if the amendments had been included in the Bill as originally printed. We could then have seen the picture as a whole right from the beginning. I shall say no more than that. It is highly unsatisfactory; that is where we stand.
  We are grateful to the Minister for her explanation and will be grateful to her for the explanations that she will no doubt give on the large groups of amendments that are to follow. It may be helpful if, on some of them, we have what is in effect a Second Reading debate, in order to proceed in an orderly manner.
  I make one final and extremely trivial point—but one that is not entirely unrelated to convenience. If one looks at page 110, for example, of the Marshalled List— I picked the page at random—under the page number, it states, "Amendment No.", followed by a total blank. I am not the least bit clear what is the purpose of that. If one is flicking through at high speed, as we have had to do today before our debate, to sort out the amendments, some of them go on for pages and pages. It would have been very helpful to have had at the top left-hand corner a reference to which amendment was involved. Otherwise, one has to flick all the way through to find out. Is that simply a printing error or were the amendments so complex that fatigue set in?
  Baroness O'Cathain: May I just point out that that particular amendment is 25 pages long so it will need an enormous amount of scrutiny, research and all the rest of it. It will be very difficult to try and deal with it.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: If one looks at page 39 it becomes clear that Amendment No. 63A seeks to insert a schedule into the Bill. Noble Lords will know that we will have had sight of the schedule and the whole of this part because we will have had very similar provisions in relation to England and Wales and
  GC 158
  Scotland. As I hope I made clear, the only differences between the schedules and amendments that relate to Northern Ireland and those that relate to England and Wales and Scotland are those differences that reflect the differences in procedure. The substance for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, based on the principles that we have been talking about, is the same.
  Noble Lords will remember that in Northern Ireland the consultation period ended later than the consultation periods in England and Wales and Scotland. It was for that reason that it was felt to be inappropriate to table any amendments until after there had been a proper opportunity to consider what the consultation process showed and after there had been an opportunity to make a principled assessment of whether these provisions should be included. That is the history. In answering the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I have already set out that we had foreshadowed that this was going to happen. The usual channels agreed it in November. On 27 November last year we said that this was going to happen. We indicated the likely nature and extent of the amendments before the Bill. Further notice was given at Second Reading when I made clear what we were going to do. After Second Reading, I believe it was on 29 April, I wrote to noble Lords who participated in Second Reading alerting them about the proposals that we intended to make in relation to Northern Ireland.
  I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, says but it is not right to say that there has been any impropriety or discourtesy. The usual channels have been fully involved, they have agreed that the process was proper and we have assiduously followed it. We have tried to give noble Lords as much notice as possible, by meetings and by the letters that I have written since the inception of this Bill.
  Lord Goodhart: I shall briefly take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the printing of the Marshalled List. I think there is a problem there. It is no doubt a matter for the Public Bill Office rather than the Government. If one turns, for example, to page 80, one has no idea which amendment it is and whether you need to go forwards or backwards to find the amendment you are looking for.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says in the same way as I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, have said. This is a matter for the House authorities. I am sure that this will be drawn to their attention by Hansard.
  Earl Ferrers: In that case, as the noble Baroness has had sympathy with what has been said by my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lady O'Cathain, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, perhaps she will have some sympathy with me too. I want to make the same point. My noble friend Lord Higgins said that this is a very trivial point. I do not think that it is trivial at all.

  GC 159
  It is just a question of comprehension. If one looks at page 39 of the Marshalled List, one gets Amendment No. 63A. If one looks at page 82, one gets Amendment No. 63C. One has to go through all these pages to find out where Amendments Nos. 63B or 63D are. It is highly complicated. I am sure that it is not the responsibility of the noble Baroness, but if she could ask somebody to make it clear, it would be a great help.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I certainly will. The House authorities make every effort to assist us and do all they can to make sure that our job is as simple as it can be made bearing in mind the nature of the legislation with which we have to deal. I am sure that they will be alive to this issue. The entry in Hansard will be brought to their attention. I hope that there will he a happy resolution of the matter.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: It would be improper for me to go into the issue before the Committee, but I have to say from the Chair that the pleading which has gone on in relation to the Marshalled List applies to the Chair as well. In trying to prepare oneself to follow what is going on, it would be of enormous help if the amendment number were put at the top left hand corner. I hope that the authorities will take note of that.
  Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  Clause 22 [Evidence to be produced]:
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 11, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).
  The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns the evidence to be produced when a person proposes to register a civil partnership. One of the conditions is that one of the proposed civil partners is seriously ill and not expected to recover. I suggested earlier that this might be a circumstance in which a couple decide that they would like to form a civil partnership. Perhaps their relationship has lasted some time. It seems a little strange that they should decide to form such a partnership when one of the proposed civil partners is literally on his deathbed, so to speak. A couple may also decide to form a civil partnership in such circumstances when their relationship has not lasted very long. I refer to the considerable implications of forming such a partnership with regard to taxation and so on.
  The other matter that slightly puzzles me also concerns the condition in Clause 22(2) where someone is not expected to recover. That is clearly not a happy circumstance. However, Clause 22(3) states:
  "But the certificate of a registered medical practitioner is sufficient evidence of any or all of the matters referred to in subsection (2)".
  I simply do not understand why the word "but" is included. Perhaps the Minister can explain that. I beg to move.
  Baroness Crawley: I hope that I shall be able to clarify the matter for the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
  GC 160
  Clause 22 provides that a person giving notice under the special procedure must produce to the registration authority such evidence as the Registrar General may require to satisfy him that the special procedure should be used.
  The registrar may require evidence that there is no lawful impediment to the formation of the civil partnership and that there is sufficient reason that a licence should be granted.
  The person giving notice will also have to produce evidence to show that the two conditions for using the special procedure are met. These conditions are that one of the proposed civil partners,
  "is seriously ill and not expected to recover,"
  and that that person,
  "understands the nature and purport of signing a Registrar General's licence".
  The streamlined special procedure is available only when one of the parties to a proposed civil partnership is seriously ill and not expected to recover. The special procedure provides for a couple to form a civil partnership very quickly because the seriously ill person may not live long enough to complete the 15-day waiting period that is required under the standard procedure.
  I would ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendment, if, as I assume, it is a probing amendment. However, if it is not a probing amendment, I am happy to clarify further.
  6.30 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: Perhaps the noble Baroness could go a little further. I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Higgins. Clause 22(2)(a) relates to a person who,
  "is seriously ill and not expected to recover".
  That is a pretty condemnatory statement for any person to have to make. One is really saying. "This person is ill and I can tell you that he is going to die". What happens if a person is seriously ill and is expected to recover? I suppose that this does not apply. The whole thing hinges on someone's assessment—one may ask whose assessment—that the person will die. That seems to be pretty hot stuff.
  Baroness Crawley: We would agree to take this matter up with parliamentary counsel. The effect of Clause 22 is that the production of a certificate, which is provided by the registered medical practitioner, is sufficient evidence that the conditions under the special procedure are met; that is, the person will not recover as far as the medical conditioner is concerned at that time.
  Earl Ferrers: Would any medical practitioner give an undertaking that the person who is in his charge will not get better? That is asking an awful lot for a doctor

  GC 161
  to say. I should think that most doctors would say that they are not prepared to do that. The whole point of being a doctor is to try to help people to get better.
  Baroness O'Cathain: What would happen if, in the case given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the seriously ill person is expected to recover?
  Baroness Crawley: If the seriously ill person is expected to recover, the Registrar General would consider that it is reasonable for that person to wait until they are sufficiently well and to use the standard procedure for the civil partnership schedule.
  Lord Higgins: We are getting a little disorderly with all this jumping up and down. I am not clear why the seriously ill person who is expected to recover should wait, when the person who is seriously ill and not expected to recover does not have to wait. I can understand why the person cannot wait, but I do not see why the person who is expected to recover should have to wait.
  Baroness Crawley: Perhaps—
  Lord Higgins: I shall give way in a moment. I still am not clear whether that is the same procedure as exists as far as an ordinary marriage ceremony is concerned. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that. I remain unclear about why at the beginning of subsection (3) the word "but" appears, unless it is expected to indicate the kind of hesitation that my noble friend Lord Ferrers has just indicated in respect of any registered medical practitioner giving such a certificate.
  The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: I hesitate to intervene. My colleagues who are hospital chaplains are probably very familiar with dealing with cases where a person is known and understood to be terminally ill. I stand to be corrected, but I think that there is a similar provision in the marriage Acts. Procedures can be shortened so that someone who is in that condition can marry. This parallels that provision for a civil partnership and therefore seems entirely reasonable. If the person is expected to recover, he or she can wait. The marriage can take place—in this case, the civil partnership—and be registered in due procedure.
  Baroness Crawley: I am very happy to write to the noble Lord. I take it that the word "but" refers to the conditions in Clause 22(2), which are that one of the proposed civil partners comes under either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b). But the certificate of a registered medical practitioner is sufficient evidence of any or all of the matters referred to in that subsection. No further evidence is needed.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Surely, unless I am completely cockeyed, the conditions are both that one of the
  GC 162
  proposed civil partners "is seriously ill" and that he "understands". It is not, as the Minister has just said, either.
  Baroness Crawley: It is both.
  Baroness O'Cathain: The noble Baroness said "either".
  Baroness Crawley: I apologise.
  Earl Ferrers: On one more trivial point, is it grammatically correct to start a new sentence with the word "But"?
  Lord Higgins: I think that the answer is "no". We have probably clarified most of the points. The right reverend Prelate referred to possibly very tragic circumstances, which reflect the same situation as exists in the case of marriage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 22 agreed to.
  Clauses 23 to 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Offences relating to civil partnership schedule]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 29 and 30:
  Page 13, line 30, leave out "end of the waiting period," and insert "waiting period in relation to each notice of proposed civil partnership has expired,"
  Page 13, line 40, leave out "end of the waiting period," and insert "waiting period in relation to each notice of proposed civil partnership has expired,"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 31:
  Page 14, line 2, leave out "5" and insert "3"
  The noble Baroness said: All the amendments in the group concern the substitution of numbers. Amendments Nos. 31 and 33 would have the effect of changing the maximum imprisonment term for offences under the Bill. The Bill prescribes five years in prison as the maximum penalty for committing an offence relating to a civil partnership schedule and three years for an offence relating to a Registrar General's licence.
  Why have the Government chosen those limits for those two offences? Can the Minister explain why they are, certainly in sentencing terms, so very different? What other similar offences are there that can carry such sentences, which seem to be rather harsh? Can the Government explain why that is so?
  Amendment No. 33 also concerns Clause 31, headed,
  "Offences relating to civil partnership schedule".
  Subsection (4) states:
  "A prosecution under this section may not be commenced more than 3 years after the commission of the offence".
  The amendment has been tabled to find out the Government's thinking behind that limitation period. Are there any examples of similar offences that have

  GC 163
  the same or a similar limitation period? I look forward to clarification, if it is possible, on the points that those amendments have raised. I beg to move.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I can deal with this matter briefly and simply. These maximum prison terms are similar to the terms that apply to civil marriage. The maximum imprisonment term of five years, for similar offences relating to the equivalent document in marriage law to the civil partnership schedule, was considered appropriate at the time when the relevant marriage legislation was introduced. Likewise, the maximum imprisonment term of three years for offences relating to the Registrar General's licence for marriage were also considered appropriate at the time when the relevant marriage legislation was introduced.
  We have considered these maximum terms and take the view that they remain appropriate. Furthermore, there are no plans to alter these sentences in relation to the comparable marriage law offences in the forthcoming regulatory reform order on marriage law reform. The current provisions reflect equivalent marriage law provisions and we do not wish to introduce avoidable divergence between the sentencing provisions of civil partnership legislation and marriage law in relation to very similar offences.
  The amendment to increase the period within which a prosecution may be brought for offences against the civil partnership schedule is resisted for the reasons that I have outlined. In addition, the amendment would also introduce an inconsistency in the Bill in relation to the period during which a prosecution may be brought for similar offences. That is because one is looking at the nature of the activity and seeking to attach an appropriate penalty to that activity. So, we have used marriage, because it is the most closely related type of situation for dealing with similar types of abuse. The consequences that will flow from the breach will be similar, although not identical, to that which would flow from the consequences of entering into a civil marriage.
  Baroness Wilcox: I thank the Minister for that clarification and her answer. When I started considering this Bill, I decided to try to avoid the word "marriage" wherever possible, because it seemed so emotive. But every time that I stand up to ask a question I seem to have that word thrown back at me. I am unable to avoid it. "Civil marriage" it is—and we are mirroring civil marriage in these amendments. I thank the noble Baroness for that clarification and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
  Clause 31 agreed to.
  Clause 32 [Offences relating to Registrar General's licence]:
  [Amendment No. 33 not moved.]
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  Clause 33 agreed to.
  Clause 34 [Fees]:
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 15, line 18, leave out "Chancellor of the Exchequer" and insert "Secretary of State"
  The noble Lord said: This clause is concerned with the fees that may be charged. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is not in his place, as he would certainly be worried if any reference were made to financial matters where the words "Chancellor of the Exchequer" appear. Given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not appear anyway—except, perhaps, in the background—I am not clear why he should suddenly appear at this stage. The Bill is not a Treasury Bill. Indeed, it seems appropriate that the "Secretary of State" should instead be the expression used. Of course, that does not refer to any specific Secretary of State, it refers to whichever Secretary of State is relevant to this particular clause. That would seem to be a better way of approaching this matter with regard to these fees.
  I shall make one other point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is apparently to be over-ridden by the Registrar General in circumstances where the fee, in the view of the Registrar General, would impose hardship if it were to be paid by the proposed civil partners.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, already said that those fees would be moderate. It is very strange that the fees should be able to be remitted by the Registrar General. Perhaps the noble Baroness can give us some indication of the size of those fees, which are so great as to cause hardship in any case whatever. If the circumstances are that tight, all kinds of wider issues are raised about what is happening. In all events, it seems more sensible to have the Secretary of State doing that rather than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I beg to move.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Crawley: I can be brief. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the Government Minister who has ultimate responsibility for the Office for National Statistics. The Registrar General's office is part of the Office for National Statistics. The Chancellor is not a Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will know. Because of his particular relationship as the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the Registrar General's office, that power needs to be given expressly to him by name, which is why it states Chancellor of the Exchequer at that point.
  As regards the other question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about the Chancellor being overridden by the Registrar General. That is not the position. He cannot be overridden by the Registrar General, who can vary a fee order made by the Chancellor.
  Lord Higgins: If the Registrar General can vary the fee order made by the Chancellor, he can overrule the Chancellor. I do not see how that can be argued otherwise. I am astonished at the reply that I have got to this amendment. I can think of various possible

  GC 165
  explanations about why the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the relevant Minister, but the fact that he is in charge of national statistics is wholly irrelevant. I cannot imagine what national statistics have to do with the charging of fees for same-sex partnerships.
  Baroness Crawley: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. As I said, the Registrar General's office is part of the Office for National Statistics. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has overall charge of the Office for National Statistics.
  Lord Higgins: That raises the issue of what are the responsibilities of the Registrar General. Certainly, it seems difficult to believe that they have anything to do with national statistics. Be that as it may. I do not want to delay the Committee unnecessarily on that particular point. I shall look into the structure to which the noble Baroness has referred. She has not replied to the points about hardship, what the fees are likely to be and whether they will be so extreme that the level would be such that they may cause hardship to anyone. Again, I must ask whether there is a similar arrangement for remitting fees for normal marriages.
  Baroness Crawley: The noble Lord is right. There is a similar set-up for civil marriage in respect of fees.
  Lord Higgins: If that is so, what are the fees likely to be? Is it really possible that they would be such as to cause hardship and need for them to be remitted?
  Baroness Crawley: They will be similar to the fees involved in a civil marriage. It is up to the noble Lord to see whether he believes that hardship would be involved.
  Lord Higgins: Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell us what the normal fees are.
  Baroness Crawley: Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord. It may take some time to get that information.
  Lord Higgins: I am sorry, but no. The officials must have the figures.
  Baroness Crawley: They have provided it. It is £97.50.
  Earl Ferrers: It did not take very long to get the answer.
  Lord Higgins: We may have made an economy in government expenditure by the noble Baroness not having to write me a letter. In undertaking something so important as either a normal marriage or a civil partnership, are we really saying that the fee of £97 is a sum that would be a deterrent to the individual concerned or that he or she would suffer grievous hardship as a result? I find that extraordinary to believe. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 34 agreed to.
  Clause 35 [Regulations and orders]:
  [Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
  Clause 35 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
  Schedule 1 [Prohibited degrees of relationship: England and Wales]:
  [Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
  Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 98, leave out lines 9 and 10.
  The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 38 to 41 would alter Schedule 1 which fleshes out the bones of Clause 3, which deals with the issue of who is eligible for a civil partnership. Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 would remove from the list of prohibited relationships those who have shared an adoptive relationship. We have tabled this amendment to understand exactly the Government's thinking. Those would be people with no blood ties. Therefore, there is the question of whether they should be included in this category.
  Amendment No. 40 would leave out paragraph 2(1)(b), which details exceptions to those who are in prohibited degrees of relationship. It states:
  "the younger has not at any time before reaching 18 been a child of the family in relation to the other".
  We have tabled the amendment to find out exactly what the provision means. I must confess that Schedule I can appear at first to be rather complex and impenetrable.
  Finally, Amendment No. 41 would omit the table of "relationship" and "relevant deaths" set out in Schedule 1. As we know, the Government have gone into great detail in the Bill. They have tried to cover pretty well every eventuality. However, I need more. I should like the Minister to explain exactly how that table would work in practice and to whom it would apply. I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: This follows on earlier debates. When the Government decided to equalise the treatment of homosexual and heterosexual couples in marriage and registration, they had to be very careful to match, as far as possible, the rights and responsibilities of married couples. They had to be careful to do that because if there are any differences between the treatment of married and homosexual couples, an argument could be raised that that was unlawful discrimination under the Human Rights Act. A gay or lesbian couple could point to that difference of treatment and there could be litigation. People like me would find themselves making far too little money, but having to spend futile days arguing such issues.
  Therefore, on looking at what appears to be a highly technical schedule, the purpose of it is to put my profession out of business in that area by making it absolutely clear—I should not mix my metaphors—that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. In other words, there is identical treatment.
  That leads me to my second, related point. Should the category of beneficiaries be widened beyond gay and lesbian couples to other people in need, there

  GC 167
  would he a really complicated situation of trying to equalise all of that without the comparators between a homosexual couple and a heterosexual couple. That is why I said that the moment one tries to widen the provision to people who suffer hardship, it would really kill the Bill, although that is not the intention of the mover of the amendment. It has taken two years to produce this legislation, which is relatively simple; namely, putting homosexual couples in the same position as heterosexual couples. In starting to deal with other categories, other forms of discrimination may be created that would have to be dealt with.
  That is why I am not sympathetic to widening the categories. It also explains why something that looks like a dull rigmarole is necessary in order to copy across what is there in the Marriage Act and related legislation.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I should also say that civil registration is not identical to but it is certainly similar to marriage. There are a number of areas in which it has been clear that civil registration cannot replicate marriage and does not purport to do so. We have to eradicate unjustifiable discrimination that has no foundation in fact. We have to consider anything that cannot be justifiable.
  I turn now to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. The inclusion of adoptive parents and adoptive children within the prohibited degrees of relationship for marriage was first provided for under the Children Act 1975. That was in recognition of the importance of the relationship between parents and their adopted children and the duty of care and responsibility that such parents have towards their adopted children.
  Adoptive parents replace in law and in fact the natural parents of a child. They must act in loco parentis to that child, as if they were the biological parents. All the rights, duties, demands of love, affection and support that are present in law for biological parents must also be there for the adoptive parent and the adoptive child. The adoptive child should seek the similar level of nurture and care to that which we would aspire for children if properly cared for within their biological families.
  Allowing marriage between a parent and an adopted child would threaten the integrity of their relationship and seriously question the nature of the bond between them. We do not see any justification for not applying the same reasoning to civil partnerships. That is not simply because of the biological defects that might occur between a biological parent and child, which would prevent them entering into what is, in relationship terms, an incestuous relationship. Children who are adopted at birth know no other parent than the parents who adopted and cared for them. They deserve the same sanctity and protection.
  We do not see any justification for not applying the same reasoning for civil partnerships. As Members of the Committee will know, individuals and same-sex couples are now able to adopt children. They are, in the full sense, legally and emotionally the parents of that child. The Government have chosen to include the
  GC 168
  terms of "adoptive child" and "adoptive parent" within Schedule 1 in order to protect the integrity of the family unit. Maintaining a proper family relationship is very important.
  Amendment No. 39 would leave out "former adoptive child" and "former adoptive parent" from the prohibited degrees. There are occasions where a child is readopted. That is usually a matter of great distress for all concerned. For example, a parent may be unable to cope with the pressures of caring for the adopted child and so the child has to be placed for adoption again. In circumstances like these, it would be quite wrong for the former adoptive parent to seek to register as a civil partner with their former adoptive child, as they will have shared a parent and child relationship.
  Amendment No. 40 would encourage inappropriate family relationships by permitting two people who have a close relationship of affinity to form a civil partnership despite one of the proposed civil partners having been a child of the family.
  Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 provides that two people are within the prohibited degrees of relationship if one of them falls within the list, set out in the paragraph, in relation to the other. The list sets out a range of affinal relationships.
  For example, two people will fall within the list if one of them is a child of the other's former civil partner or spouse. Paragraph 2 then provides an exception so that two such people will not be within the prohibited degrees of relationship where both of them have reached 21 at the time when they register as civil partners of each other, and the younger has never been treated as a child of the family in relation to the other before reaching the age of 18.
  People who choose to form a civil partnership should make this choice freely. The amendment would allow civil partnerships to be formed in cases where one proposed civil partner could have had a strong influence on the choices of the other.
  The purpose of Amendment No. 41 would be to leave out the qualified prohibited degrees in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. Paragraph 3 prohibits a person from forming a civil partnership with a former civil partner or spouse of their child. Paragraph 3, likewise, prohibits a person from forming a civil partnership with the parent of their former civil partner or spouse.
  These prohibitions are qualified. A person will be able to form such a civil partnership where both he and his proposed civil partner have reached the age of 21 and the relevant deaths set out in paragraph 3 have occurred.
  This prohibition protects the integrity of the family unit where previous relationships have come to an end. The amendment would remove the qualified prohibited degrees and have the effect of encouraging inappropriate family relationships.
  The Government have decided that it is appropriate at this time to follow the long-standing prohibited degrees of relationship that apply to marriage. The Government consider that to depart from the position

  GC 169
  in marriage law could have the undesirable effect of casting doubt upon those long-standing provisions. I refer to the nature and quality of the relationship that will persist within a family. In order to preserve family unity it would be right for us to apply those prohibited degrees to those who wish to enter civil partnerships.
  7 p.m.
  Baroness O'Cathain: What would happen if the adoption had not taken place when the child was an infant and the person was adopted at the age of eight or 10? The noble Baroness said that the adopted child would never have known any other parent. But what happens in the circumstances that I have mentioned?
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The whole purpose of adoption is to give a child a sense of security and belonging to a family irrespective of when that adoption takes place. I gave the example of a child who was adopted twice or at a very early age to give the Committee an idea of the enormity of what we would do if we were allowed to say, "You can have a relationship with someone for whom you acted in loco parentis, notwithstanding the fact that to all intents and purposes you had been that child's parent". It is a matter of the quality of the relationship. Whether one is adopted at the age of 15 or two, many children who are placed for adoption crave that security and sanctity. If you adopt a child, you do not just adopt him or her until they reach the age of 18, you adopt that child for life and the child becomes a member of your family, hopefully for life. That is why we consider that it is important to try to protect the family unit. To do otherwise would be to fail to recognise how important those relationships can be.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Baroness very much for those comments. She stressed the sanctity of family life and family relationships. However, a question arose in my mind when she specifically referred to a child not being aware of having had any other parents. I again thank the noble Baroness for her response.
  Baroness Wilcox: I am awfully glad that I asked the questions as I have been able to sit here and listen to the Minister's response. I realise how complicated the matter is. I note that the Minister has about eight advisers sitting behind her.
  I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. I shall read what she has said very carefully in Hansard. I do not know whether we shall bring the provision back on Report, but at this stage I thank the noble Baroness for that full explanation. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 39 to 41 not moved.]
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Schedule 2 [Civil partnerships of persons under 18: England and Wales]:
  Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 103, line 32, after "proposed" insert "civil"
  The noble Baroness said: Government Amendments Nos. 42, 46 and 53 are minor and technical amendments. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 42 and 53 is to insert the word "civil" before the word "partner" to ensure consistency throughout the Bill.
  Amendment No. 42 does not change the effect of paragraph 6 to Schedule 2, which provides for someone who has given their consent to a proposed civil partnership to subsequently withdraw that consent and to forbid the issue of a civil partnership schedule.
  Amendment No. 53 also corrects the drafting of paragraph 39(3)(a) of Schedule 5 to correct the reference to "partner" in that sub-paragraph so that it becomes a reference to a "civil partner". Those are two fairly straightforward corrections.
  Amendment No. 46 corrects the current reference to sub-paragraph (5) in paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 3, replacing it with a reference to sub-paragraphs (5) to (8). This is a technical amendment. It confirms that the procedures modified for certain non-residents apply not only to those using the standard procedure but also to those who wish to form a civil partnership without delay under the Schedule 3 procedure. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 43:
  Page 104, line 39, at end insert—
  "Declaration
  10A If one of the proposed civil partners is a child and is not a surviving civil partner, the necessary declaration under section 8 must also—
  (a) state in relation to each appropriate person—

  (i) that that person's consent has been obtained,

  (ii) that the need to obtain that person's consent has been dispensed with under paragraph 10(2), or

  (iii) that the court has given consent under paragraph 10(2) or (5), or

  (b) state that no person exists whose consent is required to a civil partnership between the child and another person.
  Forbidding proposed civil partnership
  10B Paragraph 6 applies in relation to the special procedure as if—

  (a) any reference to forbidding the issue of a civil partnership schedule were a reference to forbidding the Registrar General to give authority for the issue of his licence, and

  (b) sub-paragraph (6) referred to the court giving its consent under paragraph 10(2) or (5)."

  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 43 inserts paragraphs 10A and 10B into Part 3 of Schedule 2. Paragraph 10A will provide that, under the special procedure, if one of the proposed civil partners is a child who is not a surviving civil partner, then the

  GC 171
  necessary declaration with the notice of proposed civil partnership must contain additional statements in relation to each appropriate person.
  The declaration must state that the appropriate person's consent has been obtained or dispensed with or that the court has given consent.
  Alternatively, the declaration must state that no person exists whose consent is required to the civil partnership. Paragraph 10A will place the same requirements on those wishing to form a civil partnership using the special procedure as will be placed on those using the other procedures. Indeed, paragraph 10A replicates the effect of paragraph 5 to the schedule, which applies to the standard procedure and the procedures for house-bound and detained persons.
  Amendment No. 43 also inserts paragraph 10B which applies paragraph 6 (forbidding proposed civil partnership), with certain modifications, to the special procedure. That will allow the issue of the Registrar General's licence to be forbidden, in the same way that the civil partnership schedule can be forbidden under paragraph 6. It ensures that the same opportunity to prevent the civil partnership registration from taking place is available where the special procedure applies.
  In addition, paragraphs 10A and 10B ensure that there is a similar approach to civil partnership registration as there is for marriage where one of the parties is seriously ill and not expected to recover.
  Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 are consequential on the amendments set out above. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 44 and 45:
  Page 105, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
  Page 105. line 17, leave out "sub-paragraph (1)" and insert "paragraph 10B"
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Registration by former spouses one of whom has changed sex]:
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 107, line 16, leave out "Sub-paragraph (5) applies" and insert "Sub-paragraphs (5) to (8) apply"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Powers to make orders and effect of orders]:
  Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 46A:
  Page 16, line 20, leave out from "partnership" to end.
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 46A, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 49A and to the Question that Clauses 44, 45, 46 and 47 stand part of the Bill.
  The aim of the amendments is to tease out whether replacing divorce with a right to end a partnership on request would be acceptable to the Government. I do
  GC 172
  not intend to speak for long as this amendment brings up many of the same issues that I raised on the first day of Committee on 10 May.
  The groupings have been revised. Amendments Nos. 46A and 49A, and Clauses 44, 45, 46 and 47 stand part, are now grouped together. I believe that that was not the case previously.
  Lord Higgins: I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I believe that Clause 41 stand part is grouped separately.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Perhaps I can help the Grand Committee. To the best of my knowledge, we are presently discussing—but I have not yet put the amendment—Amendment No. 46A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, which is grouped with Amendment No. 49A and Clauses 44, 45, 46 and 47 stand part. Clause 41 stand part comes in the next grouping but one. We are discussing Amendment No. 46A to Clause 36, which I think comes before Clause 41.
  Baroness O'Cathain: That is the problem with working in this room for so long; we are all addled actually, but there it is. I shall commence my remarks for the third time.
  I do not intend to speak for long since this amendment brings up many of the issues that I raised on the first day of Committee on 10 May. At that time I sought to remove some of the similarities between civil partnership and civil marriage. In response to my amendments it became clearer than ever that this was a gay marriage Bill. For example, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, about the importance of civil partnerships being registered in the presence of a civil registrar because:
  "They will … 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".—[Official Report, 10/5/04; col. GC 55.]
  The Government are clearly very committed to imitating civil marriage in the way that civil partnership is formed. The imitation of civil marriage was debated when we discussed Amendments Nos. 31, 32 and 34. We can read that debate in Hansard tomorrow.
  7.15 p.m.
  These amendments probe the Government's enthusiasm for ensuring that the dissolution of a civil partnership also mimics marriage. The Government have gone to extraordinary lengths in the Bill to replicate the provisions of divorce law. Anyone entering into a civil partnership should be given, in the words of my noble friend Lady Wilcox—adopted by the noble Baroness, the Minister—a "health warning" because they are entering into a legal status from which it is difficult to exit—as difficult as getting out of a marriage.
  I find it interesting that the grounds for dissolution of civil partnership do not include adultery. There are grounds of unreasonable behaviour, but a breach of

  GC 173
  sexual exclusivity between the members of a civil partnership would not directly constitute grounds for dissolution. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that point. In passing, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to our deliberations. We have had very good debates with him in the past and I hope that we shall have another.
  Most importantly, I look forward with interest to hearing the Minister's response to my amendments which—without necessarily dealing with all the technicalities at this stage—seek to replace the elaborate divorce provisions with a simple process of dissolution on request. I question whether it is necessary for the provisions for dissolution to mimic almost directly those for divorce of a married couple.
  I have made it clear that, if we are to argue about cases of hardship suffered by people whose relationships are not recognised in law, then we should address that issue fairly by widening this Bill to allow familial and platonic relationships to qualify. If amendments were accepted to this Bill which extended the scope of those who could enter into a civil partnership, as I suggested on 10 May under my Amendment No. 2, then it would be important to look at the whole issue of dissolution. A more straightforward procedure for ending the partnership would be needed.
  If the Bill was amended to permit two sisters to enter a civil partnership, then it would clearly be inappropriate to require two siblings who want to end a partnership to prove "irretrievable breakdown" to the court, which the Bill does at present. On the first day of Grand Committee when I discussed extending the measure to two sisters entering a civil partnership, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, asked what would happen if one of the sisters wanted to become involved in a heterosexual marriage. This is a technicality that needs to be considered. The matter is very complicated. However, as I say, if the Bill was amended to permit two sisters to enter a civil partnership, it would clearly be inappropriate to require two siblings who want to end a partnership to prove "irretrievable breakdown" to the court, which the Bill does at present.
  My Amendments Nos. 46A and 49A would remove that requirement and provide for dissolution by the court on request. This is subject to making application in the appropriate form and notifying the other partner. The "stand part" amendments relating to Clauses 44 to 47 are consequential. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply with interest. I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: We will oppose these amendments. It seems to us that, provided that the Bill is kept to its proper purposes and one is seeking to match the position of civil marriage, mutatis mutandis, the provisions on dissolution do precisely that. Only if one were to widen the Bill to include wider categories of beneficiaries and change the whole scheme of the Bill, might one need to look at it in a different way. So far as dissolution and divorce are concerned, one has
  GC 174
  views about how law reform might be achieved in the area of family law. But it is not the purpose of this Bill to achieve those wider reforms.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, for her generous welcome, particularly given the challenging times we had together on the Gender Recognition Bill. That was gracious of her, and I am glad to join the Committee in its processes at this point. I shall try to rise to the challenge, to which the noble Baroness encouraged me, of speaking succinctly. However, it will help if I put a little on to the record now as it may permit economy at later stages.
  The noble Baroness is absolutely right in what she says. In many ways, the amendment to which she has spoken replicates some of the argumentation that she made earlier. She will therefore not be surprised if my responses also replicate some of the Government's responses in that respect.
  In short, the argumentation is based on reasons that the Committee knows. However, we think it important that a totally new legal status is being given to same-sex relationships as a central thrust of the Bill. We think it important that those relationships have meaning and importance; that they entail significant rights and responsibilities; and that one hopes and expects that people will enter into them with thought and care and will wish to stay in them as that lends to the stability of both family relationships and society.
  In terms of the principles underpinning the Government's view of the Bill, it therefore follows that we should try to ensure that, when one party thinks it necessary, the process of ending the relationship also has a degree of test, circumspection and thoughtfulness and there is a principled test of whether the relationship should end. In that sense, we do not think that there should be a process such as the noble Baroness suggests—which is essentially that one party virtually unilaterally can say, "The contract has ended", irrespective of the circumstances, wishes or opportunity of the other party to engage in challenge or delay or to put their point. That seems to us to frustrate one of the Government's central objectives for the Bill.
  The noble Lord, Lord Lester, just recently spoke to a second issue which was touched on earlier. In terms of equality and ensuring we are well positioned on challenge in the law, we think that there is difference from marriage only with good reason. That is not only in terms of a defensive legal position but also as a point of principle. Therefore, as the noble Baroness has spotted, we would look to the provisions in marriage law to see whether those principles, practices and procedures seem to make sense in terms of ending the relationship. That is why she recognised provision in the Bill regarding separation after two years with consent; after five years without consent; and the test of irretrievable breakdown, evidence-based. I am not going into all the detail, but she is right to remark on those similarities. We believe that those are there for good reason rather than just by happenstance. I know that she will not like it or welcome it, but she is right to recognise the similarity in that respect.

  GC 175
  The noble Baroness spotted one difference—why not adultery? In a sense adultery is a concept—without going into the physiology of it—that applies to opposite-sex marriage. Clearly that does not apply in this respect. However, that does not mean that a party to a civil partnership who behaves in an adulterous way would not afford the opportunity for their partner—if they felt. as they may well do, aggrieved by that —to take action in the courts to end the relationship. They would be able to advance the fact that there had been an "extra-sexual relationship", if I can put it that way, that they felt went to the heart of the trust in the relationship and that therefore they would advance that as an argumentation for irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
  Lord Higgins: I, too, welcome the noble Lord to our deliberations. I am not quite clear what the definition of adultery is in the case of two-sex couples.
  Lord Filkin: I was reflecting on that as I was speaking.
  Baroness O'Cathain: It is being unfaithful.
  Lord Filkin: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is correct that it is being unfaithful rather than something slightly more physiological. I do not want to send a frisson through the Committee at this late hour. We are reflecting on what adultery means. In the Marriage Act, it is quite clear—it is a relationship between one of the parties to a marriage and another person of the opposite sex outside the marriage, and a sexual relationship.
  Noble Lords: We have a bishop present.
  Lord Filkin: I shall not avoid—well, I will give way to the right reverend Prelate.
  The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: I shall not trespass on your time.
  Lord Higgins: All the way through our proceedings, without exception, for hour after hour, we have been told that these procedures replicate those of marriage. Suddenly, there is one exception, and I confess that, in the absence of any clearer answer from the Minister, I am not sure why.
  Lord Filkin: I am sorry—the noble Lord asked for the definition and he is going to get it. It is penetration of the female by the male.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am not an expert on anything at all, but I thought that in the Bible there was a prohibition on adultery that was predicated upon it involving a man and a woman. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was predicated on that.
  Those who are really interested in this area should read Horace Rumpole's description, which seemed to apply when I came to the Bar, when we made nine guineas by trying to dissolve marriages. We would turn up in front of the judge, seeking to dissolve a marriage on grounds of adultery, and ask him if he would read the discretion statement. A little envelope would then
  GC 176
  be opened in which the various acts of adultery would be taken into account by the judge, and we would see which of us could get a decree nisi in under 30 seconds.
  Anything which gets us away from having adultery as the ground for dissolving a marriage, despite the Bible, would be highly desirable, whether a homosexual or a heterosexual couple were involved. It seems rather bizarre to suggest that the Biblical injunction against adultery should be applied to homosexual couples when many Christians believe that homosexuality is actually forbidden by the Bible.
  Lord Filkin: I hope, without labouring the point, that I have answered the perfectly proper question of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about why there is a difference.
  I will try to be succinct, because it would be helpful. Let me put on the record one or two other reasons why there is a difference, as we are not going to accept the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. Under her proposal, the process of the court would be completely formal. It would effectively give no opportunity for the respondent to defend or try to challenge the ending of the relationship. There would be none of the safeguards, and we believe that it would be inconsistent with the serious nature of the partnership commitment. There would be no power for the court to inquire into the facts, no power to do anything other than issue the dissolution order. It would not allow for representation by the other party, potentially denying them the right of a fair hearing.
  The proposal would not, in relation to Clause 44, provide for arrangements for dealing with attempts at reconciliation by the partners. We think that that would be a serious deficiency. Consistent with the view that these are serious, committed relationships, it is right that one does not allow a process that lets people rush to end them without an attempt to see whether it is possible—with thought, a little pause, perhaps some advice and counseling—for them to decide that they will continue with the partnership that they wanted to enter into.
  Clause 45 provides that where a separation order and an order for financial provision or an order in relation to a home has been made, it will be possible for either civil partner to use facts to support an application for dissolution. The court may treat the order already given as proof of the fact alleged, but the court must receive evidence from the applicant. The court is also given power to treat periods when an injunction or an order prohibits a civil partner from occupying a dwelling house as periods of desertion to support an application for a dissolution order.
  For similar reasons of principle on which I touched earlier, Clause 46 provides protection for the respondent civil partner in cases of grave hardship in cases based on five years' separation.
  Clause 47 provides protection for the respondent in separation clause cases. It allows the respondent to an application for a dissolution order alleging either two years' or five years' separation to apply to the court to consider his or her financial provisions after

  GC 177
  dissolution of the civil partnership. The court will take all the circumstances into account and will make the conditional dissolution order final only if it appears that no financial provision should be made for the respondent or that reasonable financial provision has already been made. They reflect the need to protect people in complicated and difficult legal situations.
  The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, as often, was completely right that that is why we differ on this issue. For reasons of principle, equity and practice in law, we felt that it was good to follow the principles of marriage law except where there was good reason not to do so.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the Minister very much for his response to my amendment. However, I would like to make a couple of points. First, he said that it would not be right for one partner to say, "The contract has been annulled; I'm off'. But he then referred to the fact that, in marriage, one can say that after five years and it does not really matter too much. So that is mirroring marriage yet again. When the Minister started, in his gracious way, he said that I would not be surprised if he replicated the Minister's response to my previous amendments. He will not be surprised if I now replicate my response to the Minister's earlier response. In other words: I will return to the issue at Report and Third Reading; no question about it.
  I listened with great interest to the Minister's reply. Following the intervention from my noble friend Lord Higgins, it is obvious that the procedure for dissolution is very closely modelled on the current divorce law. That has been accepted. Surely it would have been much more honest for the Government to admit that they seek to create a form of civil marriage for homosexual couples. We hear a lot about transparent government. Why cannot the Government be transparent in the use of language in the Bill? I suspect that it is because there would likely he a very strong public reaction.
  The Government stated the other day that the Bill has 83 per cent support right across the board in England and Wales; that is in Hansard at col. GC 48. The Government are skating on thin ice. The Minister was talking about responses to a government consultation—a consultation to which gay rights groups were lobbying their supporters to respond for months; consultation of which very few members of the public would have been aware. There is no way we can say that those who responded were representative of the views of people in England and Wales. If there was such a representative sample and they were told what the Bill really did—that is, mirror marriage in every way—I would expect a majority in England and Wales to oppose it.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I wonder whether she might not reflect on this before we come back to it at Report. I personally would very much like to see gay marriage, for all kinds of reasons. On the other hand, at this stage, are the Government and Parliament not entitled to say, "At this stage in our lives, we will respect the strong feelings of the population about the use of the word marriage. Therefore, the right thing to do now is to provide the proper rights and obligations that mirror marriage without using that label, to which there attaches all kinds of religious and symbolic importance, in order to be able to provide the protection"?
  Will the noble Baroness reflect also on what has happened in the United States, where one of my good friends, the chief justice of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, has insisted that the word "marriage" must be included—that there must be full marriage— leaving President Bush to decide to run that as a major campaign and seek a federal constitutional amendment.
  Is it not therefore wiser to combine principle and pragmatism in this area by providing the necessary protection, leaving it to the Churches, for example, to decide whether they wish, as I hope they will, to provide the symbolic and religious underpinning of the relationships? I ask only whether the noble Baroness will reflect on that. I am criticised by many for adopting some such view, as if I have somehow sold out. I take that criticism, but I think that one needs to think about that pragmatic argument.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I cannot tell the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, how grateful I am for that intervention—because that is precisely what we are doing. We are creating a gay marriage in all but name. We will then wait for another few years until the populace—the people—accept that that is okay. That is fine, and I really do believe that he is quite right that that is what is happening in the Bill. We do not always agree on everything, but I agree with him absolutely on this. I do not need to reflect on it at all. He is absolutely right.
  When I probed the Government's view on Northern Ireland, the Minister made it clear that, where a clear majority of individuals opposed the plan, they are not interested in democracy. That is such a travesty.
  I will go away and read the Hansard report of this debate. In the meantime, I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Filkin: I do not want to spoil the slightly novel unanimity breaking out on the Opposition Benches. However, I want to put our position very clearly. This is a new legal status that gives rights and responsibilities to people in same-sex committed relationships. We think that that is fundamentally right as part of what a civilised society should do. We

  GC 179
  do not see it as analogous to marriage. We do not see it as a drift towards gay marriage. We see it as having value, merit, meaning and purpose in its own right.
  Baroness O'Cathain: I thank the noble Lord and I absolutely believe him. I have always regarded him as a very honest person, and he does believe that. However, I believe the opposite. I am also an honest person. I just think that this has exposed the whole thing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I will come back to it at Report and Third Reading.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
  Clause 36 agreed to.
  Clauses 37 to 40 agreed to.
  Baroness Crawley: This may be a convenient moment to adjourn the proceedings until Thursday, 13 May, at 3.15 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until tomorrow, 13 May, at 3.15 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eight o'clock.

  Special European Un ion Programmes Body
  Special European Un ion Programmes Body
  Immigration Appeals
  Immigration Appeals
  Olympic Games 2004
  Olympic Games 2004
  Taiwan: World Health Organisation
  Taiwan: World Health Organisation
  Tristan da Cunha: Post and Supplies
  Tristan da Cunha: Post and Supplies
  Afghanistan: UN Assistance Mission
  Afghanistan: UN Assistance Mission
  Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy
  Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Labour Market Conditions: Ethnic Minorities
  Labour Market Conditions: Ethnic Minorities
  Export Subsidies
  Export Subsidies
  Work at Height Regulations: Mountaineering and Similar Activities
  Work at Height Regulations: Mountaineering and Similar Activities
  34 Second Fuel Oil
  34 Second Fuel Oil
  Business: Regulation and Taxation
  Business: Regulation and Taxation
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines
  Gulf War 1990–91: Vaccines

  Higher Education Links Programme
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the following Statement.

  Having reviewed the Higher Education Links programme, I have decided to continue with a redesigned programme, maintaining current levels of annual investment (£3 million) but with some modifications to the existing scheme (which will end in March 2006). I expect the new scheme to commence in April 2005, with commitments being made over the following seven years (until March 2012).

  The review report identified a number of strengths of the current scheme, but there were also some areas for improvement. The redesigned programme will tackle these issues.

  The overall goal of the redesigned programme will be the reduction of poverty, the promotion of sustainable development in poor countries and the building of human capital and skills. Only countries where DfID has bilateral country programmes will be eligible for funding. There will therefore be more emphasis on sub-Saharan Africa and low-income countries.

  The revised programme should also support south-south links and links between southern partners and non-UK partners in the north, and it will also give more attention to science and technology. An independent evaluation will take place after five years.

  DfID's Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has written to Professor Robert Boucher, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sheffield and chair of the existing Higher Education Links steering committee, setting out the features of the new scheme. His letter is on DfID's website. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Commission for Equality and Human Rights
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women and Equality (Ms Patricia Hewitt) made the following Statement in the other place today.

  Creating a fair and more inclusive society is fundamental to building a prosperous country. Equality and human rights must be at the heart of modern Britain. Discrimination has no place in our society.
  WS 8
  We need a step change in the fight against discrimination. We need to create a culture of respect based on equal value and the dignity and worth of every individual.

  Extending opportunities to all means removing unfair barriers. Delivering prosperity for all means harnessing the skills and potential of every member of society, whatever their background. Equality and human rights matter to everyone—they are not minority concerns.

  Last October, we announced the Government's plan for a single equality body to realise this vision of a fairer, more inclusive and prosperous Britain. Today we are setting out how we propose to deliver that vision. Our White Paper on Fairness for All: A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights detailing our proposals has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  It is a bold and innovative plan. The new commission will have a dual remit to challenge discrimination and promote equality of opportunity and human rights.

  We believe there is an opportunity for it to create a strong, proactive relationship with private sector employers, both large and small, and service providers to maximise progress towards equality.

  The Commission for Equality and Human Rights will bring together the work of three existing equality commissions—the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and the Disability Rights Commission (DRC). It will also support new laws outlawing workplace and vocational training discrimination on grounds of religion or belief, sexual orientation and, in time, age.

  We owe the existing commissions a debt of gratitude for their work in changing attitudes and practice on disability, gender and racial equality and their hard work in bringing us to this point. Now we are ready to adopt fresh approaches to meet new challenges.

  In making today's announcement, we have taken account of the responses to the Government's consultation document Equality and Diversity: Making It Happen and the sixth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

  The White Paper owes much to the discussions of the CEHR task force whose membership reflected the broad range of interests involved in this issue, including the existing commissions. The task force advised government on a number of key issues for the new body through an innovative and open process.

  We are grateful to all its members for so willingly sharing their depth of expertise. Their participation and contributions are an important aspect of our wider policy development, and have informed the White Paper significantly.

  The White Paper sets out the proposed vision, functions, powers and governance arrangements for the CEHR. It outlines the work the body will be expected to carry out to support key stakeholders; it sets out the Scottish and Welsh dimensions of the new body and maps out the road to implementation.
  WS 9
  The Core Duties of the New Body

  The proposed core duties of the CEHR set out in the document will be to:

  Encourage awareness and good practice on equality and diversity.

  Promote equality of opportunity between people in the different groups protected by discrimination law.

  Promote awareness and understanding of human rights.

  Work towards the elimination of unlawful discrimination and harassment.

  Promote good relations among different communities and between these communities and wider society.

  Additional responsibilities will include:

  Keeping relevant legislation under review.

  Acting as a centre of expertise on equality and human rights.

  Key Issues in the White Paper

  The increasing complexities of our diverse society require appropriate tools to challenge discrimination and enforce the law. Our proposals build on the existing commissions' powers and create a selection of tools for the CEHR to enforce discrimination law effectively.

  The White Paper sets out detailed proposals on the role of the CEHR in promoting a culture of respect for human rights and improving public service delivery. The human rights framework will also be used to help balance potentially conflicting rights.

  The Government propose that the CEHR will have an obligation to consult stakeholders on its strategic plan. The CEHR will clearly set out how, when and with whom it intends to consult.

  To ensure experience and expertise is not lost from the existing commissions, the CEHR board will also, for a transitional period, have three additional reserved seats for a commissioner from the CRE, the DRC and the EOC.

  The White Paper recognises the distinctive issues that arise for disabled people in the establishment of the CEHR and the need to ensure effective transition from the DRC. The Government propose that the nominated transitional DRC commissioner is appointed to sit on the CEHR board until vesting day. After that date, we will ensure, via a statutory requirement, that at least one person who has, or has had, a disability is appointed to the CEHR board.

  The White Paper also proposes a disability committee, with disabled people making up the majority of its members. This committee will have authority to set strategy, develop policy and monitor delivery for specific areas of the CEHR's disability work, and will he subject to a mandatory review after
  WS 10
  five years of the continuing case for the committee. This will give disabled people a clear voice in the CEHR's work.

  We recognise the unique and important local racial equality work that has historically been supported by the CRE. The White Paper proposes a commitment to maintaining existing levels of support for local race work.

  The White Paper also confirms that the Government will start detailed, preparatory work on the nature and shape of a new statutory duty on public bodies to promote gender equality in fulfilment of its longstanding commitment to introduce such a duty. This duty will oblige public bodies to ensure that their actions (as either employers or service providers) will promote equality of opportunity between women and men and make public services more responsive to their different needs. Part of the preparatory work will involve learning from the experiences of the public sector duty introduced for race through the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, and will be informed by the proposed public sector duty for disability. The Government will consult interested stakeholders and parties as this work develops.

  Establishing the CEHR will require primary legislation. We intend to bring a Bill before Parliament as soon as parliamentary time allows. The commission will not be fully operational before the end of 2006 at the earliest. A planning phase, beginning shortly, will become progressively more detailed over the next 12 to 18 months. Plans for bringing in the new strands of equality, religion and belief, sexual orientation and age are outlined in the White Paper.

  The Government look forward to consulting and debating on all these issues and particularly welcome views responding to the White Paper's questions on regional and local issues and how the body should work with stakeholders. We welcome the 11th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the structures, functions and powers of the new body, and will consider this further alongside responses to the consultation.

  British Council Art Exhibitions Overseas
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  The British Council, although not a government department, receives a substantial grant-in-aid from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The council regularly organises or sponsors exhibitions overseas of works of art loaned from national galleries and private collections in the United Kingdom. It provides certain assurances or guarantees in respect of loss or damage while these works are on loan.

  In the year ended 31 March 2004, the British Council provided such assurances to six national lenders and undertakings to 206 private lenders. The value of the contingent liabilities that remained outstanding as at 31 March 2004 was £2,807,500 in respect of national lenders and £7,247,453 in respect. of private lenders.

  Firearms
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  The Home Office consultation paper on firearms controls is published today. Copies have been placed in the House Library. The paper invites a wideranging debate on the principles that should underpin firearms licensing and how the existing system might be improved. People will have until 31 August to respond.

  Design Coding
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is today launching the design coding pilots programme. Kate Barker in her review of housing supply identified significant levels of undersupply, and a lack of certainty and speed in the planning process. This programme aims to test the use of design coding as a means to accelerate the delivery of housing while maintaining the high level of design content required to ensure that new development contributes fully towards improving the quality of our villages, towns and cities.

  A design code is a set of specific rules or requirements to guide the physical development of a site or a place. The aim of design coding is to provide clarity as to what constitutes acceptable design quality, and thereby a level of certainty for developers and the local community alike, that can help to accelerate the delivery of good quality new development.

  Operating over a number of different development circumstances, the pilots will be carefully monitored over the coming year and will provide the means to evaluate various models and approaches for developing, adopting and implementing design codes. Depending on the outcome, the review may inform the development of future planning policy.

  The Government wish to test the potential for design coding as a means of delivering higher quality development at greater speed through the planning process. The development projects which we have chosen to monitor and evaluate in order to assess the effectiveness of the coding approach are subject to approval through the planning system in the normal way. It is possible that some of these projects may, at a later stage, be referred to the Secretary of State for decision (for example on whether an application
  WS 12
  should be called in for his own determination or on an appeal against the decision of a local planning authority).

  For the avoidance of doubt, partners involved in the design coding exercise should understand that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is encouraging the use of coding on these sites without prejudice to any decisions the Secretary of State may be required to take through his formal role in the planning process. The fact that development is proposed in accordance with a design code does not imply that the Secretary of State is content for any particular development proposal to proceed. Any decisions which fall to be made will be taken having regard to the facts and merits of the case, taking into consideration all relevant matters.

  Cardiac Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health (Miss Johnson) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  The National Service Framework for coronary heart disease, published in March 2000, heralded a new era for the development of fast and modern services for the prevention and treatment of heart disease.

  With significant progress now secured for patients with coronary artery disease, the National Health Service is now well placed to deliver similar improvements for patients with arrhythmia and with syndromes that can lead to sudden cardiac death.

  Dr Roger Boyle, the national director for heart disease, is today launching a consultation paper on a new national service framework chapter for these conditions. The views received will be considered by a new expert group which is being established by the Department of Health to take forward the task of writing the new national service framework chapter.

  The Government have already shown their determination to tackle coronary heart disease through the publication of the National Service Framework. The prospect of a new national service framework chapter setting out the standards and models of care for patients with arrhythmia marks a major step forward for cardiac patients in England.

  Copies of New NSF Chapter on Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death: A Consultation Paper have been placed in the Library.