Sitting of 17 May 2004

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

    Iraq
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What estimate he has made of the expected cost to the Government of maintaining a military presence in Iraq in financial year(a) 2004–05 and(b) 2005–06. [173149]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Before I answer Question 1 may I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Veterans, who is representing the Government at today's commemoration at Monte Cassino?
    Of the £3.8 billion the Chancellor has set aside for operations in Iraq, £850 million was spent in 2002–03 and a further £1.5 billion was drawn down in supplementary estimates in 2003–04. Precise future costs are difficult to forecast.
    Dr. Cable: After that vague reply on the future, why can the Secretary of State not be as honest with the House about the cost of the war as Mr. Rumsfeld is being in the United States? Will he confirm that net costs to the taxpayer currently run at about £125 million a month, excluding Ministry of Defence and Department for International Development costs incurred through the occupation?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am always honest with the House. The figures that he sets out are roughly consistent with those that I indicated for 2002–03 and 2003–04. He is an economist by trade, but I am sure that he is good at long multiplication.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Secretary of State promise the House that, whatever else may be skimped on and however much it costs, equipment to protect our forces, from the searing, debilitating heat in Iraq from June to September will not be skimped on? We ask a great deal of our soldiers, who should not suffer in that heat because we have failed to act.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's concern and know that he speaks from a good deal of experience.
    658
    I assure him that all MOD Ministers and, indeed, the chiefs of staff are prepared to make such an undertaking and that conditions for soldiers in the field today are infinitely better than they were when he served his country.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What is now our mission in Iraq?
    Mr. Hoon: Our mission in Iraq is to restore Iraq to the Iraqi people, to ensure a peaceful handover on 30 June and to ensure, as best we can, that we build a democratic, effective society in Iraq that allows it rightfully to rejoin the international community.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the sums are very large. He will understand that many hon. Members feel that we should not be in Iraq in the first place and are concerned by the lack of a clear strategy. Does he think that the budgetary proposals should be subject to a specific vote in this House of Commons?
    Mr. Hoon: Such opportunities are, of course, available, if hon. Members choose to use the procedures. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been in the House a great deal longer than me and probably knows the rules better than I do. Such opportunities are available to hon. Members, should they choose to pursue them.

    Royal Air Force
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: If he will make a statement on manning levels in the RAF. [173150]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): On 1 April 2004, the trained strength of the regular Royal Air Force was 48,740, which represents a deficit of 830 against the current requirement.
    Mr. Djanogly: The reduction in the RAF's manning requirement, some 4.5 per cent. over the past four years, is the largest out of all the services. Despite that, the manning deficit is, as the Minister says, growing. Does he consider that effective management and, given the proposed base closures and the scrapped Typhoon and joint strike fighter orders, does he have any idea of future RAF required numbers?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman lives in a dream world and is extrapolating his argument from predictions. Recruitment for all three services clearly faces some difficulties and we throw a lot of effort at it. The more people speak up for the armed forces, the greater the chances of success; constant carping and criticism undermine both retention and recruitment.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Minister aware of the concern in Norfolk about the proposed closure of RAF Coltishall and the removal from service of the Jaguar? That comes on top of the Eurofighter, which has had its cannons removed on cost

    659
    grounds, and the joint strike fighter, which is apparently too heavy to land with a full payload. Does he feel that he is letting the RAF down?
    Mr. Ingram: I know who has let down the RAF in the past and we are recovering from those errors of judgment, which occurred across the three services. Again, the hon. Gentleman bases his arguments on press speculation, and I suggest that he wait for a decision—if a decision is made—and make a judgment call on it. His approach adds to the negativity created by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly).
    Angus Robertson: The Minister knows that large-scale restructurings are taking place among various trade groups in the Royal Air Force and that the defence airfield review teams—DARTs—have been examining different base structures. I am sure that he agrees that it is important to have a communications strategy to tell people on the bases about impending changes in a robust and informative way. Is he confident that such a communications strategy exists to minimise unnecessary anxieties on bases such as RAF Lossiemouth and Kinloss?
    Mr. Ingram: I would be worried if we were not communicating the matters that we are currently considering. Of course, the end-to-end strategy, which takes into account land and air, has identified significant areas of potential efficiency within uniformed personnel and the civilian support elements, whether directly in support or in industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would support such measures to ensure that we extract maximum efficiency so that every pound that has been spent goes to the front line. That is part of what drives our actions. I shall examine existing communications because I appreciate that much effort has gone into ensuring that our people are fully aware of why we are acting, the possible consequences and the benefits that can flow from it.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Since manning depends on the aircraft available, when does the Minister expect the Typhoon and the seriously overweight joint strike fighter, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) referred, to be in full operational service? Is not it the case that, if the proposed savage cuts reported in the press occur, they will reduce the RAF to a level below the critical mass necessary to maintain a credible air superiority capability for the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Ingram: The answer has not changed from that about which the hon. Gentleman has been told. There is nothing new to change the in-service date. Again, he refers to press speculation and extrapolates from that a doom-laden scenario for the RAF. Let us talk up the RAF for a bit.

    Bosnia and Herzegovina
    Mr. John Wilkinson: If he will make a statement on the progress made in delineating tasks between the EU and NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina. [173151]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Work continues on the precise delineation of
    660
    tasks between the EU and NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina in anticipation of the withdrawal of the stabilisation force, SFOR. We would expect the EU force in Bosnia to provide the security framework to enable political and economic development to continue. NATO's continuing role will be to focus on defence reform, including advising the Bosnians on NATO accession and some operational tasks, including counter-terrorism and support of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does the Secretary of State agree that, if the EU is to take over the principal stabilisation role from NATO by the end of the year, as planned, the EU force will have to have sufficient manpower and resources to carry out its job effectively and that there should be no overlap, turf wars or differences of approach but co-ordination and co-operation between the EU and NATO in Bosnia? Will a British officer command the EU force?
    Mr. Hoon: Let me deal with the general principle first. The hon. Gentleman is right that there needs to be absolute clarity about the responsibilities of the EU force and any continuing EU activity in the area. That is why, as I said to hon. Members a few moments ago, we are engaged in detailed discussions to prevent any such overlap and confusion of roles. We are working towards that before any decision is made on the future of SFOR, as he acknowledged in his question. That decision has not yet been made.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: My right hon. Friend knows that the EU wishes to be perceived as a major player in the international sphere on maintaining security. Does he believe that that is sufficient reason for dividing security between the EU and NATO in Bosnia and Herzegovina? Since we are considering a Berlin-plus operation, will any non-EU European NATO allies be involved in it?
    Mr. Hoon: In a sense, my hon. Friend answered the first part of his question with his reference to Berlin-plus. Arrangements have been established to allow the EU to take advantage of the military assets available to NATO. That was part of the agreement known as Berlin-plus and it will underpin any EU operation in the Balkans. It is important to recognise that not all EU members are necessarily members of NATO. It is right that we should take advantage of their military capabilities to develop the sort of operation for which Europe in particular should be responsible in its sphere of influence. The Balkans is clearly within that. It is right and proper that, if it is decided to end SFOR, the EU should take over.

    Infantry (Urgent Deployments)
    Tim Loughton: What assessment he has made of the(a) adequacy and(b) availability of British infantry to respond to additional urgent deployments. [173152]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): A number of British infantry units are routinely held in reserve at very high readiness to deploy. This

    661
    ensures that the Army always has prepared troops available to respond to additional urgent deployments. The adequacy of this system was perfectly illustrated by our extremely swift response to the recent difficulties in Kosovo. The spearhead land element, in this case the 1st Battalion the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment, deployed to theatre in less than 24 hours, undertaking its first patrol the very next day.
    Tim Loughton: That of course is nothing new, but given the massive overstretch facing the infantry battalions of the British Army as a result of the concurrent operations overseas, and the fact that they now face the prospect of non-combat activities in the UK to deal with fuel tax protesters and possibly another firemen's strike, at what point does the Secretary of State anticipate that infantry availability will run out?
    Mr. Hoon: The absolute determination of the Opposition to talk down the skills and successes of our armed forces is remarkable. I have just given the hon. Gentleman an excellent illustration of just how ready and available our armed forces are. Within days, they are able to go out on patrol and conduct extremely effective operations in Kosovo, but what happens? The hon. Gentleman talks them down. That is becoming typical of the Opposition as a whole.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Secretary of State give the House a vote on the possible deployment of more troops to Iraq? If not, will he give us an assurance that any such deployment will be in the areas where our troops are now, and not in the positions that the Americans are asking us for?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend has been in the House for much longer than I have and knows full well that decisions on whether votes are taken are a matter for the House. We keep under constant review the question of the number of troops required in Iraq. We have from time to time increased that number in response to specific requests from commanding officers on the ground. Nothing has changed about the situation. I am sure that she and other hon. Members recognise that, if there were an urgent request fore extra troops, it would be the responsibility of the Government to satisfy that request, before the possibility of any House of Commons vote.
    Bob Russell: In how many countries are British troops currently deployed?
    Mr. Hoon: Quite a number.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: I thank the Secretary of State for that accurate answer. Members on both sides of the House recognise the fact that infantry battalions are the workhorses of the British Army. They are vital in both military operations and peacekeeping. There are few other armies in which the infantry can move as easily from one aspect of operations to another as our troops can. However, the select Committee, the chiefs of staff and the former Chief of the Defence Staff have all indicated time and again that the Army is suffering from serious overstretch particularly in the infantry. The decision to put the 1st Battalion the Black
    662
    Watch on stand-by for reinforcing Iraq is an illustration of just how serious that situation is. That regiment has just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq and is now the UK land forces training battalion at Warminster. If the MOD now has to deploy training units, what infantry will be left for further urgent deployments?
    Mr. Hoon: Here we go again. The Opposition are absolutely determined to talk down every aspect of the considerable success of the armed forces. Whenever I give illustrations—as I do repeatedly from the Dispatch Box—of just how successful we are, not only in the armed forces but in the management in the Ministry of Defence, all we get from the other side is this determined effort to run down our armed forces.
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we ask our armed forces to undertake duties on behalf of our country, we should reward, defend and protect them? If it comes to a point at which they are overstretched, can he estimate how much it would cost to equip and man the extra five infantry regiments that the Opposition are talking about, and where would the money come from?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that the Opposition appear determined to cut the size of the defence budget. In those circumstances, I am sure that the people of this country would draw the appropriate conclusions about whether they could possibly trust this country's defence to the Opposition.

    Iraq
    Charles Hendry: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Iraq.[173153]
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: If he will make a statement on the situation in Iraq. [173157]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The whole House will join me in condemning the recent violence and especially the bombing in Baghdad this morning that resulted in the death of Iraq governing council member Izz al-Din Salim. The undemocratic actions of a minority, often perpetrated against fellow Iraqis, will not deter them or the coalition from continuing down the path that we have set out to achieve a democratic transition in Iraq.
    Away from the headlines, we are continuing to make steady progress in Iraq. Some 80,000 Iraqi police are helping to provide security to their people. Almost 20,000 reconstruction projects have been completed. Following years of neglect, Iraq's infrastructure is being modernised, with bridges, pylons, railways and water pipelines being constructed right across the country. But we recognise that improving the security situation is crucial to the continuing success of reconstruction. This continues to cause concern, with more than 100 engagements between insurgents and coalition forces just the weekend before last.
    On 1 July, authority will pass to an Iraqi interim Government, who will prepare the ground for full elections to a transitional assembly some time around

    663
    the turn of the year. Iraq will then have, for the first time in many years, a representative, democratic body, chosen by all the people, working on behalf of the entire country. In preparation for this, many Iraqi Ministries have already passed to Iraqi control.
    Charles Hendry: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's detailed reply, but does he understand that most people now regard the Government's approach to Iraq as increasingly incompetent? The Government seem to be acting on a day-to-day basis, rather than working to any coherent strategy. Ministers seem not to understand what is going on; they seem more concerned about how they explain that the buck does not stop with them. Does he understand the serious effect that that must be having on the morale of our troops in Iraq, who continue to do the most courageous and professional work despite the lack of political backing from their masters?
    Mr. Hoon: The strategy has been clearly set out on many occasions. I was able to repeat only the highlights. No doubt in the forthcoming debate, we will have the opportunity to identify precisely what the Opposition are complaining about. Aside from the bluster that we sadly have heard repeatedly from the hon. Gentleman, and consistently from Opposition Front Benchers, I have not a single idea as to what the Opposition say about Iraq.
    Mr. Carmichael: Further to the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), when the House consented last year to committing British troops to war in Iraq, it did so on the basis of that country possessing weapons of mass destruction and progress being made in the wider peace process in the middle east. Progress on both fronts has been difficult to come by. Does he accept that, if a more substantial commitment of British forces is to be made, or if those troops who are already there are to be used differently, it is essential that the House has a say in that first?
    Mr. Hoon: It is important that I correct the hon. Gentleman. As he will recall, if he checks the record, we committed forces to Iraq to deal with the failure of Saddam Hussein's regime to co-operate fully with international resolutions, particularly those set out by the United Nations. Certainly, they concern weapons of mass destruction, and efforts are continuing to identify the nature and location of those weapons. However, the hon. Gentleman must understand that we have to deal with attacks on coalition forces, and, as we have seen so tragically this morning, attacks on individual Iraqis, who are all trying to rebuild that country.
    The simple question for the Liberal Democrats is, what action would they take now? It is all very well trying to rewrite history, as the hon. Gentleman has done, but what would they do with the situation that British forces now face?
    Harry Cohen: May I put to the Secretary of State a point that I have put to him before? Mass unemployment among Iraqis gives a real kick to the lack of security in Iraq and the American policy of privatisation and favoured contractors does
    664
    not provide jobs for Iraqis. Will he, on behalf of the UK Government, put distance between the UK and US policies, so that we argue for jobs for Iraqis?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend needs to recognise that the largest single employer in Iraq is the coalition provisional authority, which is the authority responsible for the distribution of large amounts of international aid, the great majority of which comes from the United States. The CPA employs large numbers of Iraqis on reconstruction projects of the kind that I have just set out.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Saddam Hussein is going to be returned to the Iraqi interim government in six weeks. Who will guard him: Iraqis or coalition personnel?
    Mr. Hoon: Some of those details are still to be resolved between the Iraqis and coalition forces, but I emphasise that there will be a full transfer of authority on 30 June. It is for the Iraqis to determine the way ahead on these matters and the British Government in particular will co-operate fully in that respect.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Can the Secretary of State assure me that, in the current security situation in Iraq and in any anticipated developments over the next few months, British deployments will still be for six months only, and not for nine months?
    Mr. Hoon: Decisions of that kind are taken in response to circumstances on the ground, but I have not seen any need to change the current length of deployments.
    Chris Bryant: The Secretary of State will know that some people argue that the British Government should distance themselves from the Bush Administration in their policy on Iraq. Does he believe that to do so, far from assisting the establishment of security in Iraq, would further undermine the likelihood of security and stability for the people of Iraq?
    Mr. Hoon: I agree entirely. We are working together as a coalition and all those who make complaints must answer the question of what they would do. Anyone who seriously suggests early withdrawal from Iraq must recognise that they would be responsible for any conflict that followed.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: My right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to associate themselves with the remarks made by the Secretary of State about the dreadful bombing in Iraq this morning.
    Given that it is hard to exaggerate how disastrous the last two weeks have been for the Government, and now that their policy on post-conflict Iraq has been so brutally exposed by the absence of any clear political strategy, will the Secretary of State take this moment to set out to the House and the wider country the Government's strategic objectives for the next 45 days until the transfer of power and for the subsequent period until elections?
    Mr. Hoon: I answered that question right at the start of Question Time, but I shall take the opportunity to

    665
    repeat myself, as I shall again in the debate to follow. It is important that we are able on 30 June to hand over to the Iraqi people not only sovereignty, but authority—the ability to take real decisions on the future of their own country. That will lead towards a situation by the end of this year or early next year in which there can be elections and a Government elected for all the people of Iraq. As we do that, we need to become less and less responsible for security as more and more Iraqis assume that responsibility for themselves. We will, however, be there to assist the Iraqis in delivering that security for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
    Mr. Soames: The truth is that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have accepted almost limitless liability for what happens in Iraq in exchange for very little control over events. At one moment the Prime Minister claims that he is in discussion with the Americans over further troop deployments, but within hours his spokesman denies it. The next moment we are told that we are staying to see this through, but we are subsequently told that the Prime Minister and President Bush are speeding up plans to withdraw troops from Iraq and hand over security to the Iraqis. What kind of message does that send to our troops on the ground and to the Iraqis themselves? Are the Iraqis to co-operate with the coalition, or should they simply sit out our presence and hope for the best when we leave? Does the Secretary of State agree that the absence of a clear political strategy has been the single most serious failing of the occupation? Let us not make it the main feature of the post-occupation period, too.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say that in future I expect shorter supplementaries.
    Mr. Hoon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman was clearly warming up for his speech later.
    The importance of this matter should not be underestimated. I cannot understand from the Opposition what they would do differently. It is all very well to stand there blustering about the absence of a clear political strategy, but one has been set out time and again.
    Clearly, we have responsibilities to the Iraqi people to ensure that there is the possibility of reconstruction and improvement in the face of determined terrorist attacks, not only against coalition forces but against the Iraqis themselves, as the events of this morning so vividly and tragically demonstrated. It is important that the Opposition think through their opposition; at the moment, they are simply opposing, with nothing whatsoever constructive to say.
    Adam Price: Whether UK armed forces personnel have been based at the Abu Ghraib detention facility since 1 May 2003.
    [173154]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Three members of the United Kingdom armed forces were based at the Abu Ghraib detention facility between January and April 2004.
    Adam Price: The US Administration have admitted the use of so-called stress positions in the interrogation
    666
    of Iraqi detainees, a practice that they say has now stopped. Did the service personnel mentioned by the Secretary of State report the use of those techniques? If so, to whom did they report and what action was taken? Is there any evidence that stress postures were used by British service personnel in the interrogation of Iraqis at any other detention centre?
    Mr. Hoon: This matter has already been reported to the House but I repeat the information so that the hon. Gentleman is not in any doubt. The investigation by the US authorities was into events that took place between October and December 2003. As I have told the House already, the three British service personnel were at Abu Ghraib for a limited period after the events under investigation and did not, therefore, witness any of the events that have been the subject of so much speculation in the press—to which, from the way in which the hon. Gentleman asked his question, he is clearly trying to add. Moreover, the American investigation was already under way by the time that those three service personnel arrived at the facilities. Given that, it would be remarkable if they had seen any of those so-called techniques in use. They had no complaints and they did not report the use of such techniques to the American authorities because they did not witness their use. Nor did they report them to any UK authorities.
    Mr. Eric Joyce: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that all allegations of mistreatment by British troops of Iraqi citizens are thoroughly investigated?
    Mr. Hoon: I can give that assurance. The moment that serious and substantial allegations are made, proper investigations have got under way. Those investigations continue. Should they lead to a situation in which it is judged by an independent prosecuting authority that charges should be preferred, that would obviously follow.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: After 30 June, when we will rightly pass authority for so much to the Iraqi council, will the Abu Ghraib detention centre and other detention centres be staffed by Iraqis?
    Mr. Hoon: I have indicated to the House that those are matters that are still under discussion, but in principle the answer is yes. Authority will pass to the Iraqis to be increasingly responsible for their own affairs and it is obviously important that that is seen to be the case on the ground. However, I emphasise to the House that matters are still subject to negotiation.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is essential that we are seen to be behaving correctly in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. In his discussions with our coalition partners, will he ask them to ensure that we are aware of any future allegations of systematic misconduct that may be laid against any member of the coalition?
    Mr. Hoon: Certainly it is important that there is a full and frank exchange of information when such issues arise and I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: What arrangements have been made for counselling troops in units that have suffered casualties in Iraq. [173155]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Military personnel deployed to Iraq receive pre-deployment and post-deployment briefing on mental health issues. Trained mental health professionals have also been deployed and are available to military personnel in theatre. However, psychiatric debriefing is not routinely offered to individuals or units who have been exposed to combat.
    Mr. Steen: Surely when young servicemen lose colleagues in the theatre of war, they should not so much be offered as receive, from non-military personnel, guidance, help and support. They should be able to work through their anger and distress and that should not be recorded as a weakness by military personnel.
    Mr. Ingram: There are extensive arrangements in place to deal with all those issues. Procedures were put in place after the last Gulf war that were found to have no real clinical advantage and as a result they were not continued. It is about ensuring that, if a request for help is made, it is made available. It is also about monitoring by senior officers and others in the chain of command of what is happening to those under their command. The way in which we handle such situations is very sensitive and they are taken seriously, but no significant complaints—or any complaints—have been made to date that would support the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised that question.
    Mr. David Chaytor: May I ask my right hon. Friend about the recording of casualties in Iraq? Does he feel that there is a moral, if not necessarily strictly legal, obligation on the occupying forces to record civilian deaths as well as military deaths; and does he feel that the failure to record Iraqi civilian deaths has an adverse impact on Iraqi people's perception of the occupying forces?
    Mr. Ingram: The question was about the counselling of our troops. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that their being asked to do certain things, then doing them, causes them additional stress.
    On the counting of civilian deaths, Iraq is a most difficult environment in which to operate. Where face-to-face conflict has taken place, there may be no indication that a civilian casualty or death has occurred, but a body is then removed from the scene and buried almost immediately. Some people are saying that we should take those bodies out of the ground and examine them for medical and other evidence. That is a completely nonsensical approach.
    This is a very difficult situation and we do our best to ensure that proper counting takes place. Indeed, we are currently trawling all our records to ensure that we have not missed any matters that may have been reported. We are trying very seriously to deal with this, but I hope that my hon. Friend recognises just how difficult the environment is.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I associate myself with the Secretary of State's remarks about this morning's appalling outrage in Iraq.
    The Minister knows that in addition to the casualties in Iraq from the initial war-fighting phase and the ongoing peacekeeping support operation, several
    668
    members of the British forces have tragically been killed in accidents. What facilities for counselling are available to their families? Given that our forces are effectively on duty in Iraq for 24 hours a day, does he agree that the partners of any British troops killed in Iraq should be entitled to a full war pension?
    Mr. Ingram: We have identified some shortfalls in the way in which the counselling of families is approached. That is why the point-of-contact approach of those who report injuries or fatalities to families has been looked at again to see whether there is a more appropriate way of dealing with such situations and to ensure that all personnel who have to carry out an undoubtedly very difficult task are appropriately trained and understand the sensitivity of the issue. It is a learning process, and we have taken on board some valuable lessons in recent months and years. That process can never rest, because we are likely in future to turn up new problems that we must revisit. We have to try to get it right at all times and to understand the sensitivities involved.
    As regards pensions, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: If he will make a statement on his assessment of the reports by(a) the International Committee of the Red Cross and(b) Amnesty International on the role of British troops in operating prisons in southern Iraq. [173156]
    Mr. Peter Luff: If he will make it his policy to ensure that all reports received from Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross concerning the behaviour of British forces are drawn immediately to the attention of Ministers. [1731591]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The Ministry of Defence receives millions of individual items of correspondence each year. Clearly, it would be impractical for Ministers to see it all, and we must therefore rely on officials' judgment to select those items that require ministerial attention. Some correspondence and reports from organisations such as those mentioned in both questions will fall into this category; others can be dealt with by officials. However, I would normally expect Ministers to see the kinds of reports that were mentioned.
    I have seen two reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross that deal with the role of British troops in operating detention facilities in southern Iraq. One raises two serious issues affecting UK armed forces that had been dealt with well before the report was received; the other is a more recent working paper.
    I am not aware of any Amnesty International reports that deal specifically with the way in which we operate our detention facilities, but it has reported allegations of abuse in UK custody that have been investigated and replied to. Two recent reports from Amnesty make serious allegations about the conduct of UK personnel more generally, covering the period since British troops went into Iraq. Those are being investigated and will be dealt with in the same way.
    Mr. Barnes: The Secretary of State's reply is somewhat different from the one given by the Minister of State during the debate on Thursday, which, as regards Amnesty International, was merely centred in a one-page letter sent about seven months ago about one incident. Should not reports from Amnesty International be seriously considered by the House? Traditionally, Amnesty International has been held in the highest regard by the labour movement, so what it has to say should be taken on board and examined.
    Mr. Hoon: I emphasise that we have received a number of reports, letters and a dossier from Amnesty International—some from the UK section and at least one letter from the Italian section. Each was replied to, once appropriate investigations were completed; for example, the most recent letter we received from Amnesty prompted us to conduct yet a further investigation of all our files relating to Iraq to establish whether Amnesty had raised any new matters in its correspondence. One of the problems that we have faced with that particular organisation is that it has recycled many previous cases in new items of correspondence. Nevertheless, we treat each of those matters very seriously and give each the appropriate investigation.
    Mr. Luff: The Secretary of State's attitude to this question today is rather different from that of his Minister of State last Thursday. In the words of the popular song, "Sorry may be the hardest word", but would not the Minister have been well advised to use that word last Thursday rather than seeking to twist the word "report" away from any recognisable dictionary definition of it? Would not the Secretary of State, too, be well advised to say sorry to our troops in Iraq for his failure to put proper procedures in place to ensure that he and his Minister of State were fully aware of accusations, ill founded or well founded, made against those troops by reputable international organisations?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that for a moment. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman understood more about the way Departments operate he would thoroughly understand that Ministers have investigated those matters, in detail and at length, whenever allegations have been made at an appropriate stage.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Could the Secretary of State help me? I am very, very confused as to what happens to reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross. The reports are obviously serious and important and come from an international organisation of enormous repute, so can he tell us what has happened to those officials who apparently decided either that Sir Jeremy Greenstock did not need to see the reports or that they were to be sent to joint staff headquarters, the Foreign Office basement, or wherever? What procedures have been put in place to ensure that in future Ministers—Ministers—see such reports when they are produced?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend asks a fair question about the situation. We ask officials to exercise their judgment.
    670
    When officials in the Ministry of Defence saw the report they judged, in the light of the two serious allegations concerning UK soldiers, that those matters were well in hand; indeed, investigations had begun about five months before. Nevertheless, as I made clear in the answer that I have just given the House, it is important that Ministers see such reports and appropriate action has been taken to ensure that that happens in the future.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: It is surely unacceptable for the Secretary of State to try to use his officials as a bombproof shelter for him and his fellow Ministers. Is it not a fact that anybody with any appreciation of the situation in Iraq must know that the worst thing for coalition aims is that abuses of this sort rally the population behind the insurgents? It should have been blindingly obvious that those reports should have been at the top of the Secretary of State's agenda; and his failure, and that of his colleagues, to treat them with due gravity is partly responsible for the fact that, having won a military campaign, we are now losing the political settlement afterwards.
    Mr. Hoon: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman discuss with those of his Front-Bench colleagues who have some experience of government what happens when officials assess reports. In this case, I have taken appropriate responsibility. I am not—as the hon. Gentleman is—seeking to blame officials. Officials looked at the report and made their judgment. I accept that they must exercise their judgment and that Ministers are responsible for their judgment. That is what happened in this case, and no matter the amount of effort by the Opposition to turn this into some sort of ministerial responsibility as far as the actual decision is concerned, it simply will not wash. The hon. Gentleman should talk to those who have been in government. We can all recall occasions on which Conservative Members have had to come to the House and apologise for their failures in government, so the hon. Gentleman really ought to know better.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Does the Secretary of State agree that the work of the Red Cross and Amnesty International in highlighting abuses across the world is held in very high regard on both sides of the House and that there is an urgent need to investigate these allegations? However, does he also agree that they remain allegations and that, until they are proven otherwise, it is of great disservice to the troops who are still serving in Iraq and to their families back home to pretend otherwise?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank him for that note of common sense in this debate, a note of common sense that the Opposition have sadly been incapable of demonstrating on this issue, as they are determined to score very poor political points. It is important that the people against whom allegations are made be given the opportunity of responding to those allegations and that thorough investigations be conducted. That is precisely what the Government set out.

    Persian Gulf (Deployments)
    Patrick Mercer: How many British armed forces personnel are deployed to the Gulf region. [173158]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)>: There are some 10,000 British armed forces personnel deployed to the Gulf region.
    Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but may I refer him to the reply that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson)? Despite what the Government say, a number of units have received unofficial warning orders to go to the Gulf as reinforcements. One of those units is that fine regiment, the Black Watch, which neither I nor any of my colleagues would dream of talking down. The fact remains that colleagues and friends of mine in that regiment tell me that, because of Government indecision, they are having to train almost in secret for these operations and they are making very unfavourable comparisons with precisely the same level of Government dithering that went on before the war started last year. Will the Minister now come clean and give our soldiers the warning orders that they require so that they can be launched properly prepared and properly trained into dangerous circumstances?
    Mr. Ingram: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, given his experience of the Army—if certainly not of
    government. If he is alleging that we do not properly train our service personnel and that we put untrained personnel in harm's way, he has forgotten everything that he knew when he was in the armed forces. I do not know whom he has spoken to who says that that is now our approach. We will always train our personnel to the best of our ability and their abilities. Once any decision is taken to deploy our troops, the best and most available troops will be ready and trained to take on whatever tasks are available. We saw that to great effect in the recent deployment to Kosovo.
    David Taylor: The House would agree that the breathtaking incompetence verging on treachery that was displayed by certain sacked newspaper editors has imperilled large numbers of British troops not only in the Queen's Lancashire Regiment but elsewhere and has, therefore, made greater deployments to southern Iraq more likely. Specifically, will the Minister comment on the suggestions that, as Spanish troops are withdrawn, the sphere of responsibility of British forces will be widened to include Najaf province and Najaf city? What would the implications of that be?
    Mr. Ingram: We have made it clear all along that an issue has to be dealt with because of the withdrawal of Spanish forces. That area is now covered by US forces, and we have said that how we deal with the issue in the longer term must be the subject of discussions within the coalition. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands the reasons for that. If and when we announce any change to our posture, the House will be duly notified, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What(a) special and(b) specific training has been given to non-Royal Military Police soldiers who are being employed as guards in detention camps in Iraq. [173160]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence Mr. Adam Ingram): Specialist handling of detainees by non-Royal Military Police soldiers is provided by members of the Adjutant-General's Corps (Military Provost Staff)—the AGC (MPS)—who receive training relevant to their role running the military corrective training centre in Colchester. The expertise of the AGC (MPS) is in the field of custodial care.
    The United Kingdom is bound by military law to include the law of armed conflict in military training programmes, which includes the handling and treatment of prisoners of war. All personnel are trained to observe the values and standards expected of the British Army, which includes the concepts of decency and respect for others. During pre-deployment training all units are briefed on procedures for dealing with prisoners of war and, since October 2003, each combat unit is mandated to have eight to 10 senior non-commissioned officers trained in the handling of prisoners of war.
    Mr. Robathan: Up to a point, that is a good answer, but can I probe a little further? As I understand it, a large number of people employed as prison guards in the detention camps, who are guarding not prisoners of war but civilian detainees, are not from the Adjutant-General's Corps. For how long is the ordinary infantry soldier, who did not join to be a prison guard, trained? How many ordinary infantry soldiers are acting as prison guards? For how long are they expected to act as prison guards?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman asks some impossible questions—I mean, how long is a piece of string? On the basis of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the new provisions post-30 June, we will, of course, alter some of the characteristics on which his questions are based.
    On the extent of the training, the hon. Gentleman will know from his experience that the training process runs right through from phase 1 to when people may be required to undertake that custodial role. They are made aware of the culture into which they are going and the nature of the approach that they have to adopt towards anyone who is in their custody, which is to accord them the highest respect, both in human rights terms and in other ways.
    Our detention centre has an extensive programme that takes account of all that. It is why the ICRC's second report, which has been mentioned, said after that inspection that the conditions are fairly good. We cannot go further than that because we do not discuss the detail of ICRC reports, but I am confident that we are putting in a lot of effort. That is why we have put an additional resource in the hands of combat units that may arrest people by giving each combat unit senior non-commissioned officers who have specialist knowledge and skills

    Civil Service Relocation
    Hugh Bayley: What(a) civil service and(b) military responsibilities he plans to relocate from London and the south-east to the northern regions of England. [173161]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Ministry of Defence continually examines ways of improving military capability and value for money for the taxpayer, including the size and location of our estate. We are now undertaking further examination of where estate rationalisation may be possible, and we will, of course, take account of the Lyons Review.
    Hugh Bayley: Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the important role performed by the Defence Vetting Agency? Does he recall how efficiently the agency created its new headquarters at Imphal barracks in York and the assistance it got from the York Inward Investment Board, or york-england.com as it now calls itself? Will the MOD continue to work with the York Inward Investment Board on the possibility of bringing more jobs to Yorkshire?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend is right. The Defence Vetting Agency is a good example of the transfer of staff to the regions, in this case York. He refers to york-england.com, which is very active in ensuring that there is a collective view on how the opportunities that Yorkshire and the northern region for which it has responsibility can best be served. There was a meeting between MOD personnel and york-england.com at a seminar on 5 May, and relocation opportunities were discussed in the light of the Lyons report. Those ongoing contacts will be maintained.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: To assist the Minister with that task, should he not be aware of the number of military personnel and civilian personnel at the four existing defence establishments in the Vale of York? Will he therefore reconsider his reply to me and give me those figures at the first available opportunity?
    Mr. Ingram: I do not have the figures to hand. There is a significant military presence, with a good number of military bases, within York and the immediate surrounding area. I think there are about 14,000 military personnel in and around the York area. I shall write to the hon. Lady with the precise figures.

    Gibraltar
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What role the armed forces will play in the 300th anniversary celebrations in Gibraltar. [173163]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As I was able to set out on my recent visit to Gibraltar, the armed forces are playing a full part in commemorating Gibraltar's tercentenary this year. Bands of the Royal Marines, the Royal Engineers and the Royal Air Force, the Royal Gibraltar Regiment and other military units from the United Kingdom, Royal
    674
    Navy ships and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary are taking part in a total of more than 20 events throughout the year.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend restate his commitment to Gibraltar and ensure that it remains an overseas territory?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend campaigns tirelessly on behalf of the people of Gibraltar and I commend him for his efforts. I am delighted, not least in this tercentenary year, to commit myself and the Ministry of Defence, on behalf of the Government, to continuing good relations with the people of Gibraltar.

    Wind Farms
    Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: What his policy is on the positioning of wind farms near military ranges. [173164]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Ministry of Defence fully supports Government policy and targets for renewable energy. We do not oppose wind farm developments unless the safety of MOD personnel or the public, UK defence systems or our operational capability appear to be adversely affected. That applies to both onshore and offshore developments.
    Mr. Liddell-Grainger: Is the Minister aware that there is a helicopter range just off the coast of Somerset, and that West Somerset district council is about to receive an application for 12 wind turbines, 300 ft high and 128 ft across, just down the coast from the range? Has the Minister not thought what damage could be done, first to the helicopters and secondly to the wind farm, should things go wrong?
    Mr. Ingram: I have. As I made clear in my answer, we have to ensure that there is compatibility between these twin objectives. I am advised that we have received applications for some 15 wind farm developments in Somerset; all the 11 objections raised were connected with radar interference, and none related to interference with range activities. It is not only the Ministry of Defence that is concerned about radar interference; civilian operations can also be affected by wind farms. We have to weigh our clear objective on renewable energy against the way in which wind farms can affect military or civilian overflights.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: In that case, does my right hon. Friend recognise that it would be helpful if the Government were involved in the research on the effect on radar of wind farms at sea? It is clear that sufficient work has not yet gone into ensuring that we are well aware of the impacts of those structures, both on shipping and on radar installations.
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend is very experienced in these matters, and I bow to her greater immediate knowledge. She may have seen some research that I have not seen. All of us in the Government must make sure that we have a guaranteed approach that takes into account all the points of scientific and practical interest

    675
    which must be resolved. I am sure that those who have direct responsibility for carrying out the risk research will hear what my hon. Friend says, and I know that she will continue to pursue Government action on the matter.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: The Government have just announced a major increase in the deployment at RAF Scampton. Star Energy has made an application to site half a dozen wind turbines, each as tall as Lincoln cathedral, within half a dozen miles of that major RAF base. Will the Minister explain his strategy? Will his officials take an interest in the matter? Is there a minimum distance requirement connected with radar or operational safety with which he can acquaint the House? This is obviously a matter of the utmost importance.
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is right: it is a matter of the utmost importance that when we are relocating activity, in this case in the RAF, we take account of the region into which it is being moved. New applications for wind farms are covered by the response that I gave to the previous questions: we need to make sure that there is compatibility between the twin, or in some cases multiple, objectives that the Government are trying to deliver. We therefore take an interest in these matters. A decision has been made about RAF Scampton and is in the process of being finalised, and any change to the environment is something in which we would take a close interest.

  NATO
  Mr. John MacDougall: If he will make a statement on the issues that will be discussed at the Istanbul NATO summit in June. [173165]
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The summit at Istanbul will address NATO's current operations. It will also offer the opportunity to strengthen NATO's partnerships with other countries and continue the drive to transform the alliance and its capabilities. In addition to the Heads of State and Government meeting, Defence Ministers will meet to review progress and direct the further reform of NATO.
  Mr. MacDougall: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the summit is taking place at a vital time for both NATO and the wider world—a time when NATO and UK forces are involved in Afghanistan and the Balkans? Will he comment on NATO's role and value in the international environment?
  Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question and making important points about the future commitment of NATO. It is vital that we sustain and support its existing responsibilities, while recognising that NATO itself must reform to deal with the new types of threat that we face around the world. I am pleased that the UK has been leading the way in that process. Istanbul is a major way stage in that reform.

Opposition Day
  11TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Iraq
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.31 pm
    Sir Menzies Campbell: I beg to move,
    That this House notes with concern the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and the Middle East and the impact on public opinion in Iraq of the reports of mistreatment of Iraqi citizens and detainees; believes that progress in Iraq is only possible if the role of the United Nations is expanded and enhanced and the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis on 30th June is real and visible; recalls that on 18th March 2003 when this House endorsed military action against Saddam Hussein it did so on an understanding that progress on the road map for a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians would be a priority for Her Majesty's Government; expresses its disappointment that recent events have made the achievement of a negotiated two state solution more difficult and less likely; recognises the bravery and professionalism of British armed forces serving in Iraq in difficult and dangerous circumstances; calls upon Her Majesty's Government not to commit any further troops unless requested by United Kingdom commanders in Iraq for the purposes of securing the safety of British forces and the fulfilling of Britain's legal obligations under international law towards the inhabitants of Iraq; and further declares that any such troops should remain under United Kingdom operational command and within the area currently under United Kingdom control.
    It is worth recalling that we went to war against Iraq on a threat and a promise. The threat was that of weapons of mass destruction, and the promise that of progress in the middle east peace process. But neither threat nor promise has been fulfilled. No weapons of mass destruction have been found. and none appears likely to be found now. The Iraq survey group has disappeared from view and its head has resigned. The road map has been rolled up. Unilateral action by Mr. Sharon has been approved and a negotiated settlement in the middle east seems further away than ever.
    There is more. The coalition of which the United Kingdom is a member is shamed and embarrassed by the treatment of detainees while in the custody of the United States, and we may yet suffer domestic shame and embarrassment when current inquiries are completed. Here in the United Kingdom, there is no acceptable explanation of why Ministers did not see communications from the Red Cross and Amnesty International. The handover date of 30 June now depends on the efforts of Lakhdar Brahimi and the United Nations—the same United Nations that was sidestepped by the coalition in spring 2003. There is some irony there, which will, not doubt, not be lost in Manhattan.
    Violence in Iraq is on the increase, as British troops found at the weekend when they had to bayonet their way to safety. The tragic death this morning of the head of the Iraq governing council is yet another demonstrable success for terrorism. In the minds of many Iraqis, the army of liberation is delivering much less than it promised. At Falluja, the United States has had to acknowledge the failure of the doctrine of
    678
    decisive force. Thousands of Iraqis have died since March 2003, but we do not even afford them the dignity of keeping an accurate estimate of their numbers.
    It is indeed a brave new world, and it is hard not to be angry—angry for Britain and its reputation; angry for the brave young men and women who are serving in difficult and dangerous conditions in Iraq; angry, too, for a House of Commons that was persuaded to support military action on a flawed prospectus and, as we now know, with no clear strategy for the aftermath of conflict.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: We were
    told last week—the reports were, no doubt, inspired by the Government—that extra troops were to be deployed to Iraq, perhaps in Najaf. However, there were reports this weekend that, on the contrary, we were no longer in for the long haul and that we were talking about withdrawing troops before 2005–06. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government owe the House an explanation of their strategy and of what we are planning to do with a country for which we have taken responsibility?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: There is no way to answer the hon. Gentleman's question other than in the affirmative. I shall set out some conditions that are appropriate in the event that additional troops are thought necessary, but he has put his finger on something that I hope the Secretary of State will explain, not just to the House but to people outside.
    It is hard not to be angry that, in the name of a coalition of which the United Kingdom is a member, detainees have been subject to degrading and inhumane treatment, for which no one takes political responsibility. Asking Private Lynddie England to take all the blame seems a little unfair.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with the proposition that, if the United States Government deny people in Guantanamo bay their civil and legal rights, it is perhaps not surprising that junior soldiers feel the same way, and that that is a severe indictment of that Administration?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made that point on previous occasions in the House and I have supported him on some of those occasions. There are still British citizens in Guantanomo bay and they are entitled to due process and a trial according to the accepted principles of law. If no such trial is available to them, they should be returned to the United Kingdom so that we can consider whether or not there are adequate grounds for prosecution.
    I am angry about these matters, not because I was deceived, but because my scepticism and that of many others is increasingly justified. I am angry because our relationship with the United States, put into sharp focus in recent times, should be a partnership of influence, and we should not be so subordinate that we often appear to be subservient. What sort of relationship is it if we are actively discouraged from public criticism of the US Administration and their ultimate responsibility for the

    679
    humiliation or, as one writer put it, debauchery towards the Iraqis in their custody? In the House, we have to rely on the feline ambiguities of the Leader of the House.
    Geraint Davies: While concurring with the sentiments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman about Guantanamo bay and the mistreatment of detainees there and in Iraq, does he not agree that all decent people in the House and beyond hope and pray for peace and democracy in Iraq? Is it not distasteful that his party is putting success or failure in Iraq at the top of its Euro-election campaign agenda, so that real failures such as the assassination this morning or imaginary failures such as the forgeries in the Daily Mirror are desirable to fuel electoral success? Is that not shameful opportunism when there is a need for genuine debate?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: I have not met a single elector who objects to the issue of Iraq being raised in relation to the European elections. In the course of the campaign, I have met many people who wish to raise the question of Iraq and Britain's role. They wish to express their anxiety about the nature of present events and the long-term consequences for the United Kingdom.
    What sort of relationship allows Members of Congress more licence to criticise the Bush Administration than it does the British Government? The harsh, unpalatable truth for Washington is that only the United Nations can save us all. All the coalition eggs are well and truly in the UN basket. If Brahimi fails, what is the alternative strategy? I do not have an answer to that question, but those who took military action against Iraq ought to have one, because it is by no means certain that the efforts of Lakhdar Brahimi will be successful.
    Clare Short: Ambassador Brahimi has been asked to appoint an interim Government who are truly representative of the Iraqi people, and we all hope that he succeeds. There is more hope if he appoints that Government rather than the coalition, but that does not address the problem of troop withdrawal. We have not said that if the interim Government ask us to withdraw our troops we will do so; we have said that we hope that that would come about. Mr. Brahimi had the same authority in Afghanistan, but he had no authority over the US troops, and the situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating. His authority to appoint an interim Administration does not necessarily mean that we will get an exit strategy for our troops, but that has not been made clear.
    Sir Menzies Campbell: My view is that it would be difficult for a provisional Government, appointed by Lakhdar Brahimi, to exercise the sort of responsibility that the right hon. Lady suggests, but I am in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that, when we get to the stage of a democratically elected Government of the Iraqi people, that institution must have total responsibility for the conduct of Iraq. Indeed, at that point, I would say that
    680
    the United Kingdom and others should begin a phased withdrawal of their troops. The responsibility for Iraq, given to the Iraqi people, must be whole and complete.
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will continue.
    In New York, we should be arguing for a Security Council resolution that is maximalist, not minimalist—arguing along with France and Russia for the maximum transfer of authority to the provisional Government—but the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi people must be about substance, not simply ceremony. The raising of flags and patriotic music will be no adequate substitute for real authority.
    The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) mentioned the exit strategy. Let me suggest principles that should most certainly apply. First, all our effort should be directed to supporting the United Nations in establishing a provisional Government, to whom as many functions as possible should be transferred. Secondly, once a provisional Government have been established, all our efforts should be directed to supporting the United Nations in the preparations for the elections. Thirdly, as soon as an Iraqi Government have been democratically elected, under United Nations supervision, United Kingdom troops should begin a phased withdrawal.
    Hugh Robertson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware no doubt that the Iraq governing council, no less, has accused the United Nations of massive institutional fraud over the oil-for-food programme—a fraud that is estimated to be about $64 billion. Bearing it in mind that that fraud has directly enriched Saddam Hussein and his supporters, undoubtedly involves members of the Security Council and, indeed, the UN itself and has probably provided money to fund the very insurgency that our troops are now fighting, does he believe that the UN is an entirely suitable body to carry out that task?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: I ask the hon. Gentleman to suggest an alternative. I do not know that there is any queueing up, and I do not know that there is any alternative strategy on offer either. He is quite right to point to the disgrace of the fraud in relation to the oil-for-food programme. Perhaps he should consider whether he is entitled to say that members of the Security Council may have been involved—that is a rather sweeping statement—but he is certainly right to highlight the fraud. I for one am most certainly disappointed that the extent of the fraud was so considerable and that moneys may well have been diverted in the directions to which he has referred, but if he has an alternative to Lakhdar Brahimi, let us hear it, because it is only in him, in the United Nations and in the Secretary-General of the United Nations that any prospect rests of keeping the date of 30 June, chosen not for its intrinsic merit, but rather for its importance as a

    681
    signpost in the American domestic political campaign. That date can be kept only if the United Nations ensures that it is kept.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: The one thing that puzzles me about the line of argument that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his fellow Liberal Democrats advance is that the United Nations—while it may or may not have some moral authority, depending on one's point of view—has no resources other than those provided by its membership. There is no army or police force belonging to the United Nations. Where are the army and the police force that he wants and needs to enhance the security situation in Iraq, outside the current coalition? There are no volunteers who will simply put on blue berets and come and do the job that he wants them to do.
    Sir Menzies Campbell: I do not think anyone has suggested a blue beret force in the circumstances of Iraq.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Who is going to do it?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: Exactly. As the hon. Gentleman says, who is going to do it? It is not possible to have a blue beret force, but we could have had a Security Council resolution in the same terms as that which was adopted for the first Gulf war, which provided that all necessary means should be used for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait, which accepted that the United States would be in command, but which insisted that that force had to report back and be subject to the authority of the Security Council. That most certainly would have been a much more politically attractive solution than the one that was arrived at, of a self-generating coalition going in the circumstances that we now know and side-stepping the United Nations.
    Angus Robertson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are a number of countries with distinguished United Nations military service that have said that they would be happy to commit troops in a circumstance that was fully authorised by the United Nations—countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia, which have a particular credibility in the Muslim world? Would that not be an attractive proposition, to try and get the maximalist United Nations mandate that is propounding, and help us move with international credibility to a new phase of peacekeeping?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: There is no doubt that if such countries were to become part of a coalition authority, they would require a maximalist United Nations resolution, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that there is the possibility between now and 30 June, for example, of putting together a UN force with blue berets. In my judgment that is not practical. That is why I have referred not only on this occasion but on others to the advantage of an arrangement similar to that used in the first Gulf war.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: I am touched by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's
    682
    faith in United Nations resolutions. How would he answer constituents of mine, refugees from Iraq, who said that if one mistake was made, it was in the first Gulf war, when we stopped at the border in compliance with the UN resolution?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: If I may say so, I do not think that the hon. Lady was in the House at that time. She would not have found much support for that view. She would not have found much support for that view from President Bush's father or from Mr. John Major, who was the Prime Minister at the time. The consequence of doing what she suggests is that the coalition that had been created for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait would have broken up. In addition, the Iraqi forces at that time were much more effective than those we found when the military action took place last year and there would have been the risk of very substantial casualties. The arguments against going to Baghdad in 1991 were overwhelming at the time, and in my judgment have not been diminished in any way since.
    Mr. Wareing: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if the occupation continues after 30 June, and all that the Iraqi people are being offered is another appointed
    Government—appointed by whoever—that will be viewed by the Iraqi resistance in rather the same way as the Vichy regime was viewed by the French resistance in wartime France?
    Sir Menzies Campbell: But it is not practical to have elections between now and 30 June. That is the date of the agreed handover to a provisional Government.[Interruption.] It might meet the hon. Gentleman's point if there were a sufficient and detailed commitment to—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow the right hon. and learned Gentleman a hearing. It is unfair to him when there are so many conversations going on.
    Sir Menzies Campbell: What would meet the hon. Gentleman's point would be if it was clear that the move towards elections was serious and was being undertaken; that there was voter registration and that the necessary institutions were being established. But I do not think that it is possible to achieve what he would like to achieve in the time available.
    As soon as an Iraqi Government have been democratically elected, UK troops should begin a phased withdrawal. But in the meantime, I am firmly of the view that we should commit no further forces to Iraq unless at the request of British commanders on the ground; unless for the purpose of securing the safety of existing British forces in Iraq; unless for the purpose of fulfilling legal obligations incumbent upon us under international law, including, if necessary, a fresh resolution from the Security Council; unless any such troops remain under United Kingdom operational command; and unless any such troops are deployed within the area currently under United Kingdom control.
    There should be no question of British forces extending their role and responsibility in Iraq. There should be no question of British forces providing a substitute for any forces that may have been withdrawn

    683
    by other coalition members. We have made more than an adequate contribution. I suspect that many hon. Members think so; I am certain the whole country thinks so.
    Operational command of such troops should remain with United Kingdom commanders. General Sir Michael Jackson, with characteristic frankness, a fortnight ago described differences in doctrine between ourselves and the United States and we have seen illustrations of those differences. We should not put our forces into a position in which they may have to choose between following an order or following their training and their instincts.
    It is now commonplace for some to argue for immediate withdrawal. To those I say this: consider the consequences of that. Inevitably, terrorism and violence would flourish and instability could easily spread throughout the region. But more significantly, the United Nations' effort, which is the only political track presently available, would be fatally undermined.
    To be against immediate withdrawal is not to be in favour of an open-ended commitment. The Iraqi people must be given the responsibility for themselves and their government as soon as possible. I commend the motion to the House.
    3.52 pm
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "welcomes the work being done by the UK and its Coalition partners to establish stability and security in Iraq; regards any mistreatment of Iraqis by Coalition forces to be unacceptable; recognises the bravery and professionalism of British forces in Iraq in assisting the Iraqi people in rebuilding Iraq; applauds the work of the UN Secretary-General's special adviser, Lakhdar Brahimi, for his contribution to helping establish a sovereign Iraqi Interim Government which will assume power by 30th June; and supports the Government in its efforts to secure a new Security Council resolution and deliver the wishes of the Iraqi people for a sovereign, stable and democratic Iraq."
    On behalf of the Government, I should like to repeat our regret following the death this morning of Izzedine Saleem, president of the Iraq governing council. Our thoughts are with him and with his family at this terrible time, to whom we extend our condolences.
    Izz al-Din Salim was a tireless advocate for Iraq and for its people. He was exiled from his home by Saddam Hussein and, until last year, lived in London, where he worked as a writer and activist in the service of his people. When the former regime fell, he returned to Iraq as head of the Islamic Dawa party in Basra, where he earned the respect of local people and the coalition.
    Izz al-Din Salim's death is an enormous loss to Iraq. It is too early to say whether this morning's attack was specifically targeted at him. In any event, it is a further tragic demonstration of the callousness of the minority who seek to challenge the rule of law and undermine the establishment of a democratic, peaceful Iraq. It demonstrates why we are determined to deal with those who perpetrate these criminal acts of terrorism. It demonstrates that these attacks are against the Iraqi people themselves, just as much as against coalition forces. We are working with the Iraqi people, and together we will succeed.
    684
    Izzedine Saleem's death also demonstrates why the coming months are critical for the future of Iraq.
    Ann Clwyd: I join my right hon. Friend in offering my condolences to the family of Mr. Salim. I spent half an hour talking to Mr. Salim last Thursday. He was a gentle scholar who had contributed a lot to the governing council and to the future of a democratic Iraq. It was said earlier that his death was a triumph for terrorism, but it is the complete opposite. It will be a triumph for terrorism unless we stay the course, and Mr. Salim and all the members of the governing council, and all those who are fighting for the future of a democratic Iraq, would, I think, feel exactly the same. We must stay the course.
    Mr. Hoon: Like me, my hon. Friend has met a number of members of the governing council, which is united in its determination to resist terrorism and criminal acts. I emphasise that the attack was against the Iraqi people, whom we cannot afford to let down, and I entirely support my hon. Friend's point.
    We are attempting to transfer authority, after decades of tyranny, to an elected, representative Government in Iraq. I specifically refer to the transfer of authority, rather than simply sovereignty, because sovereignty resides with the people of Iraq and cannot be taken from them, although their rights have frequently been usurped over the years.
    On 30 June, authority in Iraq will pass to the Iraqi interim Government; the extent of the authority that we will be able to hand to them has been subject to recent debate. On 1 July, the coalition provisional authority and the Iraqi governing council will dissolve. The interim Government will, however, initially limit themselves, by confining their work to the effective day-to-day administration of Iraq's affairs, which is only right. Decisions about Iraq's longer-term future should be left to the elected transitional Government—as every Iraqi to whom I have spoken agrees. That is why we are moving forward with that strategy, and the Iraqi people should have the opportunity to choose those who will decide their future.
    Donald Anderson: To what extent will the interim Government have strategic control of the new multinational force after the transfer of sovereignty?
    Mr. Hoon: I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept that I will deal with the precise security arrangements in a moment. Obviously, some discussions about the precise level of control remain, but I assure him that we are alive to the issue. We will try to find a sensible solution that meets the needs of coalition forces and secures their safety, but recognises that authority has properly passed to the Iraqis.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I have received several e-mails from constituents over the past few days claiming that the British Government are about to send 4,000 extra troops to Najaf. Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that point?
    Mr. Hoon: Again, my hon. Friend anticipates a passage in my speech that I shall reach in a moment. As

    685
    I have done on a number of occasions, I assure her and the House that the Government have taken no decisions on any number of extra troops. I will inform the House in the usual way as soon as any such decision is taken, if it is taken.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend says that the nature of the Iraqi Government is a matter for Iraqis. Does he have a view on whether that Government should be secular? Would he be concerned if religious parties were to form a Government next January?
    Mr. Hoon: In a different context, my hon. Friend would be the first to say that the nature of any Government should be a matter for the people in question, and that is my answer to him.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: On the constitution and an elected Iraqi Government's right to decide the nature of the state, is it true that, once elected, the Iraqi Government will not have the right to rescind previous changes such as the wholesale privatisation of the public sector in Iraq?
    Mr. Hoon: An Iraqi Government will consider such matters when they are established with democratic legitimacy conferred by elections. The interim Government's main task, acting under the transitional administrative law that we and the Iraqi leaders worked so hard to agree, will be to prepare the ground for full elections to a transitional assembly around the turn of the year. For the first time, Iraq will have a representative body chosen by all its people that works for the country as a whole. The assembly will be responsible for choosing a transitional Government and for preparing a constitution in time for general elections towards the end of 2005.
    Clare Short: Ambassador Brahimi made it clear that elections cannot be held without security. If an interim Government are appointed, there may be so much chaos that elections are not possible. Does my right hon. Friend share that worry, and what should be done?
    Mr. Hoon: I do not share that worry, but it is a risk that we have to address. That is why our forces, alongside Iraqi forces, are working so hard to deal with the security situation. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would support them in their efforts to do that precisely to allow elections to take place in accordance with the schedule.
    It has always been our intention to involve the United Nations in the process. We are working towards a new Security Council resolution. We expect it to be agreed before the transition and to emphasise the new arrangements for full Iraqi authority. Any new resolution will take account of the views of United Nations Security Council members, other international partners and, most important, the Iraqi people. We expect that it will clearly mark the next stage in the transition towards democracy in Iraq, confirm the mandate of the multinational force and specify the future role of the United Nations, including support for the political process and assistance in preparing elections.
    Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the strategic purposes of the resolution must be
    686
    to attract other countries, which do not currently do so, to provide soldiers for Iraq? Consequently, the language and the nature of the resolution must be drafted with that principally in mind.
    Mr. Hoon: I would regard that as an incidental advantage of such a resolution; I would hardly describe it as the main reason for it. If, as a result of passing a new Security Council resolution, other countries are willing to deploy their forces to Iraq, I will strongly support it. I am sure that that also applies to the Iraqi people.
    United Nations international staff are already operating in Iraq and in the region. One team, headed by Lakhdar Brahimi, has been consulting Iraqis on the formation of the interim Government; the other, headed by Carina Perelli, has been examining options for the electoral process.
    We also believe that the United Nations has a vital role to play in preparing for elections and giving advice on the constitutional process in 2005. We would welcome United Nations involvement in the full range of humanitarian and reconstruction tasks in Iraq. We very much value the United Nation's constructive attitude towards Iraq's future, expressed by the Secretary-General down. It is all the more commendable following the terrible tragedy that the United Nations suffered last August.
    Regrettably, as we make both political and economic progress, some continue to oppose the process: former Ba'athists, terrorists and others willing to use extreme violence, sometimes for personal gain. I assure the House that we will not allow the violent few to hold hostage the prospects and fortunes of the many Iraqi people who want peace and progress. We are determined to do what we can to provide security in Iraq, for it is only within a secure and stable environment that reconstruction and political life can flourish.
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that. It will be essential to have troops on the ground to ensure that that happens. I have constituents who are currently serving in Iraq and are worried about the possible extension of six months to nine months. Will he answer that point?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not present during Defence questions, when I dealt with that. There is no reason at this stage to extend the usual tour of duty for British soldiers in Iraq. However, if circumstances on the ground make it necessary, we will have to make that decision. However, no such decision has yet been made.
    Helen Jackson: The continuing violence must hugely worry civilians in Iraq. I realise that it is not Government policy to count the number of civilians killed and injured, but will coalition forces undertake that now, or in future under the authority of the United Nations, to build confidence among Iraqi civilians that things are getting better, not worse?
    Mr. Hoon: As I believe was suggested earlier, it is extraordinarily difficult to count precisely the numbers

    687
    killed or injured when engaging coalition forces. Perhaps I could give my hon. Friend an example from recent events. Yesterday, British forces were attacked in al-Amarah with 15 mortar rounds. I am pleased that they were able to respond effectively. Two British soldiers were wounded and several militia—we estimate 30, but that is necessarily an estimate that cannot be made with great precision—were killed. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) came pretty close to suggesting that British forces in that position were required to go back into danger and ordered to count the dead bodies of those who had attacked them in the first place. I simply appeal to him to be realistic.
    Sir Menzies Campbell: If that was the inference that the right hon. Gentleman derived from what I said, let me say that I did not intend in any circumstances to give that impression. There is, however, a legitimate question as to whether we keep a count of the civilian casualties, because of their nature and because of the consequences for public opinion in Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east.
    Mr. Hoon: The right hon. and learned Gentleman leapt to his feet in a passable display of indignation, but I wonder how he would, in practice, do what he suggests. It is all very well to make these suggestions, but somebody actually has to do it. I have said that we do our very best to make a reasonable estimate of the number of casualties, but when soldiers come under attack, they return fire. They cannot be expected to go back and count precisely how many people they have killed.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: If the Secretary of State were to instruct troops to go back to count the casualties, does he think that people would believe the numbers that were given?
    Mr. Hoon: I think that we have probably dealt with this issue in sufficient detail, although I see that another hon. Member is anxious to intervene.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am rather disappointed that, in the debate so far, we have been so negative about the role that UK troops have played in Iraq. I believe that we have done a magnificent job. Will the Secretary of State advise the House of the role that he foresees over the next six weeks and beyond 30 June for British forces, who I believe are the finest in the world? We need to say that, to give them encouragement for the very difficult work that they are undertaking. I have a great belief in our forces.
    Mr. Hoon: I entirely agree. I was rather allowing the facts of the engagement I mentioned to speak for themselves. British forces came under attack from an overwhelming force. They were ambushed and responded in kind, achieving a considerable military success, at a cost of two lightly wounded British casualties. That was a remarkable success. I also agree with the hon. Gentleman's other observations about the abilities of Britain's armed forces.
    688
    This weekend, Basra and Nasiriyah saw a number of attacks against the coalition resulting in injury to three British soldiers and the loss of one Italian soldier. Right hon. and hon. Members may have seen reports over the weekend of a failed mortar attack against British forces in Basra that resulted in three Iraqi civilians being killed and three more wounded. This tragic incident highlights once again the indiscriminate nature of the attacks being carried out, not only against coalition forces but against the Iraqi people themselves.
    The Falluja brigade has been formed from former Iraqi soldiers. It is a temporary organisation designed to provide security in the town, patrolling alongside US forces. Our objectives in Falluja remain unchanged: to ensure that armed groups can no longer intimidate local people and to confiscate heavy weapons from lawless insurgents. In Najaf, we should remind ourselves of what lies behind the recent tensions. Iraqi prosecutors investigating the murder of a senior cleric, Ayatollah Abdel Majid al-Khoei, have strong grounds for the arrest of a number of suspects linked to al-Sadr, including al-Sadr himself.
    In the meantime, al-Sadr's illegal militia have been harassing local people in several cities, including Basra and al-Amarah, unlawfully occupying public buildings and terrorising women on the streets and in universities. We have attempted to disarm al-Sadr's militia peacefully and, when necessary, by force. Our efforts are having some success. We judge that al-Sadr's support, while vocal and violent, is indeed limited and may well be on the wane. In both Falluja and Najaf, we continue to seek political solutions where possible and will, of course, respect the nature of the holy sites.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What care is being taken not to damage the great shrines at Najaf and Karbala? Apart from any cultural considerations, risking such damage really is playing with Shi'ite fire.
    Mr. Hoon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the sensitivity of the holy sites, which is why we are taking great care to respect them. This also seems relevant to the attitude of the Shi'a towards al-Sadr himself, because the overwhelming majority of them do not support or approve of his behaviour. In that disapproval lies the political solution that I have set out.
    Lembit Öpik: I listened with interest when the Secretary of State said that, in certain parts of Iraq, the Government and the Army will seek to find political solutions. To what extent are the Government determined to apply the lessons learned in Northern Ireland—some of which have been very useful and constructive—to the situation in Iraq? Or does he feel that there are no comparisons to be drawn?
    Mr. Hoon: There are never exact comparisons, but I certainly believe that British troops on patrol in Iraq daily apply the lessons that have been learned so painfully over a long period in Northern Ireland. The other, wider point to make is that there will not ultimately be a military solution to this kind of crisis. Whatever security action we take on the ground has to

    689
    be supported and complemented by an appropriate political process. That is precisely the strategy that I am setting out on behalf of the Government.
    Tony Baldry rose—
    Mr. Hoon: Perhaps I may make a little progress. I have given way a number of times, although I will give way in due course.
    Security sector reform is a crucial part of our strategy to allow the Iraqi people to rely less on coalition forces. We are making strong progress, and our armed forces are playing a vital role. As the House will recall, I announced last year that we would send extra forces to Iraq for just that task. They are supported by civilians from the United Kingdom and by contributions from our allies, and are doing an excellent job. It is not just the coalition in Iraq that recognises the importance of this work for Iraq's future. A substantial police training centre for Iraqi officers is operating in Jordan and producing large numbers of graduates each month. Other countries have also privately offered help, and we are exploring their proposals.
    There are now close to 80,000 trained Iraqi police, as well as tens of thousands of other security personnel, including border guards, facilities protection staff and civil defence forces. In the British area, more than 12,000 police have been recruited, and we have trained some 8,000, either in Jordan or in the police training centre that we established with our Danish coalition partners. Six battalions of the Iraqi civil defence corps—some 5,000 people—have been recruited, trained and equipped, as have 5,000 border police, which is some 60 per cent. of the assessed requirement. Raw numbers, however, can seldom provide the full picture.
    On the ground, real, tangible progress has been made, with Iraqi police on patrol across the country. Those police are an enormous credit to Iraq and have shown great bravery and resolve in the face of vicious attacks. For example, after the recent terrorist outrages in Basra, which killed more than a dozen schoolchildren, the Iraqi police stabilised the situation and are now investigating. The Iraqi Ministry of Health, which has fully passed to Iraqi control, provided medical care on the scene.
    Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State is describing the action that has been taken on security and military grounds, but it is quite clear that one of the problems that we have had in Iraq is the concept of the coalition forces being occupiers. The UN resolution refers to them as occupiers. All of us in the House are supposedly politicians, and we know that we have to win people's hearts and minds. Will he give the House some idea of the thinking and the work that is being done to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi people, so that they cease to see the coalition as occupiers and regard us as part of the process that will lead sooner, rather than later, to their liberation?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observation. He will know, probably as well as I do, that the word "occupier", which is not the happiest word in this context, is one that we are required to use by virtue of the Geneva conventions. It sets out our status. Obviously, that will change on 30 June, which is why we
    690
    are working in such a determined way towards that date. However, he is also right, in the sense that we are helping with the reconstruction of Iraq. The coalition provisional authority reports that around 20,000 reconstruction projects have been completed—building Iraq's infrastructure, generating jobs and getting its economy moving. The United Kingdom is involved in some 2,700 of those projects, and every day the quality of life in Basra gets better.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Following the same theme as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), this is a very valuable description of the security situation, but it seems to be in pursuit of a totally unchanged political policy. I detect no tone of any change. After June, as we get a UN resolution, what attempts are going to be made to internationalise the problem? Does the Secretary of State agree that we need the support of the Russians, the French, the Muslim countries, if we can get it, and perhaps some Asian countries? Are other countries going to be involved in the political resolution, or will that remain totally in the hands of the occupying forces and people who are free to contribute troops and money, if they wish to join in?
    Mr. Hoon: At least two of the countries that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions—Russia and France—will have to sign up to the Security Council resolution, so they will be engaged in a debate, and indeed in the political process set out in any new Security Council resolution. As I indicated to the House earlier, one of the incidental benefits of such a resolution is the possibility of more countries providing troops on the ground and, therefore, more countries being prepared to engage in the reconstruction effort.
    That is crucial in providing employment for Iraqis, which gives them a stake in the development of their country and which is proving remarkably successful. I can give the House a long list of achievements. About 90 schools have been refurbished in our area of responsibility and a further 140 refurbishment projects are under way. We have completed 65 general health projects, 16 hospital projects and 32 health centre projects. A programme is under way to refurbish something as mundane as petrol stations in southern Iraq. Some 21 berths in Umm Qasr port are open to deep-draft ships. A grain-receiving facility has been renovated and can now process up to 600 tonnes of grain an hour. A whole range of projects has been set up across the country to deliver precisely the improvements asked for.
    Mr. George Foulkes: Should not my right hon. Friend correct the misleading impression given by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), that only British and American troops are in Iraq? I have just come back from Budapest, and I know that Hungary has troops in Iraq under Polish command, whom it will continue to keep there. Some 27 other countries have troops in Iraq. Should not that fact be spread more widely by the Government to counteract the propaganda that only Britain and America are there?
    Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that 30 countries are providing troops and sharing

    691
    security responsibilities as they work closely alongside Iraqis. I would be willing to see that figure enlarged by other countries providing forces to Iraq.
    There has been speculation in recent weeks that more UK forces may be on their way to Iraq, either to replace Spanish troops who have recently left or to provide more command capability. In fact, US forces have replaced the Spanish contingent. As far as our own area is concerned, we judge that we have sufficient forces in Iraq, although we always keep that under close review.
    We are considering, with partners, the levels and disposition of forces in the context of the crucial period we are now entering, from the establishment of an interim Government through to the election of a transitional assembly and Government early next year. We have not yet reached any conclusion on what that may mean for our own military contribution. If we decide to make any significant change, we shall, as I have already indicated, inform the House in the usual way.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Winning hearts and minds is one of the important things that British troops have to do. Recent events have made that far more difficult because of stories appearing in newspapers that have proved to be false. I am the Member of Parliament who represents Fulwood, which is home to the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. Does the Secretary of State accept that the great anguish and frustration felt by members of the regiment and their families has been relieved by the fact that the stories proved to be fake? Will he assure the House that the Daily Mirror is fully complying with the investigation now taking place so that those who are culpable may be brought to justice and so that everyone may know that what was published in the newspapers over the past two weeks put the lives of our servicemen, which were already at stake, under even greater tension?
    Mr. Hoon: I, too, have received strong representations from the hon. Gentleman's constituents and from those of surrounding constituencies that provide recruits for the regiment. The Mirror group has certainly said that it will fully co-operate with the investigation, but I have not yet seen the results of that.
    Mr. Michael Ancram rose—
    Mr. Hoon: I must make progress. A great number of hon. Members want to speak, but I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I wish to raise a matter on which he may need some notice before replying, but which is germane to the debate.
    A story is running on the wires, on Associated Press in particular, that a roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent has exploded in Iraq near a United States military convoy. Brigadier-General Mark Kimmitt said:
    "The Iraq Survey Group confirmed that a 155 millimetre artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found. The round had been rigged as an IED (improvised explosive device),
    692
    which was discovered by a US force convoy. A detonation occurred before the IED could be rendered inoperable. This produced a very small dispersal of the agent."
    There were no casualties.
    As we are constantly talking about weapons of mass destruction, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman should have the chance to take advice on that incident and inform the House of the background to it.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for setting out that information for the benefit of hon. Members. I have been in the House since business started today, so I have not had an opportunity to receive that information. In due course, no doubt, I shall be able to verify it. It certainly indicates the kind of risks and threats that coalition forces face and the extreme lengths to which some fanatics who oppose us are prepared to go to cause loss of life.
    Paul Flynn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Hoon: I really must make progress and reach a conclusion, so I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way.
    I regret that allegations in recent weeks about the conduct of some coalition forces have marred our record in Iraq. No one who saw those photos from Abu Ghraib could fail to, be shocked. The President of the United States and the United States Defence Secretary have apologised for any mistreatment, and I am fully confident that the United States' investigations will be comprehensive and thorough. Mistreatment of prisoners is wholly unacceptable. In an environment where insurgents are prepared to murder police officers, humanitarian aid workers, civilian contractors and innocent children, our own standards cannot be allowed to fall. Allegations have also been made against UK forces and they are investigated as soon as they are received.
    Hon. Members have rightly raised concerns about the effect that recent allegations will have on our standing in the Islamic world. I can assure the House that we are considering how we can ensure that we make it clear to the Iraqi people how seriously we take these charges, and how determined we are to deal with them. The governor of Basra, however, whom I met only a few weeks ago, has said that he has not registered a single allegation of human rights abuses by British forces.
    We will continue our mission in Iraq. I have no doubt that when we succeed—and succeed we shall—the lives of ordinary Iraqis will be improved beyond anything they could have dreamed of under Saddam Hussein. We are making further progress every day. It would be wrong of us to falter now.
    Richard Younger-Ross rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Secretary of State has finished.
    4.21 pm
    Mr. Michael Ancram: I, too, wondered whether the Secretary of State had finished or was giving way yet a gain.

    693
    I welcome the debate, although it is a disgrace that it is not being held in Government time. Had the Government had the courage to initiate such a debate, and as Iraq is not for them or us a cynical European or local government election issue, we could have had a full day's debate on this important and urgent matter.
    As both the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and the Secretary of State indicated, this debate is being held in the grim shadow of the tragic assassination today of Izz al-Din Salim by those who still seek to prevent the peaceful return of Iraq to the Iraqis They must not be allowed to succeed.
    I shall start with two comments. First, we were right to support the Iraq war. The threat posed to international peace and security was acknowledged and real. Iraq and its peoples needed rescuing from Saddam. Those two facts were not going to change and if we had not done it last year, we would still be looking to do it in the future, at almost certainly greater risk and cost. It is worth remembering that, if the Liberal Democrats had had their way, Saddam would still be murdering his people, still destabilising that volatile region, still posing a threat to international peace and security and still requiring to be dealt with.
    Clare Short: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ancram: I give way to the right hon. Lady, who voted for the war in the Cabinet.
    Clare Short: We do not have votes in the Cabinet. We do not have much discussion, either. Everyone tends to justify their own actions, but surely the lesson is that being willing to use force to back up the authority of the UN to support the people of Iraq in getting rid of Saddam Hussein, perhaps by indicting him, could have been done more carefully, in a more considered way and with more international co-operation. The people of Iraq would be much better off if that had happened. Should we not all face up to that and stop trying to justify every position that we have taken in the past?
    Mr. Ancram: I will take a lot from the right hon. Lady but I find it difficult to take that when she stayed in the Cabinet throughout the war, regardless of the fact that there had been no second UN resolution.
    Support for the war, however, does not and cannot entail placid acceptance of everything that has followed. That support cannot—nor should it, in a democratic Parliament—inhibit us from criticising the conduct and drift of the post-conflict programme.
    Secondly, the Prime Minister hit rock bottom last week when he inferred that our criticism of him was a criticism of our armed forces. We have always made it abundantly clear that we not only support the effective and courageous manner in which our armed forces are carrying out their responsibilities in Iraq in the face of great difficulties and dangers, but are immensely proud of their professionalism and dedication.
    The whole House will share my disgust at the malicious attempts in some quarters to damage the reputation of our armed forces in Iraq by making untrue or faked allegations that also endanger their lives. With
    694
    the editor rightly gone, I hope that the Daily Mirror lessons have been well and truly learned. Of course, where there are serious and genuine allegations of abuse, those responsible must be rooted out and dealt with firmly and effectively. We can have no time for such people.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that at the time when war was embarked upon, Iraq represented a real danger to other countries. Can he tell me of any country, apart from Israel, that recorded in any international forum any threat that it felt itself to be under from Iraq?
    Mr. Ancram: The words that I used were, "The threat posed to international peace and security was acknowledged and real." That is because during the previous 12 years, 17 United Nations resolutions had been passed under chapter VII of the UN charter, which relates to threats to international peace and security and which allows, under article 43, for military action to be used to deal with such threats.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Ancram: I want to make a little progress. This is not our debate and I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak. Those who know me will be aware that I am usually very generous in taking interventions.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke rose—
    Mr. Ancram: However, I shall give way to my old friend, the former Chancellor.
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for that privileged treatment and I shall try not to abuse it.
    Given that I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that our attitudes today cannot be determined by whether we were in favour of the war in the first place, does he agree that even if the war was justified, the present situation has been made infinitely worse by the painful lack of planning for what was to follow after the occupation and the incompetence with which the interim Government have at times conducted themselves in trying to impose security on the country? Is it not important that the House should address itself to the problem that we now face: how do we get from being an unpopular occupying force to being part of a genuinely international effort to create a stable Iraq?
    Mr. Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend has either been reading my mind or reading my notes from a distance, because he pre-empts what I am about to say.
    This debate is important because of the crisis of public confidence that has been brought about by the lack of direction, lack of candour and general incompetence in the Government's handling of Iraq. That has its roots in the Prime Minister's refusal to hold a proper inquiry into the Government's use, in the run-up to the war, of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. It has been further deepened by the incredible failure of the Prime Minister and his senior colleagues to keep abreast of the

    695
    serious reports on prisoner abuse by the Red Cross and Amnesty International, and by the extraordinarily conflicting reasons for that failure that were given in the House last week—including, as hon. Members may—recall, the Secretary of State for Defence saying that he had not read the Red Cross report because it had been given to the Government in confidence. That is compounded, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) says, by the Government's failure a year ago to set out a clear post-conflict plan—for which, incidentally, I had been calling—since the debate in this House on 24 September 2002.
    Strategy is still being developed on the hoof. Last Wednesday, the Foreign Secretary chose to announce—not in this House, but on "BBC Online"—that British—troops would leave Iraq if the new post-30 June interim Government asked them to do so. Having called for the transfer of power to be real, not cosmetic, Conservative Members welcome that announcement—but why was it not made in Parliament and why was it not made earlier? There remain other unanswered questions that I shall come to shortly.
    Today, we find Downing street apparently briefing about—hon. Members can choose their phrase depending on the newspaper that they read—"gear—changes" and "new exit strategies". To me, exit strategies are redolent of failure at a time when we need a clear, positive plan with a clear end game for achieving our overall objective: to return Iraq to the Iraqis under a representative and democratic Government.
    If we are to understand the strategy, we first need to know the full details of the handover on 30 June. To whom will it be made and who will have been responsible for making that decision? Given the role of the United Nations representative in the handover, what will be the role of the coalition in the run-up to the handover?
    We believe that, even in the remaining six weeks, there is still a need for a high-powered United Kingdom political representative in the coalition, working alongside General McColl on the military side, to ensure that the UK political voice is clearly heard and heeded.
    We need some answers now, to show that the handover will be a real transfer of sovereignty. How does the Foreign Secretary's statement on withdrawing UK troops if requested by the interim Government conform to what I understand was the crucial Brahimi agreement with Ayatollah Sistani, which was reported in Sir Jeremy Greenstock's article in The Economist on 7 May, namely, that the unelected Government who will emerge from the handover and precede elections will not have sovereign freedom to affect the future of the Iraqi state? How is that consistent with saying that they can decide whether coalition forces stay or go?
    We also need a clear security strategy to restore public order and stability in Iraq, not least, as has been said, because of the forthcoming elections next January. What will be the position of our troops if we are asked to remain after 30 June? Will they be, in the old phrase, "in aid of the civil power" at that power's request? What is a realistic assessment of when Iraqi security forces will be capable, in terms of numbers and training, to impose
    696
    and maintain the necessary degree of security? Despite the fact that the Secretary of State told us again today that no decision has been made about whether further deployments of British troops will be needed, what is the likelihood of a requirement for more UK troop deployments and in what capacity? We should at least be given an indication.
    Mr. Roger Gale: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is one thing if further troops are necessary at the behest of British commanders to secure the safety and positions of British forces, but that many of us would be gravely concerned if there were to be an open-ended commitment for the deployment of British troops anywhere in Iraq at any time?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He, too, must have such good eyesight that he can read my notes. I was just coming to a point that has been discussed over the weekend and raised in the debate: whether the House should vote on future deployments. I am firmly of the view, which I suspect is shared by my hon. Friend, given what he has just said, that the House should never try to second-guess operational decisions or requirements on the ground. However, where a decision is to be taken that would substantially or materially change the nature of our military involvement, which could include a request to undertake operations that are outside our current area or not under our command, seeking the opinion of the House would probably be justified. That does not indicate that we would oppose such deployment, but that we should want to consider it on its merits.
    Paul Flynn: I welcome the statement that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just made. Does he agree that the information that he gave the House earlier shows that there has indeed been a substantial change in the level of danger into which we are sending our troops? Does he also agree that a valuable precedent was established when the House voted to send our soldiers to Iraq to kill and, tragically, to be killed? Is it not clear that many of the assumptions on which those decisions were based were false and that there is a need for a new decision if more troops are to be sent?
    Mr. Ancram: I do not accept that our troops were sent to Iraq to kill and be killed; they went there to restore stability and democracy in that sad country after many years of a vicious and evil regime. I have said what I said about voting. I very carefully judged my words and do not want to add or detract from them.
    We need a credible economic strategy to create employment and to remove a major cause of resentment, which is itself a recruiting sergeant for dissent and worse. Lack of income is fostering enormous resentment in various parts of the country. As Jeremy Greenstock wrote, the guiding slogan for the coalition should be "security and jobs, stupid".
    What plans are there to promote a comprehensive, long-term, job-creating investment programme? What plans are there to ensure a credible humanitarian strategy? For instance, what is the current situation in the hospital in Basra in relation to reported shortages of personnel and equipment?

    697
    Would not reconstruction be more acceptable locally if it was bottom-up rather than applied top-down?
    We also need to ensure that anything that is done by the coalition that is not consistent with the objectives for which we went to war ceases. The objective of removing the threat posed to international peace and security by Saddam Hussein has been achieved, but the objective of creating a stable, democratic and prosperous Iraq is not yet achieved.
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend needs to be very careful. The stated purpose for going to war was to ensure compliance with United Nations resolutions. I did not happen to agree with it, but that was the stated purpose. No doubt the restoration or creation of democracy was an intended by-product, but it was not the lawful justification for the war.
    Mr. Ancram: My right hon. and learned Friend has, on many occasions, made the case against regime change. The terms of the United Nations resolutions acknowledged and recognised that Saddam Hussein was a threat to international peace and security and was required to be dealt with. That was the justification upon which we backed the decision to go to war. Indeed, I understand from the Foreign Secretary that that was also the position that he took at the time.
    We should, however, acknowledge, as the Secretary of State for Defence did, the substantial body of work of reconstruction that is actually being, carried out in Iraq. Electricity is now more equitably distributed and more stable than it was under Saddam Hussein, who used to feed most of it into Baghdad for political reasons. Basra alone now receives 21 hours electricity each day, and the sweet water canal system that provides drinking water to 1.75 million residents of Basra city has been renovated. The number of telephone subscribers, including mobile users, is 33 per cent. greater than it was before the war. Some 2,500 schools have been refurbished and 70 million textbooks have been reprinted. Almost all of Iraq's 240 hospitals are functioning, more than 1,200 clinics are open and more than 3 million children under the age of five have received vaccinations. That is solid progress and we should recognise and welcome it.
    As several hon. Members have said, however, we must recognise what is undermining those efforts. In the vital battle for hearts and minds, perception matters. How the coalition is perceived matters, so how the coalition acts matters, too. There is a difference between what is seen as an army of liberation intent on restoring the state to its people and what is seen as a conquering army with all the heavy-handedness that can accompany that. I am always wary of commenting from afar on specific military actions without experiencing the real threat on the ground and the nature of the insurgents that are being faced. Nevertheless, I believe that the military conduct of United Kingdom forces has, in this regard, been exemplary.
    Chris BryantWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way again because, as I said, many other Members wish to speak in the debate.
    698
    There is no doubt that confidence right across Iraq has been shattered by the horrific incidences of prisoner abuse, particularly in the Abu Ghraib prison. We roundly condemn them. Such behaviour has no place in the conduct of the army of a democratic state. They are not only unacceptable in themselves, but highly damaging to the coalition's credibility in Iraq. One thing that would help to prevent further such abuses is, independent monitoring of all detention facilities in Iraq. When the Minister replies to the debate, can he specifically confirm that all and every part of coalition detention facilities throughout Iraq are open to unfettered inspection by the Red Cross? I repeat: all and every part of coalition detention facilities. Perhaps he can also clarify whether, after 30 June, responsibility for these detention facilities will pass from the coalition to the interim government.
    I come finally to the underlying theme of this debate—the Government's relations with the United States. I bow to no one in my belief that our special relationship with America is crucial to our national interest. I believe in a true partnership with America, based on shared values, shared traditions and, frequently, shared interests. Shortly, Europe will be reminded of what, 60 years ago, the United States, as liberators, did for our war-ravaged continent and the debt of gratitude that we owe to them. Our relationship, however, must always be, as it always has been, a partnership in which frankness is at the core.
    We are constantly given the nudge and the wink that that is the case for the Prime Minister, but we are never given the evidence. Even the closest of allies have differences of opinion and emphasis. A candid friendship, except when confidentiality is essential, should not be afraid of such differences—and the advice that follows on from them—being known.
    The Prime Minister, however, seems to have established a new doctrine of international relations. He never admits in public whether the differences even exist, let alone the discussions he has had on them. That reticence is not necessary. Margaret Thatcher let Ronald Reagan clearly know of her displeasure at the United States invasion of Grenada in 1983. She quickly made her concerns known after the Reykjavik summit in 1986 between Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev. How can the British people ever know what influence a British Prime Minister has brought to bear on our American allies if he never discloses it? Is it surprising that people wonder whether any influence has been brought to bear at all?
    Although the outlook in Iraq is, for the moment, bleak, we must never fall into the Liberal Democratic trap of just being negative. With them in power, Saddam would still be in place, he would still be murdering and he would still be threatening. Thank goodness he is not. Of course, things could be better. If the Government had planned more effectively when we pressed them to, if they had not dithered on the way forward and if they had not been so incompetent in keeping a grip on what was happening in Iraq, things today would be better. However, although time is short, we can still get it right. The cause we fought for was right and the objectives at

    699
    which we are still aiming are right. For the sake of the people of Iraq and of international peace and security, we must ensure that they are achieved.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. I remind all right hon. and hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches.
    4.41 pm
    Mrs. Barbara Roche: For very many Jewish people of my generation, the major influence has been the holocaust and the second world war. That has certainly influenced my political views. The enduring view of that conflict and the holocaust is that the international community of the day knew what was happening in the concentration camps and knew that the train lines were carrying Jewish people and others from all over Europe to their certain death and destruction, and failed to act. That is an abiding issue for me, my community and many others. Similarly, in recent times, the failure of the international community to take any action until it was far too late led to the genocide and holocaust in Rwanda. I use the word "holocaust" advisedly. I hardly ever use it because to use it in a loose way defiles the memory of those who died.
    For me, the Saddam's regime was horrific. I also represent a constituency with an enormous number of Iraqis, including many Iraqi Kurds. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), with her great experience of the situation in Iraq, spoke so well of their plight. The husband of one of my constituents—a very brave woman—was an officer in Saddam's army. He was a dissident. He was called in. He was tortured. While he was being tortured, his wife was brought in and raped in his presence. After the rape, he was executed. She managed to get out of the country. We subsequently managed to get her children out of the country and into this country. She is a brave and wonderful woman.
    Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. That is why the events of recent weeks are so disturbing.
    The accounts of what happened and of what was done by the American forces are absolutely dreadful. There are two accounts of those events. Either it is claimed, "We were only obeying orders"—a claim that again has an awful resonance for those who remember the events of the last century—or, as I now believe, institutional—torture was authorised at a very high level. None of us who saw those pictures—there are probably more to come—can stand by and let that torture happen. I certainly cannot, and I suspect that the whole House cannot. That means that we, on behalf of the Iraqi people, have to make it clear to the Americans in the strongest possible terms how we feel about events. It means that Donald Rumsfeld has to resign now and the practice of using private contractors in Iraq for intelligence purposes must cease. Given what we have heard over the weekend, it also means that we need to ask the Americans if it is correct that filming took place of other appalling incidents in Guantanamo bay involving British citizens who were detainees there.
    700
    These dreadful events have overshadowed the magnificent contribution that so many of our British armed forces have made in the most difficult circumstances. There is no doubt that major acts of reconstruction are taking place and that our forces, with their long experience of engaging with civilian populations, have sought to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. There is obviously a great deal of self-sacrifice on behalf of those people, and I congratulate our forces on that. We must be under no illusion, however: with the Americans' recent record, none of that message will get through, either to the Iraqis or to the public in this country. That is why we have to protest in the strongest possible terms.
    What does that mean? We cannot simply desert the Iraqi people—that would be wrong but on 30 June we have to hand over the maximum amount of authority to the Iraqi interim Government. That interim Government must be seen not as a puppet regime but as an interim Government who truly reflect the Iraqi people. We must make sure that the interim Iraqi Government have control over the security forces in Iraq if the country is to prosper and survive. The UN has to have the maximum power and control, and we all need to use our best endeavours to bring that about. On the deployment of troops, we of course need to listen to what British commanders on the ground are telling us, but we must also take into consideration the will of the Iraqis and the interim Iraqi Government, and we must do that in consultation with the UN.
    The situation is so grave that this is not the time to seek narrow political advantage—it is too serious for that. We all have to resolve to work together for the Iraqi people. Iraq is a country with a brave, intelligent and able population, where parliamentary democracy once flourished. We nust do everything possible to help it and to restore it, but, more importantly, we must do all that we can to give the Iraqi people control over their own lives and destinies.
    4.49 pm
    Mr. John Maples: I would say to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) that if there is a moral imperative on countries such as ours, where human rights are respected, to intervene in countries where they are not, there is an awfully long list of the latter—and that that was not the justification for the war. Saddam Hussein's was a particularly unpleasant regime, but there are many more unpleasant ones around the world—for example, in Sudan, where rather more people are being killed.
    From the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) we heard something of an "I told you so" speech. I suppose he is entitled to make such a speech in the circumstances, but I am not sure that it was terribly helpful. From the Secretary of State, we heard an "It's all going according to plan" speech, but it clearly is not—if there was ever a plan in the first place. Those such as I who supported the war from the start—I still do—are deeply troubled by the fact that there seems to be no effective plan. We keep making the same mistakes and do not learn from them.
    Now, we hope that on 30 June, Mr. Brahimi will somehow bail us out of the problems that we have encountered. Why it has taken us until 15 months after

    701
    the end of the war to reach the point of handing over power to a more representative Iraqi Government—or transitional authority, or whatever it is to be called—I simply do not know. We persevered for more than a year with a group of people who were largely selected by the United States and who did not have the confidence and support of the Iraqi people. That caused problems, and the actions of some of the American forces, their interrogation techniques and some of the ways in which we have set about enforcing security, have exacerbated those problems.
    However, we have to start from where we are. Whether or not one supported the war, there are two objectives that we should want to achieve. The first is to leave behind a reasonably peaceful Iraq where the rule of law is respected, at least to some extent, and which is starting down the road to democracy. We now have a duty to try to leave that behind us. The other policy objective is related to one of the reasons why I supported the war: I believed—perhaps "hoped" is a better word—that a reformed Iraq might act both as a beacon and as a rebuke to other countries in the region whose Governments are pretty awful.
    None of the 22 Arab countries has anything resembling a working democracy; in none is the rule of law respected; and all are giving rise to a brand of Islamic terrorism that presents a serious danger to us. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism is connected with the nature of the regimes in those countries. I am not suggesting that we could set up Jeffersonian democracies in Egypt and Saudi Arabia tomorrow, because I suspect that the people would elect Mr. bin Laden and his lieutenants. That is a measure of the problem facing us. However, if we do not start down that road, the existing regimes will be overthrown by Mr. bin Laden and his lieutenants and we will face worse than the ayatollahs in Iran for a generation to come.
    Reform in the middle east is desperately needed. If we can leave behind us an Iraq in which the rule of law and human rights are observed and which is something approaching a democracy, it might reinforce our efforts to secure reform in the region. That is the only way to get long-term stability in the region and long-term security of our interests.
    Clare Short: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that democracy will not be achieved in the middle east until the Palestine-Israel situation is resolved? The reason why the US supports oppressive regimes in Egypt, Jordan and other countries is that their peoples are so angry about the suffering of the Palestinians that democracy would give rise to countries that are hostile. If we resolve the Palestine-Israel situation and get all weapons of mass destruction out of the region, a process of democratisation can start. Without such resolution, that process cannot start.
    Mr. Maples: I have said a great deal in the House and elsewhere about the middle east peace process. I have strong views, which I have taken up with the Prime Minister in writing and in speeches. However, I have only eight minutes and cannot deal with the subject now, save to say in defence of the United States that nobody could have tried harder to bring about peace in the region than President Clinton did in the last year of his Administration.
    702
    We have to try to leave behind us a stable and, hopefully, democratic Iraq. We are relying heavily on Mr. Brahimi to give some authority to the transitional administration and to ensure that it has a large measure of credibility and support among the population—more than the governing council, which was established by the provisional authority.
    It is worth viewing the security threat in that light. The security threat comes in part from criminal gangs, in part from supporters of the old regime and in part from Islamic terrorism. The latter is, to some extent, sustained by Shi'ite clerics and by outsiders, but it also has overtones of nationalism—resentment of the presence of American troops. If the new authority has greater credibility and support, the security threat will diminish. Arabs, and Iraqis in particular, will deeply resent terrorists killing other Iraqis who have the support of the local population. Now the killers' excuse is that the governing council is the puppet of the United States and that its members are collaborators.
    I do not buy that as a reason for killing them, but nevertheless I accept that it may have some political resonance. If the governing council, which clearly has the support of the people, is moving towards the implementation of a constitution and preparations for elections within a year or so, there is a chance that the security threat will diminish. Iraqi security forces will increasingly have the authority and political support to deal with the threat. If terrorism is seen as an attack on home-grown politicians, they will have the backing of the population of their home country in trying to deal with it.
    It is difficult to see that happening without the presence of coalition forces beyond 1 July. We said that we would leave soon after that date, but I hope that we did not mean what we said, because there would be no chance of leaving behind us a stable Iraq. There are clearly forces bent on chaos or civil war, which is not in our interests and will certainly not send the right message to the region. As for sending more forces to Iraq, I would expect that to be done only if our military commanders wanted it. They should be sent only to the Iraqi region for which we are responsible and should be deployed in sufficient numbers to be commanded by a senior British officer, not parcelled out among other commands in Iraq.
    If the threat is reduced, there is a chance of achieving stability in the region, which is a prize worth hanging on to for a bit longer. To those who say that we should abandon the enterprise because it reinforces failure. I would reply that the consequences of failure, whether reinforced or not, are terrible for the credibility of British and American foreign policy; for the credibility of our threat to use force; and for our long-term objectives. If we back off now, the message across the region will be, "Britain and the United States do not like this at all, but they are not going to do anything about it." That message, however, will suggest to people in those countries who are in favour of democracy and human rights that there is no support outside the region for what they want to do, thus handing the region over to two forces—the forces of the status quo, which are undemocratic, corrupt and nepotistic, and the forces of extreme revolution in the hands of Mr. bin Laden and his supporters.

    703
    It is worth reflecting on the consequences of abandoning our policy, both for us and for our alliance with the United States. If we leave the US alone in its enterprise it will probably retreat into isolationism. Most of Mr. Bush's critics in the House feared that he would pursue that policy when he was elected, but now they are criticising him for pursuing an interventionist policy abroad. British foreign policy and defence are built on our strong alliance with the United States and to abandon that alliance will leave us floundering in the middle of the Atlantic without the security of European defence co-operation, about which the present Government, the previous one and I share some scepticism. We have no alternative but to try to see the enterprise through and I believe that the objectives are worth pursuing.
    4.58 pm
    Mr. George Foulkes: In that fateful vote on 18 March 2003, I supported the Government's deployment of troops. That was the first time ever that the House of Commons was allowed to vote on the deployment of troops and the Government should receive credit for that. It is also important to remember that they won that vote with a very substantial majority. Given subsequent events, however, some people have asked me whether I would vote the same way again. Two or three newspapers have phoned me to ask that very question, but I have not seen the results in print because—I suspect—they did not get the answer that they wanted.
    I would do exactly the same again—I told them that—because those of us who voted in favour thought very long, hard and carefully before doing so and we knew exactly what we were doing.
    Like all hon. Members and everyone beyond the House, I abhor the torture and humiliation of the Iraqi prisoners and I say so, but I also abhor the execution of Nick Berg. Not everyone says that, by the way; not everyone who condemns the other torture condemns that as well. However, the torture—albeit awful—is of a totally different order and extent to the vicious murder of thousands and the torture of many more by the Saddam Hussein regime, to which the mass graves testify.
    Of course the situation in Iraq is difficult. There is sabotage by external terrorists who do not want us to succeed. Criminals are inevitably exploiting the situation. Thankfully, Iraqi opinion is turning against extremists and terrorists, and we should be pleased about that. I got the impression that the Liberal spokesman wants everything to go wrong to prove that he was right and so that he can say, "I told you so."
    Mr. Dalyell: It was not the critics in the House, but Senator Edward Kennedy who described the Abu Ghraib prison as "under new management"—but the same as Saddam. It was Senator Kennedy, not us.
    Mr. Foulkes: Of course, Senator Kennedy is a well-respected man; he has his own history to deal with.
    As well as the sabotage and the criminal elements, thousands of children are being educated at school. Many ill people are being treated in hospitals. Oil and
    704
    water are flowing again, in spite of attacks. Electricity supply is restored. Of course that does not hit the headlines, but it is the increasing reality in Iraq.
    In this extremely difficult situation, where do we find the Liberal Democrats? As usual, they are on the bandwagon of opportunism.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) can sigh and moan, but it is true. Not just in the House of Commons, but on the stump in the European elections, they are showing cynical opportunism. As we heard from their spokesman today, they are coming up not with a solution, but with constant. carping criticism, undermining the morale of our servicemen and women.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have visited Iraq since the start of conflict and the troops there have told me that they have been very grateful to Liberal Democrats and others who have been putting their side of the argument? May I remind him that the Liberal Democrats pointed out that our troops did not have the right kit and the right boots when the right hon. Gentleman's Government sent them to war to fight?
    Mr. Foulkes: When the hon. Gentleman was talking to those troops, he did not understand the irony that they were using to make their point. They are a cleverer lot than he gives tham credit for. He and the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman have taken a very interestingly different line on that from time to time.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Foulkes: No, I am not going to give way.
    In contrast to the Liberal Democrats, our troops are helping not only to keep the peace in difficult circumstances, but with reconstruction and rehabilitation. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sit Menzies Campbell) did not even mention or recognise that, let alone give them credit for it; nor did he come up with any constructive and practical suggestion for the way forward. Indeed, he spoke like the lawyer he is, to put a straitjacket on our troops. If it is necessary to reinforce our forces for effectiveness, for their safety or to extend their tasks, the Government should do so.
    At least the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not call for immediate withdrawal. I suppose that we should be thankful for that small thing, although some—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who, given his time in office, ought to know a great deal better—call for that immediate withdrawal. That is the height of irresponsibility. It would result in a bloody, all-out civil war, in which thousands of people would die, and the danger of a return to dictatorship.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: It is rare for me to defend my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), but my understanding of what he said is that he hoped that after elections there would be a withdrawal, not an immediate withdrawal after 30 June.
    Mr. Foulkes: I bow to my hon. Friend's correction. Perhaps I shall have to correct my remarks in relation to

    705
    my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston. I shall check the record. There are some who are calling for an immediate withdrawal, which would certainly result in bloody civil war, as I said. That, incidentally, is not just my view. It is also the view of leaders of socialist parties whom I met at the Socialist International executive in Budapest on Friday, and not all of them supported the intervention by Britain, the United States and the other countries that supported us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) said in an intervention, we must stay the course. That was a telling phrase. Following the assassination of the leader of the governing council, it is even more vital that we reaffirm our intention to do so.
    I conclude where I started. One of the world's worst dictators has gone. Some people have said—as did the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples)—that there are many other dictators. At least there is now one less. Because we cannot get rid of them all does not mean that we should not get rid of one of them. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
    Now, Iraq is moving, albeit hampered by terrorists and by the faint-hearted, towards democracy and prosperity. That is something of which the House and our Government should be proud. I support the Government in their determination to see it through.
    5.6 pm
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: The previous speech was most enjoyable, in the usual Dr. Pangloss style of the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). We heard, as usual, that all is for the best in the best of all possible situations.
    It is important for the House to examine the reasons we were given a year ago for going to war with Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction, we were told, were ready within 45 minutes to destroy us. Dossiers were published to support that view. In my family, where there are three scientists—albeit two medics and a geologist—those dossiers were looked at carefully and thought to be extremely faulty and very bad science indeed. I wonder whether there are any scientists at all in the Cabinet if they could accept the sort of rubbish that was peddled at the time.
    Nevertheless, many in the House accepted those dossiers and the reason given. We know that there were no weapons of mass destruction. If there were, where are they now? We do not hear the Government speculate very much on where they might have gone. The whole situation in Iraq has been such a shambles over the past 12 months; if the Government were so sure that there were weapons of mass destruction, it is extremely worrying that we have no hint of where those weapons might be now.
    We were also told, as Dr. Pangloss reminded us, that human rights were being abused and that Saddam Hussein was a monster. I entirely agree. That means it is even more important that our campaign should have been conducted in the most impeccable way, and that there should have been faultless behaviour by the Americans and ourselves in Iraq. The reverse has been true.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Can the hon. Lady imagine what would have occurred
    706
    if photographs of abuse in prisons, which was far worse under Saddam Hussein, had come out? If such photographs had been available during Saddam Hussein's regime, they would have been used as part of the humanitarian justification for the invasion of Iraq.
    Dr. Tonge: The hon. Gentleman makes a point, but I am getting a little tired of hon. Members saying that the human rights abuses allegedly being committed by the Americans, even if not by our troops, are somehow better or not so bad as those committed by Saddam Hussein. Abuses of human rights cannot be graded. The abuse of human rights is an absolute. We no longer have any moral authority. I was reminded of that last week while we were tackling the Sudanese Foreign Minister on the abuse of human rights in Darfur when I noticed faint smiles on the faces of the Sudanese delegates. It is difficult to claim the moral high ground when such things have been going on in Iraq.
    We were also told that somehow Iraq had a connection with world terror and Osama bin Laden, but since the invasion of Iraq world terrorism has increased. The supporters of Osama bin Laden, who had no previous connection with that country, are now in there. We in Britain are more at threat than we were a year ago when we went to war.
    Mr. Dalyell: Osama bin Laden did have a contact with Iraq, and the contact was that on two separate occasions he made serious attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein. That was the relationship.
    Dr. Tonge: I rather suspected that the hon. Gentleman would make that very intervention. He has said that many times.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady will perhaps appreciate the intent of my intervention when I say that the question of the moral authority of our troops under the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State for Defence is entirely different from that of Saddam Hussein and his regime, in that here we investigate the allegations and act on them when they are proved. I challenge the hon. Lady to say that Saddam Hussein would have done the same.
    Angus Robertson: Why did the abuses happen in the first place?
    Dr. Tonge: As the hon. Gentleman says, why did they happen in the first place? Who gave the authority for American soldiers to abuse soldiers in this way? Was it just because the same thing was happening in Guantanamo bay? Why were the British Government so weak and feeble in trying to get our citizens out of Gantanamo bay? It rather suggests that they are colluding in American treatment of prisoners of war.
    Liberal Democrats have been accused of being opportunist, but on the doorstep people say that they have been told lies about weapons of mass destruction by the Government, that at the very least Britain has colluded with human rights abuses in Iraq, and that we have endangered the safety of British citizens by increasing terrorism. The Government should be ashamed of their record in the past year, and if they have no shame, I am ashamed on their behalf—truly ashamed.

    707
    The Prime Minister could save his soul. We have heard very little about the middle east peace process, which is mentioned in the motion. The Prime Minister could save his soul and his Government by breaking with George Bush and Ariel Sharon and by using every means to put pressure on Israel to withdraw from the territories of Palestine that it has occupied since 1967. That is a key issue that has not been addressed this afternoon.
    If the Minister were to tell us that the offered withdrawal from Gaza is a step in the right direction, I would merely laugh in his face given what has been going on during the last week with the bulldozing of houses, sometimes with people in them—a scorched-earth policy—and the killing of leaders in that area before withdrawal is even considered.
    When the Minister replies, cannot he acknowledge the visit of the delegation from the Palestinian assembly, which is in Britain this week, and accept once and for all that the road to peace in Iraq and the wider middle east, as well as the road to solving the threat of terrorism in this world, still lies through Jerusalem?
    5.14 pm
    David Winnick: The sadistic abuses in Iraq revealed in the past week or so have undoubtedly set back hearts and minds in that country and throughout the region. We must thoroughly investigate how such acts could take place in the very prison where Saddam had his torturers and murderers. I find it difficult to believe that those who carried out the abuses and worse did so without the knowledge of senior officials and that they acted on their own initiative.
    In order to ensure that people in the middle east, especially in Iraq, understand how seriously the issue is taken in the United States, the best course of action would be for the Secretary of State for Defence and his deputy to resign. That would show that when America says that it is sorry, it really means that it is sorry, and that the person in charge takes responsibility.
    Chris Bryant: If my hon. Friend means that Donald Rumsfeld should resign, I agree with him, but he did not make that clear and seemed to suggest that the British Secretary of State for Defence should resign. Does he distinguish between systematic abuse by American soldiers, which is abhorrent to those Labour Members who, like me, have been members of Amnesty International for many years, and the incidents involving British soldiers, which may have been one-offs?
    David Winnick: No comparison is possible between what the Americans did and the allegations against British soldiers, which should be investigated. I hope that I made it clear that the United States Defence Secretary and his deputy should go, and go quickly.
    I do not regret supporting the destruction of Saddam's regime. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-
    708
    Avon (Mr. Maples) described that regime as "unpleasant"; it was not only unpleasant but outright murderous, and should have been dealt with much earlier. I was in the House when the controversy occurred over whether military action should be taken to liberate Kuwait. Some of my hon. Friends opposed that action, and I am not sure what the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) would have done had she been in the House. In 1991, I hoped that Iraq would be liberated, but I accepted that that was not possible because the coalition would have fallen apart. Had such action been possible, it would have been justified.
    Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, took the lead in urging action to stop the Serbian crimes in Bosnia and Kosovo. He was right, but some Labour Members—perhaps me, for that matter—were a little slow, and the Prime Minister has gone out of his way to praise the way in which the former Liberal Democrat leader understood the need to deal with the crimes that were being committed. Action was taken rather late in the day, but if Milosevic and his cronies were guilty, how much worse were the crimes of Saddam? If one supported what was done in Kosovo—some hon. Members did not—how can one object to action to destroy the regime in Iraq, which was far worse, far more criminal and far more murderous?
    Mr. Keetch: Twelve months ago, Liberal Democrat Members did not rule out military action against Iraq in all circumstances. We said that it was not the right time and that the inspections conducted by Hans Blix should be allowed more time—what is more, Hans Blix also believes that he should have been given more time.
    David Winnick: The Saddam regime had from 1991 onwards to comply. If Security Council members, including this country, had acted more effectively, we would not have got into the position that we reached. I made it clear at the time that, apart from weapons of mass destruction—Hans Blix was by no means satisfied that there were none, and the hon. Gentleman agrees with that—on the ground of human rights alone, I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) that we were right in the action that we took.
    I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Richmond Park said about Palestine. I recently had a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall. The actions of the Israelis over the past few days were deplorable. We have seen on television Palestinians forced out of their homes, those homes bulldozed and the people forced to live in tents. The more the United Kingdom speaks out against Sharon's actions, the better things will be. I am pleased that more than 100,000 people in Israel demonstrated their distaste and dislike of and opposition to Sharon's policies. I support a sovereign Palestinian state, which should come about as quickly as possible. I made my views clear, as the hon. Lady knows because she listened to me, only a few days ago in Westminster Hall.
    Mistakes were made after the liberation of Iraq and far more should have been done to provide basic facilities. I believe that there was a slowness and that we did not explain our intentions to the people to Iraq. That

    709
    did not help. I agree that the United Nations should be given a far more active political role in preparing the future of that country. The deadline of 30 June must remain but it should be only the first step towards an Iraqi Government, who need far more legitimacy than the current governing council.
    I supported the action last year and, as I have said, I make no apology for the way in which I voted in March 2003. However, I believe that there is a danger that the longer the occupation lasts the more suspicion will grow in Iraq and the region that the United States in particular wishes to stay for a long time. There is a danger that the occupation will be perceived as indefinite and that every excuse will be found to continue a military occupation. People in Iraq who are not terrorists or insurgents and said that it was right to take action to destroy Saddam's regime as well as those in the wider middle east will conclude that it was not simply a question of ousting Saddam. All sorts of conspiratorial theories will be presented that the action was a means of turning Iraq into a satellite of the United States or the coalition. There is great political danger in an indefinite occupation of Iraq.
    Once the 30 June deadline is reached and the governing council is given more legitimacy, I hope that every step will be taken to ensure that the Iraqi Government's political role is given far greater emphasis than is currently intended. In so far as it is possible, I hope that more countries, especially Muslim countries, will be included in the transitional period. We all want the same outcome: a sovereign Iraq, a country that is not occupied and an elected, democratic Government with legitimacy. Those are the objectives for which my colleagues and I voted last year. That is why I emphasise that we must be very careful, not only because of the current terrorism, to ensure that the occupation has a limit and that the people of Iraq can rule themselves without outside occupation or interference.
    5.24 pm
    John Barrett: As this nightmare unfolds on our televisions and we watch women, men, children, civilians and contractors dying daily, it is worth remembering again why the House sent in the troops. At least we had a vote on the issue, as the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said, but the picture that was painted at the time was that weapons of mass destruction existed and presented a threat. Do the Government—does anyone—still believe that that is true? What happened to the 1,400 people who constituted the Iraq survey group? If they had found anything of note, the Government would be trumpeting their report. Why the silence? The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) mentioned one round—is that it?
    When those who opposed the war questioned the Prime Minister, the reply was often, "At least we have captured Saddam Hussein", as though that alone justified military action. The Government cannot have it both ways. We are in a coalition, and I must remind the Government that it was US soldiers who captured Saddam. If the US forces' success on that occasion is something that we want to share, we must also accept that they, as part of the coalition force, have been accused of shameful actions, and that some of them
    710
    have perpetrated almost indescribable acts involving prisoners in Iraq. We cannot say that that has nothing to do with us, because it has been done in the name of the coalition.
    We were given four reasons for going to war: the threat of weapons of mass destruction and the non-compliance with UN resolutions; the fight against terror; the humanitarian crisis; and Saddam's reign of terror. People say, "At least Saddam's reign of terror is over", but if that vote on weapons of mass destruction were to be repeated today, now that we know that the 45-minute threat related only to battlefield weapons and that the two trucks that were supposedly mobile laboratories were in fact sold to Iraq by us for meteorological purposes, there is no way that we would go to war based on the dodgy dossiers, the dodgy evidence, the Prime Minister's word or anything similar, because trust in the Government has gone.
    The argument moved on to the fight against terror as a reason for going to war, but the terrorists have been fuelled by recent events. Those who wanted to portray the west as inhuman now have all the recruiting material they need. They have material—including photos and videos—to last them a long time. Donald Rumsfeld sends a shiver down my spine; what must he do to those in Iraq?
    Hon. Members mentioned the reconstruction plan and said that the humanitarian grounds were reason enough for going to war in Iraq, but Iraq is not yet the relatively wealthy country that it should be. Before any trouble, it had a standard of living similar to that of Spain or Portugal, but it has not yet returned to that position. The end of Saddam's reign of terror has been cited as the only success, but the toppling of a dictator would never have won international support as a reason for going to war. If that was the reason that we went to war, we should be at war constantly.
    What next? There must be either an exit strategy or more troops. The present situation is a nightmare. If the troops were pulled out tomorrow, the country could implode. Any terrorists not in Iraq would make their way there, and Osama bin Laden would probably be among the first. Civil war could break out. The Kurds might see an opportunity to establish their own homeland. Those who are suffering most would continue to suffer. Would sending more troops alleviate that?
    The only way forward is to involve other countries through the UN. If that does not happen, we and the USA will have to send more troops just to protect those who are already there. I have already mentioned the consequences of pulling the troops out. We are left between a rock and a hard place. We must get other Muslim and Arab nations brought in on their terms, so that they can play a part in the drive for peace. We and the American Government are part of the problem as well as part of the solution. We cannot move the troops out today because that would make things worse, but if they stay indefinitely it will inflame an already dire situation.
    How many more people must die on each side before this comes to an end? We need to hear what the Government plan to do next. We heard earlier from the Secretary of State that we cannot estimate the number of casualties, but on this day, the anniversary of the

    711
    battle of Monte Cassino, at which it is estimated that 200,000 people died, surely we can estimate the number of civilian deaths in Iraq.
    5.29 pm
    Mr. Harry Barnes: I think that we should get away from two simplistic approaches to developments in Iraq and what needs to be done. One comes from those who supported the invasion, but who excuse or explain most of what has occurred since as not a great problem, or claim that it is outweighed by the severity of the Saddam Hussein regime, and say therefore that what has taken place is basically okay. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) expressed such a view. We need to get away from and beyond that.
    At the other extreme, there are those who opposed the war, who might be in danger of damning almost everything that has happened since, or of using what Wittgenstein called a one-sided diet of examples all the time about what is wrong in terms of humanitarian and other considerations, and who might say, "I told you so." It is as though things have not developed or moved. In both those camps, there needs to be shift and movement.
    I was pleased to hear the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), because no one has been more strident than he has in defending the right to invade Iraq. He strongly emphasised his deep concerns over what has been revealed about humanitarian problems—not just those—on the American side of the coalition, which need to be investigated fully and properly and acted on and which arise from Amnesty and Red Cross reports. He also stressed that there had been problems, that things had not gone right all along and that we were not always clear in connection with those. I think that there are those on both sides who recognise that we are in a different situation once the attack has taken place, and it is very important that we respond to changing developments.
    I opposed the war, but I am keen to see the reconstruction of Iraq and its development into a free society with civic institutions and free provision. In that I associate myself—I can do a little bit in certain areas—with the new Iraqi Federation of Workers Trade Unions, which is a free trade union movement that works in difficult circumstances. It is challenging many trade unions in the Arab world, many of which are state controlled and, to some extent, replicas of what existed under the Ba'athist regime. The federation is not all that acceptable within Arab territories, and there is a still a remnant of Ba'athist trade unionism, which existed in Iraq and needs to be confronted.
    The federation does not do too well in dealing with the Americans, because the Americans are interested in the redevelopment of Iraq in terms of their own vision, so their capital interests in that connection are to the fore. Trade unions are therefore a difficulty if they are going to be free, because they represent the workers who want to get into such things.
    The federation challenges various people, but it has great difficulties because of mass unemployment and other problems. Just as things were developing nicely,
    712
    with the International Labour Organisation involved in "the United Nations office in Baghdad; the bombing took place last August and all that was lost. All the federation's connections became difficult. Those who are working in that area should say to the Government and those who supported the invasion that some of us who opposed it and would defend that position nevertheless might have something to offer and to say about these changes
    I am the most unlikely person in the world to vilify the armed forces in southern Iraq. I did my national service in Basra back in 1955–56. It was a peaceful period, but I understand what life is like there and the problems, even if there has been a great transformation since. At least I understand the heat of the midday sun that the forces will face. I hope that the Government recognise that some of us are not just taking what seem to be predictable positions.
    Chris Bryant: My hon. Friend is making some telling points. Does he believe that there is not as big a difference between the two sides on this matter as many people would assume? Most people want British troops to leave Iraq as soon as possible. The division between us is on how soon that can happen.
    Mr. Barnes: There are differences in the way in which the argument is put forward in different camps. One problem is point-scoring, one side against the other, which means that extreme positions are taken. The fact that some of us opposed what was taking place from a certain analysis and a certain background also means that we shall not just surrender to the position of those who supported the invasion. We want people to realise how tough the circumstances are and that there are some things that we are unlikely readily and easily to get. United Nations' involvement would be tremendous, but without it there might still be things that we could argue for and encourage the Government to do, as long as people realise that we are also in the game.
    The point is often made that Britain is not to blame and that the problem rests with the Americans. What has been revealed about abuse falls very much within the American camp, but that does not absolve us. The Americans are our allies. We joined them. What are we working towards with them? If they were on the edge—they seemed to be at one time, although they seem now to pulling back—of further invasions of Syria, Iran and Korea, the clear lesson is that they are not fit people for us to be associated with, at least under the current regime, when it comes to entering any other military adventure anywhere in the world.
    The special relationship between the UK and America should give us an opportunity to speak about what has happened so far as Rumsfeld and others are concerned. If The New Yorker is correct to say that Rumsfeld ordered a loosening of the rules under which military personnel could squeeze information out of detainees, we should react to that. If, as The New York Times says, rough treatment is par for the course in American prisons and part of the culture there, that too should influence us seriously. We should direct our minds to engaging in such serious matters without continually listening to point-scoring in the Chamber from one side against another. We should try to work together while still recognising the limits to that and the fact that we may speak from different positions.
    5.38 pm
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: The road to peace was mentioned several times earlier in the debate. The road to peace in Iraq seems to be a journey through a vale of tears that will go on for some time. It is one of those journeys where we know where it began but do not know where it will finish. When we embarked on the war, which I still consider to have been illegal and immoral, the then Chief of the Defence Staff expressed his misgivings about embarking on such an operation without a clear exit strategy.
    That remains the case to this day.
    Before those with a different view on the war criticise me, I put on the record that, like everybody else, I have nothing but admiration for the forces on the ground and the exemplary way in which they have performed their task. They did not ask to go to Iraq: they have been placed there, and they will do their job in their usual professional way. Our dilemma concerns our destination and what it will mean for the soldiers on the ground, as well as the wider issues.
    I despair whenever I hear the Government present their case. We heard it again in this debate and in Defence questions. Every time a Government spokesman refers to Iraq, we hear the same circumlocutions, euphemisms, diversions and inaccuracies that present a wholly misleading case. One of my favourite, pithy aphorisms is from Noam Chomsky, who said that whoever captures the language captures the argument. It is important to look at the language that is used. For example, we have heard much about sovereignty, but what does that actually mean? If we hand over sovereignty on 30 June, can we do so in any real sense if the new authority will not have any control over its own security forces? Indeed, the official Opposition would be up in arms if it were suggested that the United Kingdom did not have true sovereignty over its own defence and foreign policies because it was part of Europe. We can at least be certain that whatever takes over in Iraq on 30 June will not be sovereign in any way that we would recognise.
    Another word that is bandied about is "contractors", which has become an all-embracing term for the privatisation of war. For example, let us take the terrible murder of Nick Berg. He was a television aerial and dish erector and had gone to Iraq to make a few quid. He could legitimately be described as a contractor, but many of the other contractors are nothing more than mercenaries. They are former special service operatives performing highly specialised, highly paid and highly dangerous jobs. They accept the money for the job, and they are not in the same bracket as those who are trying to restore the civilian infrastructure.
    Let us not forget that we went into this shambles in Iraq because of an unholy alliance between the Government and Conservative Front Benchers. Today, we heard an exchange in which the shadow Foreign Secretary gave the Secretary of State for Defence the latest news on weapons of mass destruction and shells with sarin gas. By definition, a shell is a battlefield weapon, but they have again altered the meaning of WMD so that it covers just about anything. We should not forget that the reasons for war given in this House
    714
    revolved around the pivotal issue that there were weapons of mass destruction, but we have still failed to identify or provide any as evidence.
    Mr. Keetch: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the alleged WMD containing sarin nerve gas was—according to General Kimmitt—found several days ago? It was a very small shell, it was ineffective and whoever rigged the round to explode appears not to have known that it contained a nerve agent. That is hardly the kind of weapon that we were warned about in the run-up to war.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: No, it is not, but many of us argued not only about the definition of weapons of mass destruction, but the likelihood that any would be found anywhere in Iraq, given that we had been bombing them for so many years and had taken out any worthwhile defence and military facility. That is not to say, "I told you so"—it is a matter of record.
    Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend reflect on what the Foreign Secretary said about the fact that Saddam had a choice? He could either give up his weapons of mass destruction or be deposed. The logical conclusion is that if he had given up his weapons of mass destruction we would not have deposed him and he would still be there under the sufferance of the British Government. In those circumstances, how can it possibly be argued that WMD were our principal reason for going to war?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Like the Foreign Secretary, he is a lawyer, and he is used to the contortions of that sort of legalistic argument, which does not hold any logic for reasonable people. More importantly, as is evidenced by poll after poll, it does not convince the people of this country, who are less confused than the Government appear to be.
    The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) commented on the number of Iraqi dead. When I tabled questions about that to the Ministry of Defence, I received a rather brusque answer. We all get used to being told, in effect, to mind our own business. I was given the same dismissive response when I asked about liaisons with non-governmental organisations that attempt to gauge civilian casualties in such conflicts. I was left with the clear impression that the issue is an irrelevancy. I do not consider the death of anybody, civilian or soldier, an irrelevancy to be marked by that sort of answer.
    As it stands, the perception of our own efforts in Iraq is inextricably linked with the impressions of the American military. I do not think for one moment that our soldiers are guilty of the systematic and systemic abuse that seems to be the case with American troops, but that is not how it will seem to people on the ground. We should dispense once and for all with the myth that people who point to such abuses are endangering our troops. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said, the logic of that is that we should all keep quiet. People who knew about the holocaust kept quiet, and it went on regardless. When abuse takes place, it is one's duty as a citizen, an individual and an elected representative to speak out about it—it cannot be hidden.

    715
    Where do we go from here, given that we are in this mess and have to deal with this shambles? I am not one of those who believe, as was suggested earlier, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) had called for an immediate withdrawal—he did not. His argument was clear and unequivocal, and I tend to agree with it. There should be a clear timetable for withdrawal. As the Government are so keen on targets, I do not see why we could not set a target for our withdrawal by saying that it would take place after the election of a Government in January.
    Alongside that, we should take a firm view on engaging further troops in the field. As The Independent remarked today, putting troops in because commanders on the ground deem it necessary in order to conduct necessary operations within their current remit or to effect their withdrawal is different from an American commander asking for more troops to make up for shortfalls elsewhere. If the Americans want more troops, let them put them in. I hope to heaven that that is not needed, but we should not widen the remit of our soldiers' existing commitments in Iraq.
    If we are to get any sense of where we need to go in this horrible situation in which we find ourselves, the most important prerequisite is for the Government to come out of denial and recognise that what they did was wrong. They might have done it for the best of reasons—their case involves a lot of post facto rationalisation which does not convince many in this House, and is not convincing the British people—but there is nothing—wrong with saying, "We may have gone down a certain road with the best of intentions, but let's recognise that we got it wrong and need to go in a different direction." As long as they maintain the myths about weapons of mass destruction—as do Conservative Front Benchers—and keep trying to justify the unjustifiable, they will only find themselves deeper and deeper in the morass.
    5.49 pm
    Ms Dari Taylor: My contribution will refer to the opinions of young soldiers who have just returned from Basra and to my beliefs about insurgents, militias and radical clerics, whether from outside or inside Iraq.
    Last week, some of my daughter's former school friends returned from Basra on leave. I was privy to their conversations but did not take part as I was keen to listen to what the young people were saying. They were pleased to be home and said that although life in Basra was difficult, things had got significantly better during their tour of duty. They described the difficulties, but equally they talked about the other side of things—they said that they were winning hearts and minds and felt more and more involved with the ordinary, everyday life of the Basra community. They were known and welcomed by local people.
    I found the conversation interesting because I rarely hear such comments either in the press or in the House. One of those young people was 21 and the other was 23; they showed no fear about returning to Iraq and said that they would be pleased to go back after their six-week leave. They made it clear that the children and
    716
    young people would be waiting for them to take part in tournaments, football matches and all sorts of everyday community activities.
    The British armed forces are exceptional in their involvement in the development of stable communities, with the Iraqis determining how that activity will be undertaken. Although I have not been to Iraq I have visited Bosnia, where ordinary folk told us again and again, "Please keep your armed forces here, they have given many of us the belief that our grandchildren will be able to grow up in our country."
    In their conversation with my daughter, those young people were making it clear that they are developing peaceful relationships with ordinary people that will endure. They would appreciate it if that were recognised. Of course, they are not involved with the prison service; they are based in Basra and Umm Qasr, working with ordinary people. I was pleased to hear them say that they were looking forward to their return to Iraq.
    It is not just young people who are making such statements. I have a close colleague in the Territorial Army, who is somewhat older than those young people. He, too, has served in Iraq, in a medical team, and he told me that on the whole the coalition forces and their activities were warmly welcomed. Although, obviously, there were inordinate difficulties, Britain was seen as a fair nation; when things went wrong they were investigated and appropriate action was taken. People did not talk about the creation of a sovereign state, but it was clear to him that Britain's involvement was helping them to believe that one day the rule of law would be established and their lives would be secure.
    I have always been involved with the British armed forces and their deployment, so it saddens me to hear so much criticism yet so few references to the value that we give in so many countries in so many parts of the world. Of course, I do not underestimate the grave consequences of acts perpetrated by a few who, whether in communities or in prisons, carry out indecent and disgraceful acts. That is not just a dereliction of duty; those people bring disgrace to the armed forces and to our country. However, those disgusting and unauthorised acts are perpetrated by only a few and it is my belief that, ultimately, they will not undermine the ability of our coalition troops to create—as they did in the Balkans—an open, law-abiding society.
    I also want to refer to the acts of the insurgents, some of whom have connections with al-Qaeda, radical Shi'a clerics or Islamist extremists. They are determined to scupper the introduction of the rule of law or an open democracy, because they know that, in such a society, they would have to pitch in and fight for the support of ordinary folk, and they would not get that support. Al-Sadr and his Jaish-al-Mahdi militia are a fierce fighting force, as everyone with military connections is aware.
    Norman Lamb: The hon. Lady refers to the rule of law, but is not the coalition's case for the importance of the rule of law undermined when the United States fails to respect the Geneva conventions in Guantanamo bay and when we hear reports that the

    717
    abuse of prisoners may not have been isolated acts but part of a wider culture with links high in the US Administration?
    Ms TaylorI agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am not prepared to say that such behaviour is part of the way of life or conduct of the British armed forces. I am dismayed by those serious allegations against the Americans.
    Our forces know that al-Sadr and his militia are laying in wait for them and will ambush them. People outside understand that, but we need to say it in this place, too. Such militias will bomb our forces indiscriminately with rocket-propelled grenades. They whip up emotion and manipulate the poor to fight with them and die for "Moqtada". Our very young British forces have to fight against such people and win hearts and minds in their communities. We cannot hold discussions and negotiate with those insurgents; they will not even talk to moderate Shi'a clerics. They want only to deliver their own agenda—for them that is the only agenda.
    Our armed forces are young, but they are extremely professional and competent and I hope that everyone in the House will make that statement again and again. I hope that on 30 June we shall see the establishment of an Iraqi governing force. I hope that reconstruction will take place with United Nations involvement. However, it is important to remind the House that we deployed a NATO force in the Balkans because the UN was unable to deliver peace in that region. When we talk about the value of the United Nations we should also acknowledge that there is no easy way to deliver peace in such countries; only a serious, careful and constructive force can deliver.
    I believe that we were right to deploy and I hope that in years to come—perhaps in only a year—we shall see—significant benefits. Our troops can see them now; let us acknowledge that fact.
    5.59 pm
    Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that our debates on Iraq put a terribly optimistic gloss on the situation in that country—an interpretation that is quite different from what we hear at public meetings and in discussions with groups of citizens all over our country. People are extremely worried about the situation in Iraq; they understand that things are deteriorating and becoming more violent and that insurgency is spreading to the south and will endanger our troops. Yet, in this place, the discussion is complacent, as though we are talking about a few local difficulties and if we carry on as we are everything will be all right.
    That is deeply worrying, because the situation is getting worse, and it is not all right. We need a responsible exit strategy in the interests of our troops and the people of Iraq.
    I must say that the way in which the Secretary of State for Defence dealt with the question about the failure to make any calculations concerning the number of Iraqi civilian deaths was disgraceful. As everybody who takes a responsible view of these matters knows, Iraq Body Count is trying to make such an estimate and is looking
    718
    at more than one published source to try to reach an accurate figure. Its estimate—it recognises that it cannot be totally accurate—is that as many as 11,000 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives, and the numbers go on rising. On top of that, 6,000 to 8,000 Iraqi soldiers died in the war, and many of them were young conscripts. More than 700 United States troops and civilian workers who worked in their support have died, as have 67 UK troops, including some civilians who were working in their support.
    Dr. John Pugh: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the Secretary of State mischievously confused two things—making an assessment of Iraqi casualties, and making an assessment of Iraqi casualties in circumstances in which British officers would be put at risk? They are two quite different things, and not doing one is not a case for not doing the other.
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. To say that we can only go in to count the casualties after we have escaped from danger is to make a joke out of a very serious matter. The truth is that, when our political leaders speak, they too often express more distress when the person killed is from our armed forces, or an ally, appearing to belittle the loss of life among Iraqi civilians. That is quite wrong and very dangerous. The failure to count the number of civilian deaths is part of that. Obviously, it is possible to see how many people went to hospital, how many people lost their lives and how many people were buried. It is possible to make estimates which, while they would not be entirely accurate, would suggest that we were taking the situation seriously.
    There is another aspect of the debate in the Chamber, but not in the country, that I find enormously worrying. In the country, there is an intense political mood and more interest in debating politics than I have seen for a very long time, but there is derision about Westminster. People are buying political books, having political discussions and attending meetings while despising what goes on in this Chamber. We in this Chamber should look at ourselves and listen more carefully to what people out in the country are saying.
    Hon. Members repeatedly say that we must not turn away from the Iraqi people and go when the job is half done. But what are the Iraqi people telling us? They are making their views clear in poll after poll conducted by responsible American organisations. I should have thought that any poll taken in Iraq would have an urban bias and would not reflect the views of the poor who are not on the phone. The polls show that, while the overwhelming majority of people are glad that Saddam Hussein has gone, they think that the situation in their daily lives is worse than it was when he was there. We should be shamed by that and take it seriously, because that is what the Iraqi people are telling us. They are also now saying—it is a change in their position—that they want the coalition to leave immediately. That is what they say in response to polling undertaken by responsible American organisations. It is a little odd for Members of this place to say that we must behave responsibly towards the Iraqi people and stay when the people of Iraq say that they would like us to go. I do not mean that we should just walk away and leave chaos

    719
    behind, but we should look for a rapid exit strategy. That is what the Iraqi people want us to do, and it is what we should do.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes): those of us who had strong views about the rush to war should not say that we have been vindicated by the mess that there is now in Iraq. We have to go forward from the situation we are in. In response to the cheap remarks from the shadow Foreign Secretary, let me say that although, as everyone knows, I was very critical of the rush to war, like the Liberal Democrats' spokesman on defence I was not against the threat of the use of force. I thought that it was necessary to threaten the use of force and to be willing to contemplate using it to back up the authority of the United Nations. However, under the doctrine of just war—both the legal teaching and the Christian teaching, which is very like Islamic teaching—we should have exhausted all other means. We did not exhaust all other means, so I was prepared to leave the Government. I said that I would leave the Government, but I was persuaded by the Prime Minister—he pleaded with me—to stay, in order to help with the reconstruction. We reached an agreement on the basis of three things.
    The first of those things was publication of the road map, and the Prime Minister used the threat of resignations to get the road map published. We now know that the process was not sincere, but the position looked more hopeful at the time. I was also promised a UN mandate for reconstruction and that we would internationalise reconstruction. I left the Government when those promises were broken. I make the point now not so that I can talk about my position, but to make the House face the reasons for our difficulties with the UN's authority in Iraq.
    The difficulties did not arise because the UN failed. When hon. Members talk of the UN failing because members of the Security Council cannot reach agreement, they distort reality. The UN Security Council is an instrument of its members and it cannot make decisions if its members will not come together and agree internationally on how to move forward.
    The UN was ready and had made preparations to take the lead in helping the Iraqi people create an interim Government, as it had helped in Afghanistan, Mozambique, East Timor and Kosovo. That is the international system for post-conflict situations. However, the United States was not willing to give the UN the authority that it normally has—as, for example, in Afghanistan—in selecting the Iraqi interim Government. The UN was put in a subservient position, and the Security Council did not want another row because the UN's authority was already being diminished. The Security Council allowed the US to have another resolution, but it was told that it would not have international support on that basis.
    The lesson is that there must be a sincere commitment to giving the UN the proper authority. Then we should say that we will leave as soon as possible, and whenever a legitimate Iraqi Government ask that of us. Under the auspices of the UN, we should be replaced in Iraq by international forces who will come in under a proper
    720
    mandate. The Pakistanis have made it clear that they would accept that, and the Spanish withdrew because there was not a proper UN mandate.
    We need a responsible exit strategy for the sake of the people of Iraq and for the sake of our soldiers. Instead of that strategy, what we have is vague talk about a "vital role" for the UN. Those words were given to us after President Bush visited Hillsborough, but meant nothing because we had a UN resolution for post-conflict Iraq that put the UN in a subservient position. Poor old Sergio Vieira de Mello went in against his better instincts to take on the role and lost his life.
    We must mean it when we say that we will give the coalition's authority away, and we must make it clear that we want to leave. The Iraqis do not believe that that is our wish. They have read the work of the Project for the New American Century and seen that, before they took office, senior figures in the Bush Administration wanted permanent bases in Iraq. The situation is serious and deteriorating and our Government are not putting forward a responsible exit strategy. If we fail to get out and the quagmire gets ever worse, we will rue the day.
    6.8 pm
    Richard Younger-Ross: I have three reflections to make on the debate.
    It is helpful to consider how this all started. In the second or third debate after 11 September, I remember getting very angry because Conservative Members were then suggesting that we should perhaps attack other countries rather than just going into Afghanistan. I said at the time that an invasion of Iraq would be wrong. However, support for broadening the scope of the attacks came from more than just the odd Conservative Back Bencher. Conservatives launched a broad attack on the Government, saying that they were not doing a proper job because they were not backing America—not fully behind Uncle Sam. They argued that we should support Uncle Sam whatever he wanted to do. If the Government made the mistake of thinking that they would easily persuade the House of the case for a war in Iraq, they did so because they were not just helped but pushed into taking that stance by the official Opposition.
    The Secretary of State for Defence spoke at length about contractors and gave a long list of all the good works—much good work has certainly taken place—and projects that have been completed.
    I noticed one significant omission—the electricity supply—which surprised me. The oil supply was not mentioned, either. I was part of the armed forces parliamentary group that visited Basra a year ago. We saw at first hand how important it was to get the electricity supply up and running. It is not simply a case of providing electricity so that people can turn on lights and watch television. Electricity is not an optional extra for Iraqis; it is an essential. The water is not necessarily safe to drink and has to be boiled, which is generally done on an electric ring. Without electricity, the Iraqis have to scavenge timber, which we saw when we were there, so that they can make a fire to boil the water so that it is safe. They were so desperate to find wood that they went to the munitions stores and emptied mortar shells out of wooden boxes and on to the ground so that they could have the wood to boil their water.

    721
    I hope that, in his response, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will remedy that omission and give us a full detailed briefing on the electricity supply. In particular, perhaps he can tell us what repairs have been undertaken, and to which power stations. The one thing that puzzled me when we were there was that no work was being done on the power stations, which were designed and constructed by the Russians. Surely we could have said to the Russians, "Why don't you come and help repair the power stations? You've got the parts. It's all your technology. You can get them up and running fast."
    When we left the country, the contracts had not been let. Indeed, I do not think they were let until the end of last year. It will be interesting to know how many of the power stations are up and running. To complicate matters, the Russian design is complex. It is based on interlinked power stations and it only takes one of them to be down to have a knock-on effect on the others. So getting just one up and running is not enough. They all have to be got working to an extent to guarantee the electricity supply.
    Why was there a delay in granting those contracts? Perhaps one of our problems is that we have lost the peace and have spent a long time trying to put in the resources necessary to build the infrastructure. There is a lack of planning. Last September, we asked Ministers from the Department for International Development about the number of police who were in Iraq to help. At that time, I think we had managed to send two police officers out to help build up the police force. Even though that is now being done, the fact is that valuable time was wasted—yet we wonder why we are struggling with the peace today.
    We have heard much about the abuse of prisoners. What is remarkable about the Secretary of State's remarks earlier today; about the response by the Minister of State to questions asked by myself and others last Thursday; about the Prime Minister's response to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on Wednesday; and about the debate at the beginning of last week is that whenever the abuse of prisoners is raised, Ministers' reply is, "We knew all about it. It's okay. We didn't need to see the report. It was all being dealt with." The questions are not simply about what is happening in the British-controlled area, but about what the Government knew about the abuses carried out by the Americans. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can categorically tell us when the Government were advised of abuses by American forces in their detention centres. When the Government became aware of those abuses, what did they do? The Minister of State said:
    "We are each concerned about what the other does in those circumstances".—[Official Report, 13 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 51.]
    We heard the "we" word from the Secretary of State: "We are doing this, we are doing that, jointly, as the coalition."
    Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a coalition is occupying Iraq and has command? There is an administrator and a British
    722
    deputy administrator, both of whom apparently did or did not see, and did or did not read, the report by the International Committee of the Red Cross.
    Richard Younger-Ross: Yes, it is a coalition. That is why the Secretary of State used the "we" word. In the light of that, why did the Minister of State say that he would not respond to questions on what the British knew about the American abuses? If we knew about those and the Minister is concerned, as he stated in Hansard he was, how were those concerns expressed to the Americans? Was there a memo? Was there a telephone call in which someone said, "George, what's going on? There's something wrong. Can you let us know?" Perhaps the Under-Secretary will advise us on that.
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I have this opportunity to talk quietly on one subject to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs? It is about America. There are two Americas, whatever the Foreign Secretary said, and the view of one on this subject is very different from the view of the other. I spent the past 16 days not in Washington, which is a sort of cauldron, but in the middle west, in Kentucky, Missouri and Kansas, where there has been a tectonic shift—I think that that is the expression—in opinion. I do not know what information the Foreign Office is getting from its embassy in Washington, although the ambassador was one of the architects of the policy on Iraq, but there is a striking change of opinion in the middle west. It is not only the American dead who are coming back, but a massive number of those who have been wounded, either severely or not so severely, and who have possibly been saved by the skills of modern medicine, whereas in previous wars they would have died. The numbers are significant.
    There is also growing and massive discontent in the United States about those who have been sent to Iraq who are members not of the regular forces, but of the national guard. They never thought that they would see service outside Oklahoma, Nevada or wherever. Those people—untrained—are being sent into the blistering—heat and difficult, edgy conditions. Those of us who have been in the services can imagine what it must be like, and my heart goes out to the troops.
    Much has been said about how we should stay the course. I just wonder whether the Americans will stay the course. I do not normally quote from newspapers in the House, but on the plane coming back I saw the Saturday leader in The New York Times. Under the headline "America Adrift in Iraq", it states:
    "Six weeks of military and political reverses seem to have left the Bush administration doing little more in Iraq than grasping at ways to make it past November's presidential election without getting American troops caught in a civil war. The lowering of the administration's expectations might be therapeutic if it produced a realistic strategy for achieving a realistic set of goals. Unfortunately, there appears to be no such strategy, only odd lurches this way and that under the pressure of day-to-day events."
    Many others in the United States are far more critical than we in Britain have seen them to be. They have watched interrogations by Senator Kennedy and Senator Carl Levin. One gets the feeling in the United States that they are not going to last the course.

    723
    It is my candid view that we must get out as soon as possible. If I am asked by the Government Chief Whip or anyone else why I am voting for the Liberal Democrat motion, it is simply because I listened carefully to every speech in the debate.
    6.19 pm
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: It is a matter of record that I am one of only two Members who has served in Northern Ireland as a Minister for over six years. During that time, particularly when I was the Minister responsible for security, I had the opportunity to observe closely the work of the British Army, and I yield to none in my admiration for the work that they do. I saw them when they were fighting, and I saw them relating to local people who did not want them to be there.
    I say that by way of background to the two points that I want to make. I stand in this debate as someone who has become very confused. I take comfort from the fact that I am probably a pretty good representative of the people in that regard. I want to pinpoint two confusions, both of a fundamental nature, because until they are resolved it is difficult to envisage the nation gathering together around a policy.
    The first confusion is that we are now being told that we went into Iraq to get rid of a bad man. There is no debate about the fact that Saddam Hussein is a very, very, very bad man, so to the extent that that is true, there is some substance to the statement. Yet I do not ever remember a debate in the House in which we were asked, "If we are going to go to war to get rid of a bad man, who votes for Saddam Hussein, and who else might we consider having a go at?" My personal view is that, had there been such a debate, Robert Mugabe would have been pretty high on the list, but there was no such debate. So to be told now that what we are really doing in Iraq is getting rid of a bad man adds a layer of confusion to public opinion, but the Government do not appear to understand the confusion that they are creating.
    Dr. Pugh: Adding to the confusion, though, must be the right hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues. I recall the shadow Foreign Secretary saying, in effect, that if we had not taken out Saddam Hussein this year we would have had to do so another year. That did not seem to be predicated on whether he had weapons of mass destruction; it seemed to insinuate that, since he was Saddam Hussein, at some time we would invade Iraq.
    Sir Brian Mawhinney: It may well be that at some point we would have had to invade Iraq; that is not the debate. I do not have a crystal ball, and the Liberal Democrats are the last people to whom I would turn for one. I am talking about how we got where we are today, and why there is a mood of unease in my constituency and in the country more widely. None of that, and nothing that I am saying, undermines the support that my party has given to the Government on this issue. However, if the reason for going to war in Iraq is changed, without an explanation that the people can understand and identify with, the consequence is confusion.
    724
    There is another confusion. My clear understanding is that one of the fundamental reasons for our going to Iraq is the fact that we, and the world, were threatened by weapons of mass destruction. There are many people who would like to move the discussion beyond that point, but I have to tell the House that I have not yet been able to get beyond that point. There is no debate about the fact that the Government said that weapons of mass destruction were at the heart of the policy decision, which I supported. I make no apology for doing so, and in the same circumstances, were they to be repeated, I would make the same decision. I will tell the House what was one of the key factors in my thinking.
    My Prime Minister and my Foreign Secretary—I do not mean by that that I support them, but particularly in the context of war and peace they are my Prime Minister and my Foreign Secretary—two of the most senior Privy Councillors in the land, stood at the Dispatch Box and told me, a reasonably senior Privy Councillor, that we needed to go to war because of weapons of mass destruction. I am confused because I do not know how long I am supposed to give the Government before the argument based on weapons of mass destruction ceases to have any credibility whatever. I have put my case in careful terms because I am trying to give them as much of the benefit of the doubt as a senior Privy Councillor should give the Government in the context of war and peace.
    I have shared that view with the House because I think that I am pretty normal. I think that I am a good representative of the British people at this time. The argument about weapons of mass destruction was made, and it is now being brushed under the carpet. A new argument is being made, and people are saying, "Excuse me, but that was never the basis on which we went into Iraq."
    My party supported the Government. I say again that I believe it was right to do so and, in the same circumstances, I would vote again with the Government—and I believe that my party would. I am not trying to rewrite history; I am trying to get at why there is so much unrest and unhappiness in the country. Of course, it is in part because of the terrible attacks and the death and destruction, although I think that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) was absolutely right to point out that there is a lot of good news, which does not, as we both know, always mean newspaper news. Much is being done that is good and to the benefit of the local people, yet there is a problem.
    I say to the Government that sooner or later they are going to have to come clean with the British people. I say it in those terms because, unless and until they do, they will have great difficulty in putting together broad-based support for whatever will constitute the exit strategy: the role of British troops, coalition troops and others in an Iraq where the power has been transferred. These are serious matters, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Birmingham. Ladywood (Clare Short) that, just occasionally, we in the House need to understand that if we talk in one framework and the rest of the country is talking in a different framework, almost as though we were in parallel universes, we do no service to the country and to our constituents. It is for that reason that I have tried to get to the heart of what I believe is causing a lot of the confusion in our country.
    6.28 pm
    Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Those of us who opposed this conflict before March 2003 foresaw and foretold a number of things that were undoubtedly right. There were things that we did not prophesy.
    We foresaw—and we were right—that there were no weapons of mass destruction. That did not require the gift of prophecy; there was no evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction. We foresaw that thousands of Iraqis would die and that hundreds of British and American troops would die with them. That, too, was not difficult. We foresaw, and warned, that there would be no proper planning for an evacuation of Iraq in a post-Saddam world, and for that too the gift of prophecy was not necessary.
    What none of us foresaw was the state of Iraq now, a year after the invasion. None of us foresaw that, after a year, thousands of Iraqis would be in prison with no civil liberties, no rights to a judicial process and no access to advice, and without their parents, children and families being informed of their existence in those prisons.
    We could not have foreseen that. I would not have prophesied it, because I would never have believed that it could happen during a British occupation.
    Still less did we foresee that in those prisons there would be torture and abuse on a systematic scale. We did not foresee that naked men would be dragged by leashes and chains. We did not foresee that they would be chained to doors and beds and threatened with dogs. We did not foresee that our own prisoners would be hooded. None of that we foresaw. If we had said that that would happen, we would have been regarded—and I would have agreed—as ranting nonsense and attempting to stop a war by grossly overstating and overestimating the dangers. Yet all of that has come to pass, and it has come to pass on our watch.
    There has been not one word of contrition in respect of what has happened on our watch. It was known to the Minister of State and to the Secretary of State for Defence for months. It was known that there were reports from the Red Cross. It was known that there was concern about the state of Abu Ghraib prison. Yet during all the accounts and the adulation of what happened in Iraq, nobody came to the House to tell Members that there was a problem that needed to be dealt with; nor has there been any explanation of the failure to do so.
    Mr. Hoon: I have set out clearly and precisely when I first became aware of the Red Cross reports. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not challenging my word on that subject.
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The Government were aware of the matter at least as early as February, and probably as early as September last year. I have attended every single debate on the subject—more, I think, than the Secretary of State has—and I cannot remember one single occasion when the House was made aware of the problems that were coming before the Government at the time. When we did hear an explanation, it was an extraordinary one: the documents that were provided did not contain the necessary number of words and
    726
    clauses or have attached to them the necessary appendices to enable them to be treated as dossiers or reports—whatever that may mean.
    In truth, no ministerial responsibility has been seen in this House. It is a sad thing to stand here and say that. What we have seen, however, and one of the most distasteful things that have come before the House, is the use of the British Army. I genuflect to nobody in my regard for soldiers, many of whom come from my constituency. I shall always have high regard for them, but one thing that I will never do if we are criticised is enlist that regard as some sort of defence or alibi for my own failings. It is high time that Ministers understood that there is no crisis of trust in the British Army or in British troops, but that there is a profound crisis of trust in British politicians, and the permanent adulatory use of British troops to deflect that is one of the most tasteless parts of this debate.
    Of course there is, I am sorry to say, a pedigree for such behaviour. Many of us remember the occasion on which the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) stood before a Tory party conference and rolled out the motto of the SAS. It was a deeply embarrassing moment, perhaps even for his own party. However, despite its pedigree, the practice should stop. Ministers need to answer without relying on the excellence of the forces who are there to do their bidding.
    At the end of the day, responsibility is the word. The Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the Prime Minister have frequently taken credit for what has been done in the name of the coalition. They have taken credit for the successes of the Americans—credit for their military successes during the course of the war and credit for the manner in which they have set up administrations when they did so. Now, we must take responsibility collectively with them, because the world outside will never understand if we do not do so.
    In free and democratic politics, there is only one way for those who lead to take responsibility. If they do as they should, the world will know that we in this House take our responsibilities seriously. That does not mean that Ministers knew, still less colluded, still less ordered, the torture of prisoners in jail. It means that they say, "When it happens on my watch, I take the responsibility for what has occurred." If they do that, it will send out a signal to the rest of the world, and it will do more than anything else can to remove the increasing threat to British forces from those who believe that we are synonymous with our American counterparts. If we take that responsibility, it will remove part of the shame that, as a result of the revelations, now sits upon the Government, the shame that sits upon this House and, one must unhappily acknowledge, the shame that sits upon our people.
    Attempts are being made to relegate these events to a footnote. The mistreatment and torture of people in prison on our watch is not a footnote in history. Ministers cannot say to the House, "We accept that there has been systematic torture by coalition forces—but the water supply is getting better." Such a statement will be treated with the contempt that it deserves.
    6.37 pm
    Mr. Paul Keetch: The purpose of the motion standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends is not to secure a re-run of the vote

    727
    held on 18 March last year; rather, it is to urge hon. Members to focus on where we now find ourselves in Iraq and on the future. We have heard a dozen or so Back-Bench speeches on that issue, the two best coming at the end of the debate from the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney).
    The continuing unrest in Iraq, which is fuelled by the likes of Moqtada al-Sadr and which we have seen in action just today, has been further inflamed by the pictures of abuse of Iraqi prisoners by United States forces and by some allegations against UK forces. There is little sign of the unrest abating. Only last week, the Secretary of State said:
    "This weekend saw the most violence so far, with more than 100 engagements between violent insurgents and coalition forces."—[Official Report, 10 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 21.]
    Today's debate has given the House the opportunity to reflect on the current situation in Iraq and, more important, to determine what steps should be taken next. Once again, I am glad that it has been the Liberal Democrats who, in our time, have given the House of Commons a real opportunity to discuss the matter.
    It is a sad fact that Iraq appears increasingly unstable. Liberal Democrats and Members of other parties warned a long time ago how enormously difficult it would be to restore stability to a post-war Iraq. War is a terrible business, which is why it must always be used only as a last resort. Not only does it put at risk the lives of our armed forces and innocent civilians, but it rips up the fabric of societies and breeds discontent and malice. The appalling images of abuse of Iraqis have added fuel to the fire and will add to the influx of terrorists to Iraq. In his speech of 18 March last year, the Prime Minister suggested that he wanted to break any link between Iraq and terrorism. He has certainly failed to do so. It is sadly apparent to us that Iraq is now more a home for the likes of al-Qaeda than ever it was before we went to war. Back in March last year, the Government were keen to link a potential war in Iraq with progress in the middle east peace process. It is interesting to see that their amendment today makes no reference to that.
    But we are where we are. Having chosen the course of war, our duty now is twofold. First, we must ensure that the men and women of Her Majesty's armed forces, who serve with such credit and distinction in Iraq, are given the best possible protection and, secondly, we must try to offer stability, peace and sovereignty to the people of Iraq.
    We have heard some good speeches in our debate, including that of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). He was right to speak about weapons of mass destruction and remind the House of the casus belli, or the reason why we went to war last year. He pointed out the stupidity of the argument advanced by the Ministry of Defence that it cannot calculate the number of civilian deaths. He said that the MOD has objected to some of his questions? my hon. Friends, too, have experience of it refusing to answer their questions. His speech contrasted sharply with that of his right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who began by complaining about his lack of press coverage, went
    728
    on to rubbish my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) and Senator Edward Kennedy in the same sentence and then misrepresented the views of his right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).
    We heard a very good speech from the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), one of two Conservative Back Benchers to make a contribution. He rightly said that Iraq could have been a beacon in the middle east, and could have set an example for other nations. Sadly, however, it has not done so.
    As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) made an impassioned speech, and spoke about the need for peace in the middle east. She said that when she canvasses on the doorstep people talk to her about Iraq. My party has been criticised for treating Iraq as an election issue, but when I knock on doors I discover, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) said, that Iraq is an issue that we are right to put before the British people; suggestions from Labour Back Benchers and even Conservative spokesmen that we should not do so in the forthcoming elections are ridiculous. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) talked about the proliferation of terrorists in Iraq.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Keetch: No, I will not.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) was right to talk about the body count. It is ridiculous of the Secretary of State for Defence to suggest that we are putting the lives of British forces on the line by trying to calculate how many civilians they may have killed. Such a calculation has been made in every other conflict, and to suggest that we and our hon. Friends on the Labour Back Benches are endangering the lives of our servicemen and women by seeking a figure is wrong. Speaking from his experience of Iraq, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) talked about the abuse of prisoners and the difference between the attitude of the American Department of Defence and that of the MOD. We may criticise the Department of Defence for many things, but since the photographs were published it has acted speedily. Secretary Rumsfeld went to the prison last week, and he also went to Congress to show lawmakers photographs of some of the abuses. In the United States, the first courts martial have begun. I wonder, however, what happened to the fusilier who came back from Iraq last year and tried to get photographs of Iraqi abuse printed in his local Boots. We have still not heard what happened to him, and do not know whether he has been court-martialled.
    The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood spoke about the United Nations, about which we again heard two myths: first, that we went to war to support the wonderful UN resolutions, and the British and the Americans were champions of the UN; and, secondly, that the UN had failed in its duty. In reality, however, it was not the United Nations that set the timetable for war in Iraq but the United States and Britain. To try either to blame the UN or to suggest that we were protecting its role is ridiculous. Increasing the role of the

    729
    UN, as suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), by internationalising the political and security processes in Iraq, and trying to ensure that our forces are associated not with war but with a future peace is the best way to achieve our goals. The pictures of the abuse of Iraqis do not help us, and I found them shocking and awful. Is that what the Americans meant when they talked of shock and awe?
    In a recent newspaper article, the right hon. Member for Livingston said that the Prime Minister is in denial about Iraq. He was remarkably prescient, given the Government amendment, which is extraordinarily complacent and simply says, "Don't worry, everything is all right." It would be nice if we could believe that. I respect the British forces, who continue to serve on the ground with skill and determination. As we have said, if UK commanders on the ground seek support as a force protection measure, we will give it to them. However, we owe it to them to have an exit strategy and a plan for the future, as they are putting their lives on the line. We in the House simply pay lip service to that.
    6.45 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): We have had a constructive debate but, to be honest, I do not think that anyone has changed their view about whether it was right or wrong to go to war. Nevertheless, it is important that, whatever our view, we focus all our efforts on how we can rebuild Iraq, build on the elimination of the Saddam regime and create a stable and democratic state, as we have a legal and moral obligation to do so.
    First, however, I wish to reiterate a view shared across the House and express our deepest condolences about the death of Mr. Izz al-Din Salim, the acting president of the Iraqi governing council, and head of the Islamic Dawa party. He will, I am sure, be sorely missed.
    I should also like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to our armed forces. I am confident that everyone will join me in saying that we can be immensely proud of the job that our armed forces are doing. We have all been conscious in recent weeks of the allegations of abuse by coalition forces in Iraq. The photographs of British troops that appeared in the Daily Mirror have been shown to be fakes. I welcome the fact that the Daily Mirror has admitted it was wrong to publish the photographs. However, allegations of instances of abuse remain, and are being investigated. As my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Defence stated earlier, when an allegation is made against British troops, action is taken immediately. That decision that does not need to be referred to Ministers or made by them.
    The Liberal Democrats called for the role of the United Nations to be expanded and enhanced, a view with which we fundamentally agree.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Before my hon. Friend moves from the treatment of prisoners, will he assure the House that the deaths in custody in the area under British administration are the subject of a thorough investigation that will be publicly reported? Does he accept that, as a coalition of forces is occupying Iraq, the
    730
    joint administration in Baghdad bears some responsibility for what has happened in the American sector as well as the British sector?
    Mr. Rammell: It is critical that all instances of abuse, wherever they occur, are thoroughly investigated, and we are committed to doing so. I can assure my hon. Friend that instances of abuse in the British sector are being actively and thoroughly investigated at the moment.
    We fundamentally agree with the Liberal Democrats' argument about the need for a greater role for the United Nations. It is a fact, little reported at present, that there is a consensus in which the UN, the Iraqi governing council and the coalition provisional authority all agree that the UN should take a more substantive role once the occupation formally ends on 30 June. We are strongly pushing for that in the United Nations. As Kofi Annan and the Prime Minister recently made clear, we want a new Security Council resolution marking the end of the occupation and the handover to a fully sovereign Iraqi Government.
    Clare Short rose
    Mr. Rammell: I will give way briefly to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), but there are a host of issues to which I must respond.
    Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Can it be the end of occupation when there will be an interim Government selected by the UN—I accept that that is progress—without either authority over the coalition forces, the Iraqi police and military or the right to change economic decisions that have been made? Is that really a handover and an end of occupation?
    Mr. Rammell: My right hon. Friend is wrong. The exact arrangements for coalition forces in relation to the caretaker interim Government will be determined in the resolution, which, I believe, will be submitted to the Security Council in the near future. I hope that that provides her with reassurance.
    The discussions on the interim Government are proceeding successfully, with Mr. Brahimi indicating that its full structure and officials will be announced by the end of May. I have a problem with people who argue for a greater UN role, but then criticise the timetable for elections as being too slow.
    The UN itself and Mr. Brahimi himself have made it clear that they believe that the present electoral timetable is correct and, bluntly, the only realistic one in the present circumstances, and it is important that we go forward with that view.
    Let me turn to some of the issues raised during the debate. I was interested and intrigued to listen to the arguments of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). In summing up the debate, he made it explicitly clear that the Liberal Democrats are seeking to use the war as an electoral issue in the forthcoming elections. In that regard, I am indebted to Conservative Members for reminding me that the leader of the Liberal party recently made clear his intention not to use that

    731
    issue during the forthcoming campaign. No one should be surprised at such discontinuity between different members of the Liberal Opposition.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: I can confirm that the leader of the Liberal Democrats made that commitment on the "Politics Show" on 9 May, which only goes to show that a week is a very long time in politics, especially if one is a Liberal Democrat.
    Mr. Rammell: I wholly concur with that view.
    Let me turn to the views put forward in introducing the debate by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). On 18 March last year, he said that we went to war on both a threat and a promise. There has been much rewriting of history in the past year by the opponents of war—[Interruption.] It is important to remember that we went to war because Saddam Hussein did not comply with resolution 1441, which gave him a last chance to disarm and comply with successive UN resolutions. It is important to remember as well that, if we had not taken that decision, Saddam would have been reinforced and reinvigorated, and whatever difficulties we face at the moment would have been significantly worse.
    Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Rammell: No, I will not give way.[Interruption.] I am short of time, and I need to respond to a host of Members.
    The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife went on to argue explicitly for the phased withdrawal of troops from the date of the elections in January 2005, regardless of the security situation or the wishes of the elected Iraqi Government. I do not believe that, in those circumstances, that would be the right or responsible thing to do.
    Sir Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman take account of the wishes of the British people, the majority of whom would like the withdrawal of troops now?
    Mr. Rammell: Of course we respond to the wishes of British people, but we also have to give a lead in this situation. With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, his speech was extraordinarily long on critique, but short on substantive alternatives to the argument and course that we propose at the moment. I was very mystified by his argument when he said that arrangements similar to those put in place at the end of Gulf war one were needed. I presume that he was referring to the surrender document that was agreed at that stage, but there is no comparison whatsoever between the situation now and then.
    Sir Menzies Campbell: Let me help the Minister with his mystification. I was suggesting that there should have been a resolution to authorise the use of force in the same terms as was required in Gulf war one. That would have required the coalition to report back to the Security Council, under the supervision of the Security Council.
    Mr. Rammell: We could have an historical debate for as long as we like, but I believe that we were right to do what we did; the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that we were wrong. However, the key point is what we do in the current circumstances, and I heard not one substantive argument from him about a substantive, alternative course of action.
    Let me now turn to the arguments of the shadow Foreign Secretary. I wholly agree with him that, if the Liberal Democrats had had their way, Saddam Hussein would still be in place, murdering, terrorising and torturing his people. The right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) also raised the important point about the discovery of sarin artillery munitions and asked for a response in the summing-up speech, and I shall try to respond to him.
    General Kimmitt announced today that the Iraq survey group has found a 155 mm artillery round containing sarin. It was rigged as an improvised explosive device and discovered by a US convoy. The following points seem clear: it is thought to be an old munition; those who planted it may not have known what it contained; and preliminary field testing of the substance proved positive for sarin and further samples have been sent for analysis. It does not represent a new capability, but it does appear to be part of a programme declared to the UN. However, the munition should have been handed over to UNSCOM and destroyed. It therefore appears to be in breach of UN Security Council resolutions, and it, significantly, appears to back up what we have been saying all along: Saddam concealed some of his stock. That point needs to be made.
    The shadow Foreign Secretary also asked for reassurance and confirmation that all and every part of coalition detention facilities are, and will remain, open to ICRC inspection, and I can confirm that that is the case.
    The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) made an interesting contribution, and I strongly support his argument that we should not abandon Iraq now. As he argued, if we did so, that move would dismay the forces of democracy and progress in the region and give succour to extremist forces throughout the world. That is the reality of the situation that we face.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) expressed her justified concerns about allegations of abuse of prisoners by the US military. Let me be clear and let me repeat the words that the Foreign Secretary used on the issue last week. The allegations and clear evidence of abuse in the US sector are very damaging. There is no question about that, nor should there be any pretence to the contrary. We should be clear, as President Bush has asserted, that in no sense were those actions supported or connived at by the US Administration, who are as appalled by the evidence as we are. That is the important point to make, and it responds to some of my hon. Friend's concerns.
    The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) gave a speech that was long on moral indignation, but, again, short on substantive alternatives in respect of the actions that we should take. Again, she repeated the 45-minute claim, as though that was the key issue that determined our decision to go to war. It was not: it was

    733
    not mentioned once in the key debate on 18 March 2003, when we took that decision. The reason we went to war was based on Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with resolution 1441.
    The hon. Lady went on to say—this is a significant point—that, because of the allegations of abuse, we have no moral authority in any of the arguments whatsoever, and I think that she was referring to the Government and the country as a whole. I ask her to reflect on those comments and consider whether she really means to make that point. Surely, when allegations of abuse occur, the key difference is the way in which we respond. The allegations are serious, and we deal with them in the strongest possible terms. In no sense do I want to minimise those concerns, however, by making it clear that, of course, brutality, torture and the abuse of human rights formed the very mission statement of Saddam's regime, and there was never any condemnation or investigation in those circumstances. That is the key difference, and it is why we retain moral authority in these issues.
    My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made a very telling contribution. He attacked caricature positions on both sides of the argument. He rightly said that we need to respond to the changing situation. He attacked those who opposed the war, who use every setback simply as a justification for their opposition and their original decision to oppose the war, but, similarly, he stressed that those of us who supported the war need to respond to the changing situation, not blithely dismiss criticism. That argument is indeed well founded.
    In reaching a conclusion, it is clear to me that the decision to go to war remains extraordinarily divisive, but those of us who supported military action did so with every bit as much integrity and conviction as those who opposed the conflict. That point is too often forgotten in the debates that we have at the moment. However, whatever view any of us, took, the critically important challenge now is to secure the future of Iraq and all its people. I fundamentally believe that we are at a crucial and critical juncture.
    The attacks by insurgents will continue as we approach the end of the occupation and the transfer of power on 30 June. The attacks will continue because the insurgents do not want a free Iraq run by the Iraqis.
    Our task, with the UN and the whole international community, is to see the challenge through. We need greater UN involvement—that is what we are arguing for. We need more Iraqis to take on policing and security roles—we are advocating that. We need a continuing British troop presence, but a clear commitment that we will leave as soon as it is safe to do so. That is our commitment. Above all, we need to hold our nerve and follow through on the commitments we have made. To cut and run at this stage, as some have suggested, would be a gross betrayal of the people of Iraq. It would also, significantly, be wholly lacking in political credibility. That is why we will not do it, and why I urge hon. Members to support the amendment and oppose the motion.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 393.

    Division No. 176]

    [7:00 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Lamb, Norman

    Baker, Norman

    Laws, David(Yeovil)

    Baldry, Tony

    McDonnell, John

    Barrett, John

    Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

    Breed, Colin

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Moore, Michael

    Burnett, John

    Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

    Burstow, Paul

    Öpik, Lembit

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE Fife)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Bendel, David

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Robertson, Angus(Moray)

    Chidgey, David

    Russell, Bob(Colchester)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Sanders, Adrian

    Cotter, Brian

    Short, rh Clare

    Dalyell Tam

    Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

    Davey, Edward(Kingston)

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

    Doughty, Sue

    Fisher Mark

    Stunell, Andrew

    Foster Don(Bath)

    Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

    George, Andrew(St Ives)

    Teather, Sarah

    Gidley, Sandra

    Thurso, John

    Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Webb, Steve(Northavon)

    Harvey, Nick

    Williams, Roger(Brecon)

    Heath, David

    Willis, Phil

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Wishart, Pete

    Holmes, Paul

    Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Keetch, Paul

    Richard Younger-Ross and

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Mr. Alan Reid

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Brazier, Julian

    Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

    Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

    Browne, Desmond

    Bryant, Chris

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Burden, Richard

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Burgon, Colin

    Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

    Burnham, Andy

    Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

    Burns, Simon

    Bacon, Richard

    Burnside, David

    Bailey, Adrian

    Burt, Alistair

    Baird, Vera

    Butterfill, Sir John

    Banks, Tony

    Cairns, David

    Barker, Gregory

    Cameron, David

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Casale, Roger

    Bell, Sir Stuart

    Cash, William

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Challen, Colin

    Benton, Joe(Bootle)

    Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

    Bercow, John

    Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

    Berry, Roger

    Betts, Clive

    Chaytor, David

    Blackman, Liz

    Chope, Christopher

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clapham, Michael

    Blizzard, Bob

    Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

    Boateng, rh Paul

    Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Boswell, Tim

    Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

    Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

    Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

    Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Brady, Graham

    Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

    735

    Clelland, David

    Hague, rh William

    Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

    Hain, rh Peter

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

    Coleman, lain

    Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

    Colman, Tony

    Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

    Connarty, Michael

    Hammond, Philip

    Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

    Hanson, David

    Cooper, Yvette

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Corston, Jean

    Hawkins, Nick

    Cruddas, Jon

    Hayes, John(S Holland)

    Cummings, John

    Heald, Oliver

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack(Copeland)

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

    Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

    Hendry, Charles

    Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

    Heppell, John

    Curry, rh David

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Heyes, David

    Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

    Hill, Keith(Streatham)

    David, Wayne

    Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

    Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

    Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

    Hoon, rh Geoffrey

    Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

    Hope, Phil(Corby)

    Horam, John(Orpington)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Denham, rh John

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

    Doran, Frank

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

    Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Drew, David(Stroud)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

    Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

    Ilisley, Eric

    Efford, Clive

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

    Jack, rh Michael

    Etherington, Bill

    Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

    Evans, Nigel

    Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Jamieson, David

    Farrelly, Paul

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

    Johnson, Boris(Henley)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Flight, Howard

    Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

    Flook, Adrian

    Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

    Follett, Barbara

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Forth, rh Eric

    Keen, Ann(Brentford)

    Foster, Michael(Worcester)

    Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

    Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

    Key, Robert(Salisbury)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Foulkes, rh George

    Kidney, David

    Francois, Mark

    King, Andy(Rugby)

    Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

    King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Garnier, Edward

    Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Knight. rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Knight. Jim(S Dorset)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Godsiff, Roger

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Goggins, Paul

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Goodman, Paul

    Lammy, David

    Gray, James(N Wilts)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Green, Damian(Ashford)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Greenway, John

    Lexton, Bob(Derby N)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

    Leigh, Edward

    Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Grogan, John

    Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

    Gummer, rh John

    Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

    736

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Pound, Stephen

    Lidington, David

    Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Linton, Martin

    Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

    Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

    Prescott, rh John

    Loughton, Tim

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Love, Andrew

    Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

    Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

    Purchase, Ken

    Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

    Purnell, James

    Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Quinn, Lawrie

    McCabe, Stephen

    Rammell, Bill

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

    MacDougall, John

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    McFall, John

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

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Robathan, Andrew

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

    McKechin, Ann

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Maclean, rh David

    Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    McNamara, Kevin

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McNulty, Tony

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Rooney, Terry

    McWalter, Tony

    Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

    Mendelson, rh Peter

    Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

    Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

    Ruane, Chris

    Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

    Ruffley, David

    Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

    Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

    Martlew, Eric

    Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

    Mates, Michael

    Salter, Martin

    Maude, rh Francis

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Sheerman, Barry

    Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Mercer, Patrick

    Shepherd, Richard

    Merron, Gillian

    Sheridan, Jim

    Miller, Andrew

    Simmonds, Mark

    Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

    Simon, Skin(B ham Erdington)

    Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

    Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Moffatt, Laura

    Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Moran, Margaret

    Smith, John(Glamorgan)

    Morley, Elliot

    Soames, Nicholas

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Soley, Clive

    Moss, Malcolm

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Mountford, Kali

    Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Spring, Richard

    Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Norman, Archie

    Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

    O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

    Olner, Bill

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    O'Neill, Martin

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Organ, Diana

    Streeter, Gary

    Osborne, George(Tatton)

    Stringer, Graham

    Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Ottaway, Richard

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Swayne, Desmond

    Paterson, Owen

    Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

    Perham, Linda

    Syms, Robert

    Picking, Anne

    Tami, Mark(Alyn)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

    Pike, Peter(Burnley)

    Taylor, Dan(Stockton S)

    Plaskitt, James

    Taylor, David(NW Leics)

    Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

    Taylor, Ian(Esher)

    Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    737

    Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

    Whittingdale, John

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wiggin, Bill

    Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

    Wilkinson, John

    Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

    Willetts, David

    Trend, Michael

    Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

    Trickett, Jon

    Wills, Michael

    Truswell, Paul

    Winnick, David

    Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

    Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

    Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

    Turner, Neil(Wigan)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Twigg, Derek(Halton)

    Woolas. Phil

    Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

    Worthington, Tony

    Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

    Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Wright David(Telford)

    Ward, Claire

    Wyatt, Derek

    Waterson, Nigel

    Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

    Watkinson, Angela

    Young. rh Sir George

    Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

    Watts, David

    Tellers for the Noes:

    White, Brian

    Mr. Fraser Kemp and

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Vernon Coaker

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31(Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the work being done by the UK and its Coalition partners to establish stability and security in Iraq; regards any mistreatment of Iraqis by Coalition forces to be unacceptable; recognises the bravery and professionalism of British forces in Iraq in assisting the Iraqi people in rebuilding Iraq; applauds the work of the UN Secretary-General's special adviser. Lakhdar Brahimi, for his contribution to helping establish a sovereign Iraqi Interim Government which will assume power by 30th June; and supports the Government in its efforts to secure a new Security Council resolution and deliver the wishes of the Iraqi people for a sovereign, stable and democratic Iraq.'

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    7.16 pm
    Mr. Edward Davey: I beg to move,
    That this House notes that council tax has risen by 70 per cent. since Labour came to power and that the Budget Red Book forecasts a rise in council tax receipts next year of over 7 per cent; further notes that these rises are hitting particularly hard those on low and modest incomes because of the way council tax was designed by the last Conservative Government; is concerned that this manifest unfairness of council tax now means that the poorest 10 per cent. of people pay over four times more of their income in council tax than the richest 10 per cent; notes that the whole system of local government finance needs major reform owing to the problems caused by the dependency of councils on central government grants that produces the gearing effect whereby on average councils must raise council tax by 4 per cent. to offset a grant reduction of one per cent; believes that the Labour Government have made the bad situation they inherited from the Conservative Government even worse by their excessive reliance on ring-fencing, passporting and centrally-imposed targets and regulations; and therefore calls on the Government's Balance of Funding Review to make far-reaching proposals for reform when it reports shortly, including the introduction of a local income tax to replace council tax, the return of business rates to local authorities, reformed in line with land values, and a radical reduction in central government interference.
    The high rises in council tax and the unfairness of council tax are issues that have rightly been raised in the House many times in recent years, not least by the Liberal Democrats. Yet the size of the rises in council tax and the extent of the unfairness in the council tax system suggest that we are right to raise these issues again, and to continue raising them until something is done to deal with the problem.
    The House will be aware that the Liberal Democrats have published detailed proposals for our alternative, and those are outlined once again in our motion today. Later in my speech I will set out our alternative to the unfairness of council tax.
    Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: What would my hon. Friend say to accusations in Conservative leaflets that a local income tax will cost the average household considerably more?
    Mr. Davey: The problem with the Conservative leaflets, of which I have seen a few, is that they assume that the average household is earning an income of nearly £50,000, when the actual Government figures show that the average household income is nearer £22,000. That shows that the Conservatives live in a rather different world from the rest of us—and, indeed, from their own constituents.
    I want today to focus on the wider context of the problem of council tax—the local government finance system in its entirety—and that is why we have worded the motion in the way that we have. It is timely to do that because just over a year ago the Government set up the balance of funding review, which was tasked with considering many crucial aspects of the whole system of funding councils. I think that it is scheduled to complete

    739
    its task and report to Ministers in July and, I hope, report back to the House before the recess. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm later that that is what is planned. This debate gives Parliament a real chance to make a serious contribution to that balance of funding review before it concludes and reports back.
    Mr. John Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is the intention to charge the south-east more? Will he further confirm that my constituents on the average earnings that they earn will be a lot worse off, and is not this really a rip-off tax from a spendthrift party?
    Mr. Davey: That was very predictable, except that I was talking not about local income tax, but about the balance of funding review. Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman was not listening for a change. I gave the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) a minute ago, and he clearly was not listening even then.
    We need to start by acknowledging that the balance of funding review is dealing with some of the most complex and difficult problems in public expenditure, although its core question can be expressed quite simply, and I want to do that now. In essence, the balance of funding review is asking how much of the budget that a council spends should be raised locally and how much should be met from Government grant, and, at the extremes, whether councils should raise all their money locally or whether it should all come from Government grant. Put like that, I think that most hon. Members could readily see the arguments against 100 per cent. locally raised budgets or 100 per cent. centrally financed budgets.
    If it were all done locally, the equity problems would be huge, with poor areas being badly affected because they would be unable to raise the funds they need for vital services. Most people acknowledge the need for some central Government grant to equalise and redistribute resources to poor areas, and therefore reject 100 per cent. locally raised budgets, and my party takes that view.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: One tier of the council structure, parish councils and town councils, raises 100 per cent. of its spending. How would that tax be levied under a local income tax so that the people living in those parishes or towns pay for the services that they receive?
    Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention on that point. We have examined low levels of government in other countries equivalent to town and parish councils, and they use a local income tax system. The issue is whether the Treasury can estimate the income tax base. I accept that it is impossible to estimate that figure from information currently held by the Inland Revenue, such as the personal survey of incomes, but that is because no Government have ever tried to introduce local income tax. That information is, however, available in countries where local income tax has been introduced.
    Mr. Peter Pike: The previous Government had to get rid of the poll tax following the Ribble Valley by-election. and Michael Heseltine had
    740
    quickly to introduce a replacement scheme, which he rightly described as "seriously flawed". It is important that we allow the balance of funding review to complete its examination of the position, because unless we correctly balance national and local funding, any replacement system will have serious flaws and problems. We must not rush into a new system, only to find in five to 10 years' time that it is equally appalling, and the scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) would prove to be exactly that.
    Mr. Davey: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. When Lord Heseltine introduced council tax, a BBC journalist asked him why he did not support local income tax. He looked at the camera and said, "That is the Liberal Democrats' policy." In other words, he had no strong argument against it.[Interruption.] I watched that interview with relish.
    The point of this debate is to give us a chance to contribute to the balance of funding review. We have made submissions to the Government, who, we believe, are right to carry out the review. We also welcome the way in which they have gone about the review. They have taken a year to gather evidence, receive submissions and commission papers. For example, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy examined local income tax, which it thought was a good idea. I welcome the balance of funding review, but I do not see why the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) is concerned by the debate, which is about getting the matter right.
    Mr. Hugo Swire: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davey: No, I want to press on and make some progress.
    The balance of funding review is important to today's debate. If local councils raised none of their own finance, which is another option, it would create huge accountability problems, and local democracy would be severely undermined. If 100 per cent. of council funding came from central Government, as some hon. Members argue, it would mark the end of meaningful local democracy. If we reject the extremes of raising all funding locally or of raising all funding nationally, where should the balance lie?
    On average, a council currently raises 25 per cent. of its budget locally and gets 75 per cent. of its income from central Government Many hon. Members believe that the balance of funding is wrong and that it must be addressed urgently—I hope that the Government address the matter in the review. However, we do not know whether they think that the balance of funding is a major problem, and part of the review's remit is to decide whether the 75:25 split is a problem.
    The first message that I want to get over to the Government in this debate is that the balance of funding causes serious problems. The Minister should not listen to those who argue that the current balance of funding is an advantage—some Conservative Members advance that argument—or to those who argue that the problems can be fixed without altering the balance of funding. Specifically, the current balance of funding causes three serious problems that cannot be brushed aside. The first

    741
    problem is the well-known gearing effect, which relates to the second problem, accountability. The third problem, which is often ignored, is the effect on the health of local democracy and local government that comes from the imbalance in funding.
    The gearing effect is perhaps the most alarming problem for council tax payers because, as the Audit Commission reported last December, it is a major contributor to some high council tax rises. At its most simple, the gearing effect means that for every 1 per cent. increase in a council's budget, on average that council must increase council tax by 4 per cent. Average council tax rises in 2003–04 were 12.9 per cent., but councils actually increased spending over and above what the Government said that they should spend by an average of only 1.9 per cent. However, the gearing effect translated those increases into an average council tax rise of 7.6 per cent., which completely distorted the picture. That issue directly results from the balance of funding.
    Mr. Anthony Steen: The important point is not who pays 75 per cent. and who pays 25 per cent, but how much the individual pays—apart from the Liberal Democrats, nobody cares how the calculation is worked out. The Liberal Democrats have increased council tax in Torbay by 10.1 per cent., but they blame everyone else. The problem is that too many laws made in this place go down to local authorities, which have to carry them out but cannot afford to do so. If we passed fewer laws here, council tax would not be so high. If the Liberal Democrats got their way, people would pay more but would not get better services, so I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
    Mr. Davey: I am not surprised. I agree that we pass too many laws in this place and that the burdens that we place on councils are too heavy. The idea that that is the complete explanation for council tax rises, however, is nonsense. If the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) listens, he will learn that the Audit Commission, not the Liberal Democrats, blames the gearing effect, which I am discussing, for some high council tax rises.
    There are three possible solutions to the gearing effect. First, revenue raised locally could be increased by, for example, re-localising business rates, and I shall return to that approach because we favour it. A second solution is to cut local government responsibilities and centralise a major spending area such as education. We understand that No. 10 Downing street has considered that solution, but I was glad to hear reports from the Minister for Local and Regional Government that that will not happen, and I hope that he will reconfirm that the Government are not examining the centralisation of a major spending area such as education.
    A third solution—a technical change to the grant system—is touted in the Government review. Rather than grant allocations being fixed at the time of the local government grant settlement, the idea is that the allocations become variable, which happened in the 1970s and part of the 1980s. Broadly speaking, the solution works like this: if a council raises its budget by, for example, 3 per cent., its council tax should go up by
    742
    only 3 per cent., and any difference required because of the gearing effect should come directly from extra central Government grants.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Higher taxes.
    Mr. Davey: I urge the hon. Gentleman to listen, because the proposal is not ours. The proposal has been put to the balance of funding review and I am trying to knock it down because it is a bad idea. It would allow variable increases in grant, which could dispose of the gearing problem in one move, but it would create its own problems. For a start, it would lead to huge uncertainties, which is a problem that the Conservative Government experienced when it tried to operate such a system in the early 1980s, because final grant allocations for a specific year would not be decided for months, even years.
    Above all, variable grant allocations would create perverse incentives. Much of the money for a new project or dollop of spending—indeed, any marginal increase in a council's budget—would effectively come from central Government, which would lead to higher tax bills overall.
    Many councils would perceive an advantage in setting higher council tax as it could be argued to the electorate that that would mean extra central Government subvention of two, three, four or even five times the amount for which the council tax payer was being asked. I therefore hope that while that technical solution might appear preferable and neat, the Government will reject it. I believe that that will be the case, given the nods and shaking of heads from the Front Bench. I welcome that.
    The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Let me put the hon. Gentleman out of his agony. I assure him that we considered the matter approximately a year ago and it held no attraction for, and found no support from, the balance of funding review team. He is tilting at a false windmill.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: One down, two to go.
    Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is right and I am glad about it. The purpose of the debate is to try to tease out the Government's position on balance of funding. It is important for those who will vote in the June elections.
    Another problem with the imbalance of funding is that it distorts local accountability. Changes in the local council tax bill often have little or nothing to do with councillors' decisions. Of course, they do in some cases, but far too often they do not. Council tax rises are sometimes caused by factors that are completely out of the local council's control.
    Mr. Swire: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's clarification and I am sure that he will reach the relevant points because he is on a voyage of discovery, not least after the Liberal Democrats won Brent, East with £100 vouchers, which have been scrapped. Does it remain Liberal Democrat policy that regional assemblies, were they established, would have tax-raising powers? Would

    743
    they be in addition to the extra powers about which he is talking? If so, would not that add further distortion to the inequalities about which he is so worried?
    Mr. Davey: The key point is that we would begin by getting rid of the council tax. There would therefore be no council tax precept, which the Government oppose for regional assemblies. Unless and until regional assemblies were elected, there would be no question of their having tax-raising powers. Unless and until central Government funds were given to local assemblies and national income tax was cut pound for pound, there could be no question of giving income-tax-raising powers to regional assemblies.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Davey: I want to make some progress. I was talking about accountability in local government. I thought that I was generous in answering the question of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), which had nothing to do with that.
    I was trying to argue that small changes that have nothing to do with councillors can affect the council tax. A small change in the amount of grant from central Government can make a major difference. A small change in a council's cost base because of central Government targets could cause a major change. A small change in the demand pressure, for example, in social services could lead to a major change in council tax. Any such changes are magnified four times because of the gearing effect that we have already discussed. That means that accountability is utterly distorted.
    Mr. John Hayes: I suppose that some people—the hon. Gentleman may be one, but he has not made that clear thus far—believe that there should be a closer relationship between what people pay and the services that they get. That is perfectly proper. However, a local income tax would relate not to what people get, the quality of the services or their cost, but to their income. How does he square that with Liberal Democrat policy on hypothecating tax, which is mentioned many times in manifestos and elsewhere? Would we have regional taxes, local taxes and hypothecated national taxes?
    Mr. Davey: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman meant by his last point, but I am glad that he mentioned services and local taxes. Some people claim that local taxpayers should pay only for local services. People have in mind emptying the waste bins and clearing parks and streets. They forget that most local residents, I am pleased to say, do not use many services that local government provides—for example, social services and child protection. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that because local residents do not use child protection services, those services should not be financed? Many services fall into that category. For example, pensioners do not use the schools. Does that mean that they should not contribute to them? That is nonsense and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me a chance to put the theory to bed.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his proposals for local
    744
    income tax could increase gearing in several local authorities on the ground of the need for greater equalisation because of the differences in tax take in different parts of the country? Indeed, CIPFA said that the ratios in several local authorities would be greater. Does he accept that the proposals in his document and end-of-year reorganisation fall into the precise trap into which he suggests that the proposals in the review for ending gearing through technical changes fall? People would not know how much they were paying at the end of the year.
    Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. On the first point, CIPFA assumed that the central Government grant would remain the same as a portion of the council's budget on average. However, local income tax creates a foundation for decentralising power to cut national income tax and reduce some central Government subventions. It enables national income tax to be cut penny for penny as local income tax increases. That reduces the gearing effect—that is the experience in many other countries.
    Let me deal with the second point about the end-of-year collection mechanism, which is only one of two possible mechanisms for administering local income tax. That would enhance local accountability as people could see rebates or extra charges at the end of they year, before the local elections. The hon. Gentleman is therefore wrong on both counts.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Davey: I need to make some headway. I have given way several times and it is time for me to have a chance to get on with my speech.
    I am trying to focus on the way in which the local voter holds the council to account in any meaningful way when the council tax bill may have nothing to do with councillors' actions. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website on the balance of funding review shows that some people do not believe that accountability is a problem. They argue that the current balance of funding and the associated gearing effect enhances local accountability and they are trying to persuade Ministers not to worry about it. They believe that the gearing effect magnifies the changes to council tax and thus acts as a weapon to control council spending. They argue that all one needs is what is called marginal accountability so that marginal changes in the council's budget are properly signalled and, indeed, exaggerated through changes in a tax bill. That effect was introduced by the previous Conservative Government when they nationalised the business rate. I do not know whether it was deliberate or whether it happened by accident or coincidence. but it has greatly worsened the problem for local government.
    Mr. Mark Francois: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that, since its inception in the 1990s, the Liberal Democrats have run Rayleigh town council. They increased the precept by 22 per cent. this year. When they had a chance to defend their record, only a handful of councillors stood for re-election and when nominations closed last week the Conservatives took 17 of the 23 seats unopposed. There will be no marginal

    745
    accountability in Rayleigh town council or any marginal seats because all the Liberal Democrats have run away. Why is that?
    Mr. Davey: It was wishful thinking that the hon. Gentleman would talk about marginal accountability. It is a complex notion so perhaps I should have guessed that he would not deal with it.
    Marginal accountability is dangerous nonsense. For it to work, all local government spending would have to be fixed and under easy control so that councils were genuinely responsible for the marginal changes in their budgets. Yet we know that council budgets are not like that, because so many services are demand-led and cannot be predicted. Demand pressures for services such as special educational needs and care for the elderly are massive in some areas and explain by themselves most, if not all, of some councils' tax rises. Such real-life demand pressures totally destroy the theoretical notion of marginal accountability.
    Just as damaging is the implicit assumption that councils should be held financially to account for changes to the budget only at the margins, for new services. For proper accountability, councillors and voters should ask questions about existing services and the way in which the budget is spent on them, not only on new projects.
    Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davey: No, I shall not.
    I simply ask Ministers to reflect on how they would feel if the notion of marginal accountability applied to them. I agree with the Minister that accountability can be a tricky notion to pin down. In its fullest sense, it requires voters to have large amounts of information, which, with the best will in the world, we cannot expect them to have.
    Despite those problems, I am convinced that the Layfield notion of accountability—what the committee called "average accountability"—is the right way forward. That approach gets closest to the committee's ideal that whoever was responsible for spending the money should also be responsible for raising it, so that that amount of money was subject to democratic control. Subject to the constraint of equalisation, that is the approach that the Liberal Democrats take. We believe that the balance of funding problem is a serious one which undermines accountability and that it can be fixed only by serious devolution of financial power.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: Is it not the case that those in high house-price areas—where the central Government grant is related to the tax base—which are also low-income areas will always be chasing a gap between what the Government give them and what local people can afford to pay? The council tax will always disadvantage such areas.
    Mr. Davey: My hon. Friend is right. That is part of the problem with the gearing effect and with the whole system of local government finance.
    When councils have to rely so much on central Government funding, it is deeply corrosive for the local democratic system. This corrosion might be seen in lower turnouts, or in the esteem in which councils are held and
    746
    the status of those councils. A system that relies on central subsidy is always going to breed dependency. It feeds a political culture in which the voters, the press and the councils too often look to central Government for solutions. We need councils to take greater responsibility. We need people to go into local government, both as officers and as councillors, because they believe that they can make a significant difference to their community. We want a more powerful, vibrant local democracy that can innovate in the public services and make major long-term decisions. However, the current imbalance in funding is one of the major obstacles to that vision. Councils inevitably spend huge amounts of time analysing in detail the grant formula distributions and lobbying MPs. We have debates in the House which are effectively zero sum games. We need to end that dependency in order to move forward and to reinvigorate local government.
    There is a flipside to this argument. When so much local government money comes from central Government, central Government start to regard the grant money as their money. Ministers in all the Whitehall Departments with an interest in local government seem to have an allergic reaction to seeing grants going to local councils from their global budgets. They want to micro-manage all that money. If we are to grasp the localist agenda and stop Whitehall Ministers and civil servants second-guessing local authorities in any policy area that we care to mention, it is best that most of the money spent by councils does not come from Whitehall in the first place.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Davey: I will not give way.
    I have deliberately spent some time talking about why the balance of funding review is important and why it has real and serious problems to tackle. This is a key factor behind high council tax and behind the decade of above-inflation council tax rises that we have just seen. The review is critical because we need to improve accountability.
    I want to end by outlining our solutions for the balance of funding review. Let me start by describing the number of taxes that councils have. It is wrong to expect councils to rely purely on one source of revenue. That is why we advocate, in addition to reforming the local personal tax system, the denationalisation of business rates, coupled with their reform. It was a huge mistake when the Conservative Government nationalised business rates, and that decision alone has already made a difficult problem much worse. Giving councils a second source of revenue would quickly make a huge difference. After all, that was one of Labour's election promises before 1997.
    I should make it clear that, in denationalising business rates, we want to reform them too. We want to give an allowance, so that small businesses would have an allowance similar to the personal allowance in the income tax system. We want to base rateable values not on the property but on the land. That would have two big benefits for businesses. First, it would ensure that the tax base was widened, so that land that had been zoned for commercial use but had not yet been built on would be brought into the tax base, thus reducing the bills for existing small business rate payers. It would also end the perverse incentives against developing such land.

    747
    I know that the Minister is toying with that idea. We have seen reports in the press on whether the Government are going to go ahead with it. Concern has been expressed in No. 10 Downing street and in parts of government that this reform would be controversial, but I urge the Government to grasp it for three reasons. First, with the reforms that I have outlined, I believe that the proposal could be sold to business. Secondly, there is an argument for keeping one central control over localised business rates, which would be to ensure that any rise in the business rates would be no higher than a rise in the local personal tax. That would ensure that business rates rose by no more than personal taxes and possibly, if councils wanted, by less. The third reason why denationalising business rates is important is that the voice of business could be heard again. Many businesses criticise the Tories' nationalisation of business rates because it means that they have been excluded from many of the councils' discussions on important local issues.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davey: No, I shall not give way any more.
    The second part of our solution is a radical reduction in central Government interference. We may have some common ground with the Conservatives on this. We want to see ring-fencing and passporting brought to an end, and to ensure that when responsibilities are passed down to local government, they are fully funded and the money actually goes with the responsibilities. We want to see the Government's very timid agenda on freedoms and flexibilities for local councils massively expanded, so that we can reduce the level of regulation and inspection not just for a few councils but for all of them. This sort of policy would have major benefits for councils. It would restore control of their costs and flexibility over local priorities.
    Our final proposal is the most radical, the most controversial and the most well known. It is the proposal to scrap council tax and replace it with a local income tax. Many of the arguments on this were rehearsed on 10 February when we last debated these issues, but I want to add one major point, linking local income tax with the balance of funding review. The key issue is that if we can extend the personal tax base—and make it a fair tax base—it will be able to take more weight. If we chose a local income tax, the national tax collected by the same authority—the Inland Revenue—could be reduced penny for penny so that the overall tax burden did not increase.
    Mr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Davey: No, I will not.
    The key problem with council tax is that it cannot bear the weight that the balance of funding review would want it to do in order to get rid of the problems that I have outlined. The council tax is already an unfair tax. The idea of doubling it—or of increasing it even by 10 per cent., or whatever the Conservatives' proposal of the week might be—would exaggerate the unfairness of it
    748
    even more. I do not believe that council tax is the way to go. Local income tax could bear the weight because it would be based on fairness.
    The balance of funding review offers an historic opportunity for the Government to end the decades of feuding between councils and central Government over local government finance. It will give them an opportunity to decentralise financial power in our over-centralised country and to strengthen and revive local democracy. Above all, it will provide an opportunity to get rid of Britain's most unfair tax—the council tax. I hope that the Government are up to this challenge and that they listen to the voters on June 10. I commend the motion to the House.
    7.48 pm
    The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "welcomes the Government support for local government with its 30 per cent. real terms increase in grant since 1997; notes that the average increase in council tax in 2004–05 is the lowest for nine years; supports the Government's proposals to take action against a number of authorities which have set excessive budgets and council tax increases in 2004–05; and looks forward to the report of the Balance of Funding Review of how local government in England is funded which is due in summer 2004."
    I welcome the opportunity to debate this important and complex subject. The Government take this issue very seriously, and it is currently the subject of our balance of funding review. I listened with great interest—and, I have to say, growing incredulity—to the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). Rarely has a political party shot itself so convincingly not just in the foot, but in the arms, legs and head as well. I have never thought of the hon. Gentleman as an ancient mariner, but I have to say that he has truly hung an albatross of enormous proportions round his party's neck in the form of its proposal for a local income tax.
    More of that anon, but first, I would like to set out some background. The hon. Gentleman's motion curiously refers to "grant reduction". I am not sure where he has been for the past seven years. Under this Government, local authorities have not been facing year-on-year grant reductions. That was certainly their experience in the early and mid-1990s when the Conservatives were in power, but this Government have been significantly increasing the levels of grant paid to local authorities. The latest settlement, for 2004–05, involves a total formula grant of £46.1 billion, an increase of 5.5 per cant. compared with 2003–04.
    On top of that, specific grants take the overall increase to 7.3 per cent. That is not a one-off increase but part of a programme of sustained growth in investment in the vital public services delivered by local government. In 2004–05, for the second year running, all local authorities received a real-terms increase in formula grant on a like-for-like basis. Overall, Government funding to English local authorities is up by 30 per cent. in real terms over the past seven years. That is in stark contrast to the previous four years, when year-on-year cuts were the norm—a 7 per cent. real-terms funding cut over the last four years of the Conservative Government.

    749
    It is sometimes argued that the grant increases are not sufficient to match new demands that are placed on local authorities, and that they are forced to spend money on Government priorities by ring-fencing, but both concerns are being addressed. We operate a "new burdens" doctrine, which requires any new obligations on local government to be matched by appropriate funding from the responsible Department. Furthermore, in the recent grant settlement, we have removed ring-fencing from some £750 million of specific grants. We have thus reduced the ring-fenced grant from over 13.3 per cent. to around 11 per cent., and on current plans, ring-fencing will be less than 10 per cent. by 2005–06. For authorities categorised as excellent, we have gone even further by removing virtually all ring-fencing, except for those grants intended for schools.
    Mr. Steen: The Minister mentioned excellent authorities. Is he aware that Torbay council, which is run by the Liberal Democrats and is very poor, had a 10.1 per cent. increase and the Government have capped it? Is he also aware that, in spite of the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), the £100 rebate, which every council tax payer was going to receive if the Liberal Democrats got into office, has gone out of the window? Did he hear the hon. Gentleman mentioning the £100 rebate, which we have all been looking forward to?
    Mr. Raynsford: I shall return to the £100 rebate, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman enjoys that passage of my speech. Although I have to say that he is right in saying that Torbay council is not an excellent authority, his party, which was responsible for running it for a long time, was probably as responsible as the Liberal Democrats for its current position.
    As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton rightly said, it is local authorities, not the Government, that set the council tax paid by householders. As I told the House on 29 April:
    "The average increase in council tax … this year is 5.9 per cent."—[Official Report, 29 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1019.]
    That is less than half the previous year's increase and lower than many people predicted. It is also the lowest in the past nine years.
    A large number of authorities have set lower council tax increases than they originally proposed, not least because of the Government's strong messages to local authorities to the effect that high increases were both unnecessary and unacceptable. Nevertheless, some authorities' budgets and council tax increases are still too high and impose unreasonable burdens on council tax payers.
    The Government made clear their intention to take action against those authorities whose budget requirements they consider excessive. People who are troubled by the fear of large council tax increases—I am thinking particularly of pensioners living on fixed incomes—will appreciate that this Government have taken action to protect council tax payers from unnecessarily large increases. They will be aware of, and perhaps shocked by, the attitude of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, who described this action as absurd during the debate on 29 April at column 1025 of the Official Report. Indeed, I believe he owes council tax
    750
    payers throughout the country an explanation as to why it is apparently not absurd for a Liberal Democrat council to impose a 29 per cent. council tax increase, while it is absurd for the Government to take action to protect council tax payers from such an increase.
    The Liberal Democrats have a lot of explaining to do, too, for their councils have an unenviable record of introducing the largest increases in council tax. On average, in a year when Labour councils kept their increases down to 4.7 per cent., Liberal Democrat councils showed average increases of 6 per cent., and Liberal Democrat Shepway district council headed the list of the biggest increases, at 29 per cent.—an interesting warning to electors who are thinking about which way to cast their vote in June.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Can the Minister tell the House what the average increase in council tax over the past five years has been in councils controlled by different political parties? He will find that the Conservatives have presided over the highest average annual council tax increases over the past five years, and Liberal Democrat and Labour-controlled councils have had roughly the same increases—about 6.9 per cent. Will he put that on the record?
    Mr. Raynsford: I cannot, off the top of my head, give the hon. Gentleman the figures for the last five years, but I can tell him that last year the Conservatives had the highest tax increases of 16 per cent., and Liberal Democrat and Labour councils had increases of around 10 per cent.
    This year, the Government said that they expected councils to budget for low single-figure increases. Only Labour councils delivered, with an average increase of 4.7 per cent. Conservative councils averaged 5.4 per cent., and Liberal Democrat councils 6 per cent.—the highest increases of any of the three parties this year.
    Rather than trying to pass the blame elsewhere, the hon. Gentleman ought to be talking to his party's councillors and telling them to get a grip, although I appreciate that that is a concept largely unfamiliar to Liberal Democrats. If he did, it would have an influence on one of the other issues raised in the motion, although he did not refer to it, which is the so-called Treasury forecast of next year's council tax rise. As I have frequently explained to hon. Members, that figure is based on average increases in past years, so the fact that there is a large figure this year reflects the very large council tax increases last year. The figure is not, repeat not, an estimate of increased costs, or a target, or the Government's view of what would constitute an acceptable rise in council tax.
    The best way to get the figure down, of course, is to get average council tax down. That is where the Liberal Democrats have the greatest opportunity, because they have the largest increases in council tax this year.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: The Minister has made a number of sensible remarks about the Liberal Democrats, but is he really saying that the Treasury can forecast what is going to happen next year only by reference to what happened last year?
    Mr. Raynsford: As I was saying to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, this is not actually a

    751
    forecast. It is based on the trends over the past three years. Therefore, if there is a large increase in the previous year, as was the case, that is reflected in the figure. I have explained that repeatedly to the House.
    I want to continue by referring to the balance of funding review, and it is probably helpful if I start by providing a little background to it.
    David Taylor: Let me declare an interest as a member of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, whose review this is. Is the Minister about to point out the Liberals' suggestion that about 3p on local income tax should be sufficient to fund necessary public services, when the range suggested in the review is between 3.2p and 6.5p? Does that not suggest illiteracy on a grand scale?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right about those figures, but we have set up the review and it is taking evidence from various players, including CIPFA. We have been pleased with the detailed and thoughtful submissions that it has made, but this is not CIPFA's review. My hon. Friend is right about the figures ranging between 3.2p and 6.5p, which is rather at variance with what the Liberal Democrats say in public.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Can the Minister confirm that that CIPFA review has an average figure of 3.75 per cent., which is also our average figure? CIPFA has 3. 8 per cent. as the average.[Interruption.] Yes it does. I have that in the report, if the Minister needs it. Will he also confirm that the range that the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) mentioned relates to keeping the same grant system, which includes a council tax base within it, which would be absurd? Will the Minister therefore accept, as CIPFA makes clear in its report, that that is a first best guess, not a proper analysis?
    Mr. Raynsford: For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, who finds this difficult, I shall quote the CIPFA report. He will see in paragraph viii on page ii of the introduction and summary that a local income tax
    "substituting for the Council Tax in England in 2003/04, might have resulted in areas precepts ranging between 3.2p and 6.5p on the existing personal rates of income tax."
    Those are CIPFA's figures. Will he withdraw his remarks and apologise for attacking my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) for giving correct figures from the CIPFA report?
    Let me also put to the hon. Gentleman something that he might think about before I give way to him again. Those remarks relate to 2003–04. When updated, the figures will probably increase above even those levels.
    Mr. Davey: If the Minister had read on, he would have told us that that paragraph says:
    "This assumes broadly similar grant calculations relating to formula spending shares. However, the taxbase relating to personal incomes, upon which the above range of precepts is based, is distributed differently to the banded property values used for Council Tax purposes."
    752
    In other words, the point I was making is that the grant system would change under local income tax, but that was not actually being measured.
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is digging an even deeper hole, and I must counsel him not to pursue that point. I shall come later to some interesting comments taken from his website about the CIPFA report. For now, however, let me tell him that the passage that he has cited in fact highlights one of the problems implicit in his proposals, which is that the regional yield of a local income tax would be much higher in London and the south-east, so disproportionate increases in taxation would be likely there unless the grant distribution was changed. I would be interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman proposes to change that distribution, which would involve a significant change in the distribution of resources.
    Mr. David Drew: Part of the problem with local income tax, as with the poll tax, is non-payment, and one assumes that people would be very clever in trying to avoid tax. One of the biggest difficulties is that any assumption of tax take must build in losses that might result if people chose not to pay or were able not to pay. Does my right hon. Friend agree?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, to which I shall come in a moment. I should like first to discuss the purposes of the review before turning to the Liberal Democrat proposals.
    As our 2001 White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services" recognised, many local authorities are concerned about the balance of funding and the proportion of local spending financed from central as against local sources. Nationalisation of the business rate in 1990 shifted the balance of funding so that the proportion raised locally was reduced from about 50 per cent to 25 per cent. National taxes, including the business rate, now account for about 75 per cent. of local government revenue. Although the average proportion raised locally is about 25 per cent., the figure varies widely across England. For example, in Newham, one of the more deprived parts of London, it is about 11 per cent., whereas in Chiltern, a more affluent area in the south-east, the figure is at the upper end, at around 60 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) was absolutely right to highlight the fact that in many deprived areas, because the wealth of an area is more varied in terms of income tax receipts than in terms of property valuations, the problem would intensify, and those areas would require even more Government subsidy if a local income tax came in. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton did not understand my hon. Friend's sensible point.
    In general, deprived areas with high needs and a low council tax base receive much more central grant than more affluent ones. The equalisation of needs and resources aims to ensure that all areas receive sufficient resources to deliver services to acceptable standards. Whatever their individual balance of funding, however, many councils argue that they cannot be properly accountable to their taxpayers if they have to rely heavily on central grant funding. They also criticise the

    753
    impact of the balance of funding on gearing, which was a point made by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton. In the 2001 White Paper, the Government stated their view that there was no quick or easy way of securing a major shift in the balance of funding. We did, however, agree to set up a high-level working group to look at all aspects of the issue and to consider reform options. The balance of funding review started work in April 2003, and it aims to report in the summer. Our target is July, and I hope that, before the House rises for the recess we can report to the House on the options that the review sets out. I chair the review's steering group, which comprises representatives of local government—several from the Local Government Association—central Government, business, the unions and other experts. The review group has met several times. It has discussed the principles of a successful local government finance system, held a consultation and commissioned independent research, all of which is publicly available. It has examined a number of possible reform options.
    The review is looking at four main reform options, which were suggested in response to public consultation: re-localisation of business rates; introduction of a local income tax; reform of council tax; and a mixed option of smaller taxes or charges. I should emphasise that the fact that the review is hearing evidence on those different options is not an indication that the Government favour any one of them.
    I will start with council tax. Many consultation responses said that there were serious problems with council tax, but most suggested that it should be reformed rather than abolished. As recent work by the New Policy Institute points out, the tax has been widely accepted until recently. Almost all countries have a local tax on domestic property. Council tax has advantages: it is well established and relatively easy to understand, its yield is predictable, and it is easy to collect, as houses do not move. Indeed in 2002–03 local authorities in England collected more than 96 per cent of the council tax due within the financial year.
    Of course, one major change is already planned. Under the Local Government Act 2003, there is a statutory requirement for a revaluation of domestic property in 2007, based on 2005 property values. Revaluation is not designed to raise more tax overall; the 2001 local government White Paper made it clear that its overall impact will be neutral. As the New Policy Institute showed, however, revaluation will have different effects across the country in line with house price rises, and we will consider carefully how best to manage that. One option would be the introduction of regional banding.
    We will consider the case for change to the existing bands, although we would need carefully to examine the impact of any changes. As the NPI made clear, improvements can also be made to council tax benefit, which makes an important contribution to the financial security of many people on low incomes but does not reach as many people as it should because of relatively low take-up. There is real scope for improving take-up, and my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions are making changes to address that.
    Mr. Edward Davey: May I return the Minister to the point on revaluation? He criticised local income tax by arguing that there would be a larger local income tax
    754
    base in such regions as London and the south-east. Does he think that his comparison with the council tax base would change after revaluation? Does he admit that many households in London and the south-east will see large increases in their council tax bills as a result of revaluation, particularly those in London who live in band C properties?
    Mr. Raynsford: There are two separate issues there. I have made it clear that we accept that there will be variations, depending on the relative increases in house prices since 1991. It is completely unrealistic to go on indefinitely with a tax system based on 1991 values, so revaluation must come. That is why we are considering the possibility of regional banding as one way to address the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises.
    The issue that I was highlighting is a different matter, and the hon. Gentleman may not fully have understood that. There is a wider gap between the highest and lowest levels of people's incomes, as assessed for income tax, than there is between property values, and that would create a different issue if a local income tax were introduced. I shall not push the point further since the penny has, I hope, now dropped for the hon. Gentleman.
    Re-localisation of the business rates—a return to the pre-1990 system—is not something that the Government have favoured, but there is strong demand for it from many in local government. Most consultation responses from councils argued that re-localisation would help to resolve the balance of funding problem and encourage better partnerships with local businesses. The business community has stated, however, that it would strongly oppose re-localisation. There are also major disparities between areas in their business rate yield, so equalisation would be needed, which would reduce the link between resources raised and what would be available locally.
    The review's discussion of business rates threw up another issue. The LGA presentation made the interesting point that when business rates were nationalised, they met about 29 per cent. of local government funding, whereas they now pay for only 22 per cent. That is because rises in the business rates multiplier are capped by law at the level of inflation. Some may argue that it is not fair that business contributions to local funding are capped while domestic taxpayers' council tax bills are not. Is there, then, a case for reconsidering how the cap is set? Well, there are two sides to the story. Business organisations have warned that any changes to the cap would be very sensitive and could damage the UK business tax picture and perhaps endanger businesses' comparative advantage internationally. The balance of funding review is looking carefully at the issue, considering the pros and cons of any changes.
    Next I shall say a word about local income tax. The review consultation showed support in some quarters for that, or at least for considering the case for it, as most people admit that the proposal is inherently complex and needs much more work. CIPFA, which presented a paper to the review, highlighted a number of difficult issues, such as set-up costs, costs to business and the

    755
    treatment of investment income. It would not be an easy option. It is technically complex and challenging, with much of the devil in the detail.
    Matthew Green: The Minister clearly has quotes from the CIPFA report in front of him. Early on, on page 3 I think, CIPFA lists some advantages and disadvantages of the local income tax. Perhaps the Minister would like to read out the four main advantages cited.
    Mr. Raynsford: No, because I should then have to read out the six disadvantages that follow. The hon. Gentleman can no doubt consult the report for himself.
    The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton has clearly not taken to heart the lesson of complexity. Let us compare his blithe assurances with CIPFA's more measured views.
    I take as my evidence the hon. Gentleman's website, which I assume is an authoritative source for his views. Under the question "How quickly could a local income tax be introduced?" he states confidently:
    "Within two years maximum. As it is using an existing system, the only major delays would be consultation on details and getting legislation through parliament".
    Well, that is pretty clear. So let us see what the experts—CIPFA—say.
    "The legislative requirements might be completed within two or three years … Then appropriate guidance and support would need to be given to taxpayers and employers. A roll of local taxpayers would need to be collated. Most previous observers concluded that the implementation of a LIT would take five years to effect. Despite the advance made in the technology … the preparations required would be no less elaborate and consequently the proper implementation might well take five years to complete. There would be considerable risk in forcing the pace."
    So there we have it. "Seven to eight years and do not rush it", says CIPFA; "Two years and it would be easy", say the Liberal Democrats. I know whose judgment I trust.
    After that not very encouraging start, let us look at the Liberal Democrats' specific proposals. They leave a great deal to be desired and would, I fear, lead to disruptive and complicated changes to the tax system without providing the much trumpeted benefits. First, the proposals would do little to improve the flexibility available to local authorities. As authorities in poor and deprived areas would be able to collect less income tax than the richest areas, the proposals would mean that the poorer authorities would become more heavily dependent on grant. There would be less flexibility, and a worse gearing effect, for those authorities, than at present.
    Secondly, the proposals would involve substantial costs that are not mentioned by the Liberal Democrats. They plan to combine their local income tax proposal with an increase in the personal allowance to £5,000, but taking into account this year's increase, that would cost an extra £1.5 billion. Of course, we know that the Lib Dems are not very good with figures. Their back-of-the-envelope approach to local government finance usually collapses the moment that it is subject to any serious scrutiny. Even the simplest of their pledges prove problematic.
    756
    We all recall the Lib Dems' promises last year of £100 off the council tax, and the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) reminded us of it earlier. We were assured that they had done their figures and could deliver that benefit. The voters of Brent, East were lured into voting Lib Dem with the overt promise of that bonus. But six months later it has vanished. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) has huffed and puffed about reviews and reconsideration, and when asked recently on "Today" whether people would not be receiving the £100 they had been promised, he replied as follows. I quote from the verbatim transcript:
    "well, what we are (nervous chuckle) what we are pledging to people is a local income tax".
    So there we have it: the promised £100 has been withdrawn. Even though the leader of their party made that admission a week ago, his message does not appear to have got through to individual Lib Dem MPs, at least one of whose websites today continues to hold out the promise of a £100 refund under an "Axe the Tax" headline. It is no wonder that the leader of their party gave a nervous chuckle. Not only is his party in a shambles, but his proposals would have severe and, in many cases, inequitable consequences. They would impose substantial additional tax burdens on hard-working families, especially those with two or more earners, including those doing vital public service jobs.
    At the same time, as the embarrassment of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton demonstrated when he was questioned on "The Westminster Hour" a week ago about investment income, the back-of-the-envelope Lib Dem proposals would open up huge loopholes, allowing wealthy company directors and others living on unearned income to avoid making any contribution to local services—so much for the supposed fairness of their proposals. The whole issue of investment income would not be covered by their PAYE system, and that would be an obvious incentive for evasion.
    Finally, the proposals they have made have weaknesses that they do not consider.
    Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister belongs to the supposed party of fairness and justice. Is it right that under the present council tax proposals an elderly couple should spend 11 per cent. of their income on council tax when under the LIT proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), they would pay 4 per cent.? Is that just or fair?
    Mr. Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I said earlier, he would know that I highlighted the contribution to that situation of councils—including many Lib Dem councils—that have pushed up their council tax to an unreasonably high level. I also highlighted the scope for trying to ensure that those who should receive council tax benefits do so. Some of the examples that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are in that category. Some 1 million people are probably paying more than they should because they are not getting their benefit entitlement. We want to tackle that problem, and we are doing so, but it does not mask the fact that his party proposes a wholly inequitable tax system that would create a massive

    757
    loophole, enabling some of the richest people in the country to evade any contribution to local services. It is nonsense, and the Lib Dems know it.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Raynsford: I must make some progress.
    The proposals have weaknesses that the Lib Dems have not considered. They have two ideas for how the tax would be collected. One is to collect it during the year through tax codes, and the other is to collect it at a standard rate across the country, and then to settle up with the individual taxpayer to cover what they should have paid through an end-year adjustment.
    The first proposal would it impose substantial additional burdens on employers, who would need to deal with local income tax rates for every local authority in which their employees lived. The website of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton even suggests that employers would also have to take account of the precepts from the 9,000 parish councils. Can hon. Members imagine the administrative chaos and confusion of taking into account precepts from 404 local authorities and 9,000 parish councils? I assume that the hon. Gentleman has made a mistake and that he did not mean that. I cannot believe that he would be so unwise as to make such a suggestion. The process of having to account separately for the different amounts of local income tax that employers were subtracting from their employees' wages would impose serious administrative burdens. The more councils with separate precepts, the more complicated and intractable that burden would be.
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: The Lib Dem proposals would not only involve collecting money through the PAYE system. Part of the saving is meant to come from doing away with the existing property-based tax, but they would still need to take tax on second properties. Therefore, they would not make the savings they predict by reducing that layer of bureaucracy.
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an appropriate point. The need for a system to value every property in the country for the application of the site value tax that is proposed in cases in which owners were not liable for local income tax would make it impossible to make any administrative savings, as the Lib Dems implied would be possible by reducing the work of the Valuation Office Agency.
    I do not believe that the Lib Dems have even considered the burden on business in their costings for the local income tax. I have seen no evidence of them having made any allowance for the additional cost—it would probably be some £100 million—to business that it would entail.
    The second option of an end-year adjustment would be an odd compromise, satisfying no one. It would be a local income tax in which, most of the time, the bill paid had nothing to do with the rate set by one's local authority. How would such a system promote local accountability and flexibility, and how would it aid the taxpayer in understanding how much money their council was asking for or spending on services? In addition, given that the mechanics of the tax system mean that under or over-payments would not be fully
    758
    settled for months or years, that approach would be doubly complex and unpredictable both for individual taxpayers, who could be presented with unwelcome retrospective demands, and for local authorities and the Inland Revenue.
    David Wright: Under that system, what would happen in communities that were reliant on one or two big employers if one went under before the end of a tax year? How would local councils collect their cash?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the unpredictability of depending on a tax that is not predictable—as council tax is—as a main source of revenue. The closure of a major employer in an area would result in a significant reduction in income tax revenue, but it would not affect the council tax yield because those who had lost their jobs would be entitled to council tax benefit.
    Mr. Clive Betts: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Raynsford: No, I must make some progress.
    I particularly enjoyed—as, I think, will the House—what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton says on his website about the proposal for end-year adjustments:
    "if your local authority has set a rate of"—
    local income tax—
    "lower than the national average, then you will get a rebate. If your authority has set a rate higher than the average, then you pay a little extra."
    We should note the selective use of the word "little". He does not say, "You will get a little discount"; nor does he say, as he should, "You will pay a little more unless you are unwise enough to live in a Liberal Democrat area where you will pay a lot more because they charge a lot more."
    The final significant option for reform put forward during the public consultation was for a range of smaller taxes or charges. The Local Government Association has been keen to explore that option, and it presented a useful paper at the steering group meeting on 27 April. It includes a wide range of possibilities, including localising existing taxes such as vehicle excise duty or stamp duty on property transfers, or introducing new taxes such as land value taxes, tourist taxes and more charges for local services. The steering group accepted that that is not a panacea, not least because most of the options would not raise sufficient revenue to make significant changes to the balance of funding. It has agreed to look more closely at some of the options, although it has ruled several out. The balance of funding review has just finished hearing presentations on the individual reform options. The next step at our meeting at the end of May will be to start to pull the threads together and to consider what the report will say.
    These are important issues. Many Members will remember the consequences of the previous Administration's rushed reform, which gave us not only the disaster of the poll tax, but the hiking of VAT to 17.5 per cent. That lesson of past failure is one good reason why we are adopting a cautious and considered

    759
    approach, not a knee-jerk response based on slogans. It is clear to the Government that many people, whether council tax payers on fixed incomes or those working in local government who would like a more transparent funding system, have serious concerns about many aspects of local government finance.
    The Government are clear that there are no easy fixes or quick wins and that we need to analyse the options carefully. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that we must take a measured approach. We will not hold out false promises, as do the Liberal Democrats, to the effect that reform is easy and solutions are painless. "Axe the Tax" must be one of the most mindless slogans ever put forward.
    The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton may fancy himself as the Arnold Schwarzenegger of south-west London, but it is a bogus prospectus. The Liberal Democrats are not a low-tax party—their councils are increasing council tax by more than any other party's. Their councillors do not want to cut council tax, but at the same time as they are busy increasing the burden, their Members of Parliament try to pretend that there is a quick and easy solution that can magically deliver lower tax bills. That is simply not credible. As I said before, they are no better than snake oil salesmen peddling quack remedies which would, if taken, leave the patient worse not better. Their motion deserves to be rejected with contempt.
    Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could give the House some advice. As the Liberal Democrats' motion has been totally and utterly demolished by the Government, is it possible for them to withdraw it so that we can all go home and not listen to any more?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): That is not a point of order for the Chair; we will continue the debate.
    8.23 pm
    Mr. David Cameron: My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) makes a tempting suggestion.
    In rising to speak against the motion, I should refer to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
    This is my first outing on the local government finance ticket, and it is a great pleasure to take part in the debate. I listened carefully to the Minister, who gave us an interesting walk through the balance of funding review. I think that we can take it from his speech that the Government have formally ruled out local income tax as part of the review; otherwise, he would have quite a few words to eat. He said that he expects to make an announcement before the recess. I think that he mentioned a debate, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us a guarantee that we will have a debate in Government time before the recess.
    I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). Although I am new to the subject, I found his speech rather odd, because he did not say much at all about local income tax. I wonder whether that was due to the fact that next to him was the brooding presence of the hon. Member for Twickenham
    760
    (Dr. Cable), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on finance. His speech was a bit like a lecture on the principles of local government finance, and I was taken back to a university lecture hall. I have to tell him that one does not need to try to make this topic boring and impenetrable. I thought that any minute we were going to hear about neo endogenous growth theory, but we did not quite get to that.
    Given that my Sunday papers told me that a leadership election is now under way in the Labour party, I was impressed by the number of Labour Members who stayed in the Chamber, as I thought that they might be in the Corridors being canvassed or canvassing. It was good to see them staying.[Interruption.] It is all true—I read in my newspaper that the Chancellor is getting his dream Cabinet ready, and thought that the Minister, who has been knocking on the door for so long, would certainly he making a guest appearance in that dream Cabinet. We will have to wait and see.
    The debate is a good opportunity to shed some light on a subject that is normally kept in the dark—official Liberal Democrat policy. I know that many other Members are waiting to speak, so I will restrict myself to three points. First, in recent years the council tax has risen far too far and far too quickly. That has caused real anger and real pain Every year under this Government, council tax has gone up by at least three times the rate of inflation. Every year, the Minister comes here and talks in his reasonable way about a generous settlement, yet every year we have these significant council tax increases. In England, council tax levels are up by 70 per cent. for a band D property since 1997. In 1997, the average bill was £689—now, it is £1,167. Council tax receipts are up from £11 billion to almost £20 billion. That has happened pretty much across the country—the Minister cannot point to authorities that have been immune. The Prime Minister promised us "no excessive rises" in council tax, yet that is precisely what we have had, year in, year out.
    That brings me to my second point: why has that damaging and painful increase taken place? It is possible to identify three separate causes, all of which, interestingly, can to a large extent be laid at the door of central Government. First are the additional and largely unnecessary bureaucratic burdens. My own local authority, West Oxfordshire, has calculated that complying with just two of those—comprehensive performance assessments and best value—adds £14 to each council tax bill, yet it is hard to find anyone who has a good word to say about them or thinks they have altered policy or practice in a meaningful way.
    Next are the unfunded liabilities. To be fair to the Minister, some of those include worthwhile goals. A classic example would be the targets for waste recycling. We all want those to be met, but where is the money to make that possible? Let us consider the list. Council leaders have to comply with the Licensing Act 2003, the Care Standards Act 2000, the Homelessness Act 2002 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Once they have finished doing that, they can try the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, a range of transport Acts, and requirements to develop plans on everything from litter to landlords.

    761
    After that, councils have to pay the Criminal Records Bureau, bed-blocking fines, higher national insurance contributions, pension liabilities, landfill tax and, of course, higher fuel duties. Next, they have to meet EU environmental directives, extra travel concessions, e-government targets and the cost of asylum and all that it entails.
    Mr. Sanders: Do not forget audit.
    Mr. Cameron: Time is limited and I have probably left out many things. I am trying to give a sense of the enormous range of burdens that councils are expected to meet without extra funding. They must be starting to feel like Elton John's hairdresser: each year, they are asked to do more and more with less and less.
    Mr. Neil Turner: The hon. Gentleman read out an interesting list. What is Conservative policy on all those measures? Would the Conservatives scrap all those local authority responsibilities, or would they give the authorities extra money to pay for them?
    Mr. Cameron: That is a reasonable question—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the answer."] The first thing to do is to stop making things worse. We have to stop adding burdens to local councils without giving them the funding. We could do one or two things straight away to improve the situation. I have already mentioned comprehensive performance assessments and best value; my constituents are paying an extra £14 for those two bits of red tape, which everyone says are worth nothing.
    The third cause, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, is the Government's obsession with two nouns that they have turned into verbs: to ring-fence and to passport through—I hope you can see that I am trying to get the hang of the jargon, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman said, the more that one ring-fences and the more one insists that a certain amount of money is passported through, the more one restricts local freedom of manoeuvre and the more likely it is that any increase in local spending will lead to a significant increase in taxes. Combined with the gearing effect of local government finance, that has led to the huge increases. As the hon. Gentleman said, a 1 per cent. increase in spending typically means a 4 per cent. increase in bills. Add all that together—the burdens, the legislation, the unfunded liabilities, the plans and the restrictions—and the rest, as they say, is history. Tax rises of 70 per cent: nobody was warned, but everyone pays—it has been the biggest stealth tax of them all.
    Mr. Dhanda: The hon. Gentlemen made a key point when he referred to the range of measures that he feels have been imposed on local government. Which of those would he remove?
    Mr. Cameron: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite heard what I said. I said that the measures included many worthwhile objectives, but we must try to have honest government. We should tell people what we plan to introduce and how much it will cost, and provide the funding for it. The Prime Minister said in the manifesto on which Labour Members stood for election that there would be no excessive council tax
    762
    increases, yet that list of measures—many of them worth while—was bound to lead to large council tax increases. The Government have a problem with stealth taxes. The biggest stealth tax of all is council tax. That is the cause of the problem.
    Mr. Raynsford: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box and look forward to many further interesting debates. He has mentioned his local authority, which originally proposed a council tax increase in excess of 30 per cent. yet has now managed to get it down to low single figures. Would he like to reflect on why that happened? Was it because the Government said that we would get tough if authorities went for unreasonably large increases? I do not think the reduction had much to do with the legislation to which my hon. Friends have referred.
    Mr. Cameron: I reflect often on that point and I think Labour Members might like to reflect on it, too. In West Oxfordshire, council tax is £63. I suspect that Labour Members—or at least their constituents—go to bed at night dreaming of council tax of £63. The reason the council considered increasing the tax from £60 to £80, which is still a good £60 short of the average figure, was the waste recycling issue. A new waste recycling contract had been signed to meet the Government's very worthwhile targets, and the cost of that alone means that the council will have serious liabilities this year, for which it has not been funded. However, council tax of £63 in West Oxfordshire, compared with the average of £140 for a band D property in a shire district, is staggeringly good value. The council is of course Conservative controlled, and has been for several years.
    Mr. Betts: The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the problems of gearing, which all local authorities face—some to a greater extent than others. To deal with that problem, local authorities will, ultimately, have the right to raise a larger amount of their resources locally. What is current Conservative thinking about how that could be achieved, bearing in mind especially the fact that the Conservative party was responsible for two measures that gave rise to the current situation—the nationalisation of business rates and the increase in VAT to keep poll taxes down?
    Mr. Cameron: Like the Government, we are holding a balance of funding review. All parties are considering the subject. The speech of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton was all about the fact that we had to consider such things. There is common ground on both sides of the House. We all think that local authorities need to be able to raise a greater proportion of what they spend, but there are different ways of addressing that—some of them are covered by the balance of funding review but some go beyond it. We are committed to looking into the matter.
    Mr. Edward Davey rose
    Mr. Cameron: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman before I deal with local income tax in slightly more detail than he did.
    Mr. Davey: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position. It is generous of him to admit that I was

    763
    making a serious contribution to the balance of funding review and putting forward some ideas. Will he now put forward some ideas from the Conservatives?
    Mr. Cameron: When I read the Order Paper, I thought it said that this was a Liberal Democrat Opposition day, so I thought that it would be chiefly about Liberal Democrat policy. I do not think that we have had a proper airing of local income tax. The Minister had a pretty good stab at it, but I thought I would say a few words about it, too.
    Mr. Steen: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. He is doing a first-class job and we look forward to the destruction of the Liberal Democrats in the next part of his speech.
    The problem is not just the amount of council tax, but how councils deal with Government requests to reduce it. Is my hon. Friend aware of what has happened in Torbay, where a by-election for a council seat is to be held on Thursday? The first cut to its £130 million budget has involved a reduction in the number of public lavatories available to tourists all over the bay.
    Mr. Cameron: Like me, my hon. Friend probably has a copy of the Liberal Democrats' little yellow book. I recommend it if one wants to see even greater nonsenses than that.
    Before I come on to local income tax, I cannot go on without mentioning the commitment to £100 off every council tax bill and the mystery of what happened to that. I have the leaflet from Brent, East in which the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton is pictured holding a very attractive cheque for £100. I am not sure what happened to the cheque. Perhaps we have been paid it or it did not arrive in the post. If the council tax had gone down, he would not need it any more. However, the most likely explanation is that the Liberal Democrats decided that, because they won that by-election, they would not need the cheque any more.
    Local income tax is no more credible than the £100 bribe. It is a workable soundbite, but that is as far as it goes. That is why we did not hear any detail today. The Liberals have taken two things that sound very good. They have taken the word "local"—we all want to be local—and the phrase "income tax", because they want to sound fair. They have put the two together but, as soon as one considers the detail, it is clear that the result is neither fair nor local. Liberal Democrats do not care about the detail; they want to be able to say, "Axe the tax." That is what this is all about.
    Dr. Whitehead: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cameron: I was warned that the hon. Gentleman has great expertise in local government finance, so I give way to him with some trepidation.
    Dr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is very kind, but he need not worry; I just wish to be helpful in pointing out where the £100 may have gone. The website of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) is a useful source of information. It claims that the £1.7
    764
    billion allocated from the proposed top rate of income tax for those earning £100,000 would not be an additional source of local government tax, but would go to keeping the rate of local income tax down to 3.75 per cent. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) suggested, the Liberal Democrats realised that their estimates were towards the top end of the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy's estimates and have had to put the money that would have previously constituted a £100 saving into keeping the rate down. They have had to make the £100 vanish in that process.
    Mr. Cameron: As well as being a lecturer on the subject, the hon. Gentleman is a detective. The hunting of the snark is over; he has found out what happened to the £100. However, I warn him not to spend too much time looking at Liberal Democrat websites. All sorts of things could follow from that.
    Let me deal with some of the arguments that the Liberal Democrats are not considering in enough detail. The first point relates to the effect that a local income tax would have on working families. We all know such people. We meet them while canvassing and in our surgeries. They work hard while not earning more than average incomes and are struggling to get on to the housing ladder and to build a better future for themselves. A couple with someone on male average earnings and another on female average earnings would have to pay £630 more than the average council tax—an increase of 65 per cent.
    I know that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton will ask about a house that contains just one average earner. Just as I do in Witney, he will find many couples in Kingston in their 20s and 30s who are struggling to get on to the housing ladder or who are making big mortgage payments because of house prices. If they were at or just below or above average income levels, they would be hit very hard. He simply has not thought that through. I predict that, in the local election campaign that is under way, the Liberal Democrats will not talk about that at all.
    Mr. Edward Davey: What would be the gross income of a household with two adults on average earnings?
    Mr. Cameron: Of course, it is well over £40,000. However, the hon. Gentleman has not published his figures showing the breakdown district by district for local income tax. We have done the work for him and, if one takes the current council tax rate, one finds that the rate in Kingston would be 5.2 per cent.
    Mr. Davey: Nonsense.
    Mr. Cameron: The hon. Gentleman thinks it is nonsense, but I expect that our leaflets will be going out shortly in Kingston and we want to get the figure right. If he does not think that our figure is right, he should publish his own. If h does not, we will be forced to use the figure of 5.2 per cent. and I offer it to Labour Members, too. They should make a note.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Cameron: No, I am going to make progress because many Back Benchers want to speak.

    765
    The second point about local income tax is that it would mean a return to high marginal rates of tax. To raise the same amount as council tax this year would mean a local income tax rate of nearly 4 per cent. It would be higher in some areas, Kingston being one of them. We know—in a rare outbreak of candour a Liberal spokesman told us so—that in time there would be a regional income tax as well. So the basic rate of tax would soon be pushing 30 per cent. in some areas. The marginal rate for someone on the current top rate of tax—41per cent. now, not 40 per cent.—would soon be pushing 50 per cent. A person does not have to be rich to pay the current top rate. It is paid by some school teachers, police officers, health workers, taxi drivers and many others. Are the Liberals really saying that those people should pay getting on for 50p in every £1 through income tax? Almost every hon. Member has come round to the view that high marginal rates of tax are bad for incentives and bad for the economy. Someone once said that the Liberals are the party for a better yesterday. On the evidence of their plan for a local income tax, that person was only half right: there would be nothing better about it.
    My third point about local income tax is the complexities that it would involve for councils. The tax year of many people would not marry up with the council's revenue year. Some 3 million people are self-employed and pay in arrears. There are also all the disputed income tax revenues. What would happen when the country as a whole, or a particular part of it, had a bad year and revenues fell? How on earth would councils plan their expenditure? You can bet your bottom dollar that the Liberals will not talk about that in the local election campaign.
    My fourth point is that we must consider the complexities that such a tax would mean for everyone else. Imagine a small business in London or any other big city that employs lots of different people from lots of different local authorities. Each would have a main local income tax rate—all different. Each would have a precepted rate from their fire authority and town council—all different. There would be more rates from their parish, police force and, in time, their regional assembly—again, all different.
    Companies complain to me, as they probably do to other hon. Members, that with all the tax credits and other complications, the Government have turned businesses into tax and benefit offices, but that would be a picnic compared with the complication of the local income tax. We can bet that when the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton goes around Kingston and talks to businesses, he does not tell them about that either.
    My fifth point is that the local income tax does nothing to address the grant system or the problem of gearing. As other hon. Members said, it could, and will, make them far worse because some areas have higher tax bases than others. There would have to be much more equalisation and even more grants from central Government to make up for the inconsistency. That means that it could not be called a local tax.
    My final point—I can give a copper-bottomed guarantee that the Liberals will not talk about this in the local elections—is that local income tax will be paid by millions of people who are not well off. The student nurse, earning just about £10,000, who is barely able to pay rent, who perhaps lives at home or with friends,
    766
    would pay the local income tax. The school leaver, starting to earn good money, but still living with parents and trying to save for a deposit for a flat, would pay local income tax. The pensioner grandmother, with some income from savings, who is living in the main family home so that she can be looked after, would pay local income tax. So there we are: it is not simple; it is complex. It is not good for the economy; it is bad for incentives. It is not local; it is just a new national tax, backed by an ever-more interfering national grant system. Above all, it is not fair.
    Dr. Harris: As a neighbouring MP, I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his new Front-Bench role. I want to ask him about pensioners in Oxfordshire, including those in his constituency. He talked about the two people on average earnings of more than £40,000. There will, of course, be winners and losers. We have always said that there would be, but the winners will in many cases be those on fixed incomes who earn less than £40,000. So the winners will be people in Oxfordshire and the rest of the country who are less well off. The losers will be people who are best able to afford to lose. What is the Conservative position on fairness like that?
    Mr. Cameron: As a neighbouring MP, I shall look carefully at the leaflets that the hon. Gentleman puts out in Oxfordshire, and I hope that they draw as much attention to the losers as they do to the winners. An economy like Oxfordshire's cannot go back to the high marginal rates of tax that did so much damage.
    It is clear that we need to get to grips with the situation that we face. We need a recognition that the current crisis has been caused above all by the rises in the council tax and its level, rather than its inherent nature. We need a recognition that we should strip away centrally imposed bureaucracy from local authorities.
    We need a recognition that we cannot go on asking local authorities to do more things without giving them the money. We need a recognition that the issue of gearing, and the percentage of spending that is paid for and performed locally. must be addressed. Those are the issues that we will be looking at.
    In this debate we have heard many figures. There is one, above all, that counts for Conservative Members, and that is the average band D council tax. If one looks at that, one finds that Conservative councils cost £57 less than either Labour or Liberal Democrat councils, yet they have a better record on waste collection and disposal. All the audits that the Minister has produced show Conservative councils in an excellent light. I say to Labour Members that the Labour Government caused this crisis and the Liberal Democrats have come up with entirely the wrong answer, so it falls to the Conservatives to get it right.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Neil Turner: I welcome the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) to his position. In grappling with his new-found role, he might like to go back in history a little and remember exactly what the Conservative party did to local councils when it was in government. When I was a councillor in Wigan in the 1990s, we faced cuts in the Government grant of £10 million a year, and still we were having more and more

    767
    policies imposed on us by central Government. The hon. Gentleman might like to consider that before he criticises this Government. They have undoubtedly given local government more to do, but they have given it extra money to carry out those duties.
    It would be nice if we were lectured on local government by experts, but that is certainly not true of the contribution from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I was reminded of fifth-form debates, although the content was usually better at school. We should not really be surprised because the Liberal Democrat record in local government is dreadful. Of the excellent councils in the country, Labour controls Wigan plus 11 others, the Conservatives have nine and the Liberal Democrats have nul points.
    Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene to nail that canard. Will he confirm that most Liberal Democrat authorities are district councils, most of which have not yet been assessed by the comprehensive performance assessment process? Will he comment on the performance of Liverpool city council? When the Liberal Democrats took it over in 1998, it had the highest council tax in the country; now, after six years of Liberal Democrat rule, it is 70th. Will he make fairer, more balanced comments, rather than just taking his lead from the Labour Whips Office?
    Mr. Turner: I have looked at the record put forward by the independent auditors. The CPA process says that there are no excellent Liberal Democrat councils. I am very sorry about that. The hon. Gentleman may have a problem with that, but it is his problem and he ought to sort it out.
    When we look at council tax, what do we see? For Labour councils, the average council tax paid this year is £870; for Liberal Democrat councils the figure is £971; and for Conservative councils it is £1,072. The increase this year is 4.1 per cent. for Labour, 5.4 per cent. for the Conservatives and 6 per cent. for the Liberal Democrats. It is no wonder that the Liberal Democrats' record with the electorate is so lamentable. In council after council, they get elected and get control—then the franchise falls apart, they mess it up and they get voted out. As Julius Caesar might have put it, "We came, we were elected, we got found out, we were rejected."
    The problem is that the Liberal Democrats have no history of running major councils for any length of time.
    Matthew Green: Liverpool.
    Mr. Turner: For how long did the Liberal Democrats run Liverpool council—four, five or six years? Wigan has had more than 60 years of Labour control. That is the sort of period that I am talking about. I am sure that there are many councils that have been run by the Conservatives for a similar length of time. The Liberal Democrats have never run a major local authority for any length of time, and that is the problem.
    That problem has been made clear by the £100 rebate fiasco. In February 2003 the Liberal Democrats were offering a
    768
    "£100 cut for every Council Tax bill".
    In May 2004, their leader was asked:
    "So they won't be getting the hundred pounds you promised them?"
    He answered, "Correct." We see it and then, pouf, it vanishes. It is the Keyser Soze policy of local government finance.
    Everyone recognises that gearing is a huge problem under the present council tax system. That can be addressed only by reducing the amount that central Government pay and increasing the amount that local people pay, yet the Liberal Democrats do not propose any change in that ratio—they do not propose that extra money be paid from local income tax to replace council tax. The gearing issue would therefore not be altered, even though that was one of the main points advanced by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). The Liberal Democrats' costings are calculated on a cost-neutral basis. The difficulty they face is that changing from council tax to local income tax would not alleviate the gearing effect. In fact, it would get worse because central Government funding would increase—by £1.7 billion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said. That increase in Government grant would be funded from the Liberal Democrats higher rate of income tax. By changing the ratio between local and central funding—putting in more money from central Government—they would worsen the gearing effect.
    The story gets even worse because of the greater variations in the income tax base than in the council tax base—the property base. Let us examine the effects of council tax and local income tax in four authorities. Wigan's share of the England tax base is 0.534 per cent. under council tax, and 0.402 per cent. under local income tax; its tax base would decrease by 25 per cent. under the Liberal Democrats' proposals. Stockport has 0.575 per cent. of the tax base under council tax and 0.666 under local income tax, so its tax base increases by 16 per cent. Torridge in Devon faces the problem of the number of pensioners living there: its share of the tax base under council tax is 0.122 per cent., but 0.066 per cent. under local income tax; it would face a 46 per cent. reduction in its tax base. Kensington and Chelsea's share of the tax base would increase 125 per cent., from 0.528 per cent. under council tax to 1.19 per cent. under local income tax.
    Those four examples illustrate that much greater central Government support would be required to iron out the greater variations resulting from the change from council tax to local income tax. If central Government did not get the equalising formula right, they would face huge problems. We all know what difficulties were caused by the relatively minor changes made to the formula a couple of years ago. The Liberal Democrats would have huge difficulty explaining away the 25 per cent. reduction for my local authority and the 125 per cent. increase for Kensington and Chelsea in ensuring that the formula to redress the balance was fair.
    Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Although he dedicated the first part of his speech to the gearing problem in local government, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) did

    769
    not say that extra money would be put into the system to deal with the problem. In addition, the greater disparities in the resource base under local income tax than under council tax would make the problem of gearing worse, especially in councils with a low resource base, which would need more money from the centre.
    Mr. Turner: My hon. Friend makes my point better than I did. I am grateful to him.
    Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman read out an interesting set of figures about Wigan, which confirms that tax payers in Wigan would pay less under our policy than they do under council tax. He is arguing in favour of his electorate paying more.
    Mr. Turner: I do not accept that. We are saying that the income tax base in Wigan is less than the council tax base; therefore, unless a system of equalisation is devised, ensuring that Wigan's tax payers pay less will be extremely difficult. Our base from which to supply our needs will be 25 per cent. smaller, but our needs will not change. I am not clear about how the hon. Gentleman can argue that reducing the resource base by 25 per cent. but retaining spending at the same level will reduce the amount paid in tax. I hope that he will explain in greater detail when he winds up.
    The Liberal Democrats claim that their proposal would be fairer, as everybody would pay on the basis of need, but that is not true, as the hon. Member for Witney and the Minister for Local and Regional Government pointed out. Many people whose income is not pay-as-you-earn will not make a contribution, including individuals who receive the majority of their income from dividends. It will be difficult to ensure that contributions are made by the 3 million self-employed, and certainly not in the year when payment is requested.
    We have just heard that a cap will be set at £100,000. People on such an income will pay 5 per cent.—that is a reasonable average accepted by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy—or £5,000. Millionaires, however, will pay the same amount, or 0.5 per cent. of their income. That is not fair, and it will be difficult for the Liberal Democrats to explain to Wiganers, who are good at doing their sums, why it is fair that millionaires should pay only 10 per cent. of the proportion paid by others.
    The Liberal Democrats have not taken into account the cost of raising the personal allowance to £5,000, which the Inland Revenue estimates will cost £2.4 billion. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), who speaks on Treasury matters for the Liberal Democrats, did not explain in the Budget debate where the money to meet those costs would come from. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) made an interesting point about recession. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, virtually every mine in the country, and certainly every mine in the Wigan area, was closed almost overnight. Manufacturing industry, which depended on those mines, closed down alongside them, so there was a catastrophic drop in the amount of money for our local economy. How on earth would local councils cope in such circumstances? When there is a dramatic drop in income there is an equally dramatic rise in needs, as local councils must pay for school meals and other benefits. How could Liberal Democrats
    770
    overcome a recession on such a scale? Indeed, if they were elected with their policies such recessions would be likely.
    The Liberal Democrats want to reform business rates in line with land values. However—and this is a problem with which we will have to wrestle under the balance of funding review—property rates vary dramatically. A property in Wigan will not have the same value as a similar property in Warrington, which will differ in value from a property in Manchester, which will differ in value from a property in the south-east. Yet again, the Liberal Democrat policy will be subject to equalisation. More money from central Government will have to be put into local government and the gearing rate will have to be changed.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of localising business rates, or is he not?
    Mr. Turner: I shall come to that later.
    Cliff-edge problems were another difficulty that was not mentioned. Local income tax cannot be levied in Scotland and Wales, as such revenue-raising powers are devolved. What will happen on the cliff edge dividing Cumbria and Northumberland from Scotland, or Wales from the adjacent English counties? What happens to people who work in Wales or Scotland but live in England, and vice versa? My right hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Witney spoke about the costly problem of collecting revenue in two-tier authorities, which has not been addressed by the Liberal Democrats. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton glossed over the difficulty of collecting money in 9,000 parishes.
    The whole idea of a local income tax is crackpot policy from a tin-pot party.
    Let me address some of the problems with the council tax. All hon. Members understand that the council tax raises difficulties. It is far from perfect, having been cobbled together almost overnight to dig the Conservatives out of the poll tax hole into which they had got themselves. Gearing is a huge problem. We recognise that the 25:75 per cent. local to central Government ratio does not produce good Government. It leads to a lack of transparency, as local people see large rises in council tax but almost minimal increases in the service that they receive.
    The bands are certainly not wide enough at either the bottom or the top ends. That needs to be addressed dramatically. Certainly the three times ratio, 6/9ths to 18/9ths—in other words, the ratio of the very poorest household to the very richest household—is not a way to deal properly with those differences in income. Revaluation has been mentioned already by my right hon. Friend the Minister. Of course revaluation needs to take place, but we also need to ensure that we allow local councils to revalue much more regularly than 10 year intervals. I suggest five years, so that some buoyancy is built into the council tax base.
    Hon. Members have rightly raised the problem of benefits, which we need to address. Research carried out for the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister seemed to indicate that between bands B or C up to about bands F or G, and given 100 per cent. take-up of benefits, the council tax was quite fair. Hon.

    771
    Members on both sides of the House must address how we ensure that benefits are taken up on a realistic and full basis.
    Let me throw in my pennyworth to my right hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will take on board the idea of that we might want to consider allowing people to self-assess their benefits. We could get rid of the stigma by allowing everyone to send in a self-assessment. All local authorities would then determine whether someone was entitled to council tax benefit, rather than leaving that to 60 per cent. or so of people who apply for that benefit now. In other words, everyone should apply and most would say that they are not entitled, but at least everyone could to get their forms to the local council, which would assess eligibility for benefit.
    If we address those issues and consider the balance of funding review, revaluation, the ratios and the bandings, we will be able to put local government finance on a much better footing. Clearly, we must also widen the base from a single council tax to include the other elements that are being considered in the balance of funding review. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take on board those issues in a realistic way in reaching his assessment, so that the council tax base is not the only way that councils raise their money.
    9.2 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on a truly outstanding contribution at his first outing in his new brief this evening. He achieved something unusual on the Floor of House: he carried both major parties with him in his argument. The only Members who seemed a little upset by his comments were Liberal Democrats, who, in his own words, seem to have missed a great opportunity this evening to put their case for local income tax. Those on both Front Benches have demolished that proposal quite superbly.
    The debate has focused on various other types of local government finance, but there are not many alternatives. There is the status quo or a rejigged version of it; a fully fledged property tax; some form of local tax, either on sales or income; or a combination of some of those. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current council tax that a good dose of adequate Government grant and reduced Government directives could not put right.
    Why has the council tax, as my hon. Friend told us earlier, gone up for a band D property by 70 per cent. since Labour came to office? Why has council tax soared by three times the rate of inflation? Why are council tax receipts up from £8.7 billion in 1997–98 to more than £19.7 billion in the current year? That is a massive hike of some 80 per cent.
    Such is the increase that, for the typical pensioner and pensioner couple, a third of the increase in pensions has been taken up in council tax.
    It is not just in my own constituency in Cambridgeshire that we have seen a massive increase in council tax. There have been increases across the board throughout England. The reason is primarily that the
    772
    Government grant has not kept pace with mandatory service provision As with many Government Departments, centralisation has not produced the efficiency savings and value for money that were promised and which the Government thought would be delivered.
    Who, then, is to blame for the current state of affairs? According to the Audit Commission, it is the Government who are to blame. The Audit Commission report "Council Tax Increases 2003–04", published last December, states:
    "National cost pressures taken together account for about £2.3 billion of the total increase in councils' spending of £4.3 billion. In other words slightly more than half the total increase is due to national pay and price inflation, increased national insurance and general population growth."
    The report goes on to say:
    "The causes of increased spending by councils included … national policy priorities, such as the requirement to increase funding for schools by an amount determined by government or to meet waste recycling targets"—
    we have had comments on both those issues from the Floor of the House this evening. The report continues:
    "Grant redistribution—which moved grant from London and the south to the midlands and the north—led to some councils putting up council tax more than others."
    In conclusion the Audit Commission states:
    "We found a clear association between the size of grant increase a council received and their increase in council tax."
    Council taxes, as we well know, have been spiralling, some would say out of control, for some years. In the past few months, the Government have belatedly decided to wield the big stick. That brings me to capping. In the Minister's recent statement on capping only a few weeks ago, he said:
    "some authorities' budgets and council tax increases are still too high and impose unreasonable burdens on council tax payers."
    He repeated some of those phrases tonight. He also said in his statement:
    "The Government attach great importance to local accountability and believe that first and foremost it is for local authorities to set their council tax and justify it to their electors."
    Finally, he said:
    "Of course, it is not just the percentage increase in council tax that is relevant. We have first to decide whether an authority's budget requirement is excessive."—[0fficial Report, 29 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 1019.]
    There are three key statements there that I should like to test against the proposal to cap one of my own local authorities, Fenland district council. Those key statements concern. first, "unreasonable burdens", secondly, "local accountability" and thirdly, "an authority's budget requirement is excessive".
    Is the council tax in Fenland district council an unreasonable burden? One of the essential problems in the area is the low tax base. That was a point ably made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner). Some 85 per cent. of our dwellings in Fenland fall into the first three bands of council tax—that is, band A, band B and band C. The average council tax band in Fenland is band B, not band C as in the case of councils in Cambridgeshire as a whole, the English shire districts and the east of England as a whole. In terms of the average bill per dwelling, therefore, Fenland is £54 cheaper than Huntingdonshire district council. It is £63

    773
    cheaper than councils in England as a whole. It is £73 cheaper than East Cambridgeshire district council. It is £83 cheaper than the average of councils in Cambridgeshire as a whole.
    It is £132 cheaper than the English shire districts, and it is a monumental £183 a year cheaper than the neighbouring South Cambridgeshire district council.
    If one compares the average council tax bands, the differences are similar. I remind the House that in Fenland the average band is B, whereas in Cambridgeshire as a whole it is C. It is £33 cheaper in Fenland each year than in Huntingdonshire, £49 cheaper than in Cambridgeshire as a whole, and £115 cheaper than in the English shire districts.
    Where, then, is this unreasonable burden by which the Minister and the Government have set such great store? Would the Minister take some time to explain to the House what the Government mean by this unreasonable burden? Is it to be expressed in terms of the finite or actual amount that people physically have to pay in their council tax, or is it based on a percentage increase in any given year?
    We had the example from my hon. Friend the Member for Witney of West Oxfordshire, which had an extremely low council tax of some £63. When it sought to increase that towards the level of—though not as high as that of—other district councils in the area, it was threatened with capping because the percentage increase was deemed too high.
    The Government must come clean and tell my constituents in Fenland, and indeed people in Oxfordshire, that what they really mean by an unreasonable burden is just the percentage increase, not the finite amount in the bill that people have to pay.
    However, because of the relatively low tax base, which is reflected by the number and the value of properties, council tax increases in Fenland have to be much higher than in neighbouring councils to raise the same amount of income. The gearing effect is much exaggerated. For example, in Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire, a £1 increase in council tax raises £56,000 and £55,000 respectively, whereas in Fenland it would raise only £28,000–100 per cent. less. To put it another way, Fenland has to increase its council tax by double the rate of its neighbouring councils to raise the same amount of money. Is that really fair? Is that not the real burden for the council tax payers of Fenland?
    Hugh Bayley: Surely the question is why Fenland council was having to raise its council tax so high in the first place, given that Government grant to Fenland was 4.8 per cent., which is twice the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Moss: I will explain the situation later.
    On accountability, we realise and accept that the difficulties with the low tax base are to some extent addressed by the local government grant formula with which the Government have now come forward and the number of properties at the lower end are taken into consideration. We also welcome the fact that under the new formula, the districts will receive extra money in lieu of what used to be called the area cost adjustment. This is the first time that the districts and the county of Cambridgeshire will enjoy this extra money from the
    774
    new calculation and formula. But in the first year of the new grant, which was last year, the Government, under their floors and ceilings policy, held back some £566,000, and that is 8 per cent. of Fenland's budget. In fact, at that time last year the Government said that they capped the grant at a ceiling. Of course, they have dropped the word "capped" this year and replaced it with the phrase "scaled back". Obviously, they could not cap their own grant distribution and at the same time wield the big stick and cap local councils. But in the current year, under scaling back as opposed to capping, the Government have withheld £422,000, which is 6 per cent. of Fenland's budget.
    Where is the logic behind a Government policy that on the one hand calculates the budget for the district council under the new formula while withholding some of the grant required to deliver that budget, but on the other threatens to cap the council when it proposes to raise sufficient funds from council tax to replace that withheld funding?
    The effect of scaling back grant is clear: if the Government had paid the grant that they calculated the council was entitled to and made no other changes, the council tax rise in Fenland would have been 8.17 per cent., which is less than the 8.25 per cent. threshold that the Government chose as the trigger point for capping.
    Who is accountable now? Is the council accountable for wanting to deliver the required services, or are the Government, who held back rightful grant, accountable? Why have the Government changed their mind on capping? In March last year, they indicated that they would not cap those councils categorised as excellent or good under the Audit Commission's comprehensive performance assessment system, but they are reneging on that pledge. Telford and Wrekin council is one of the councils in the list for capping, and it has an excellent grading under the CPA.
    As I said earlier, the Government are not only withholding grant but piling extra financial burdens and responsibilities on to councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney gave us a long but not exhaustive list of extra burdens that the Government have piled on to councils since they entered office. I accept that many of those extra pressures are supported by capital grants, but we all know that capital expenditure has a knock-on effect on the ongoing revenue expenditure required to keep services going, and that that money is provided from local resources and is not met by Government grant.
    Let us consider recycling targets, which have been mentioned more than once in this debate. Recycling is not currently mandatory, but the Government strongly recommend and encourage it. If one talks to district councils, none of them thinks that recycling will not be a Government statutory requirement in the near future. This year, Fenland district council put £204,000 into its budget to meet recycling targets, following Government guidelines and encouragement. A similar story can be told about the e-government targets, which are, again, non-funded targets—Fenland district council put £125,000 into its budget to meet e-government targets. Added together, those two amounts meet the Government's required budget savings of £300,000 following capping. Are those examples of excessive budget requirements?

    775
    Fenland district council has submitted a medium-term financial strategy that identified higher increases this year, reducing significantly in future years. Those increases are part of a short-term strategy, and do not indicate a continuing trend. Next year and in future years, the strategy, which was submitted to the Government, outlines efficiency savings of £350,000, and a reduction in the general fund reserves totalling £800,000 spread over the three years from 2004–05 to 2006–07, which will mitigate the increases on council tax payers.
    Finally, I come to the issue of re-billing. As a small district council, Fenland has particular problems this year. The current billing system will not allow for automatic re-billing, and the bill for software reprogramming for a new system will come to some £85,000. It is also important that a decision is taken quickly, if the Minister and his Department can do that, because if some council tax payers take the view that substantial savings are to come their way as a result of capping, they may not pay their council tax bills as early as they might have done.
    That withholding of payment can create havoc for a council's budgeting and financial position and the final cost according to the Local Government Association could be more than £200,000.
    If we take into account the lower estimate for the re-billing exercise, the saving for a band D taxpayer is calculated at only £7 for the year. After all that, we shall save a band D taxpayer 13p a week. For 85 per cent. of taxpayers in bands A, B and C, the amount will be less than 13p. We must ask the obvious question: is the whole exercise not rather pointless?
    If Fenland council can demonstrate planned lower increases in its medium-term strategy for the next few years and if it receives a good, if not excellent, category from the recent comprehensive performance assessment review—the outcome is due at the end of the month—surely common sense will prevail and the threat of capping be lifted this year. After all, Fenland district council is not profligate. Its council tax is not an unreasonable burden compared with its immediate neighbours'. Its budget is not excessive; it is a well-run council, which actively and positively seeks to implement Government policies, namely recycling and e-government, and has a clear idea of where it is going, as the CPA review will doubtless bear out.
    I invite the Minister to bring the full weight of his acclaimed knowledge, common sense and understanding to bear to foster the correct and logical outcome.
    9.21 pm
    Hugh Bayley: When the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) rose to move the motion, the Liberal Democrat Benches were packed with Members desperately willing him to deliver the knockout blow in the local government election campaign. As his speech continued, they crept out of the Chamber one by one and now only two remain. Neither looks especially happy.
    Most hon. Members agree that the council tax needs reform, especially in Liberal Democrat areas where the biggest increases in council tax this year took place.
    776
    Those increases are 6 per cent. on average, compared with 5.4 per cent. in Conservative-controlled councils and 4.7 per cent in Labour areas. Although the increases are considerably lower than last year's, they have led to discontent among many people, especially the elderly. The pensioner council tax revolt started in the south-west of England, where there are many Liberal Democrat councils. However, it is not confined to Liberal Democrat areas; there is genuine anxiety among elderly people throughout the country.
    I applaud the Government for establishing the balance of funding review. It is an all-party review, which includes local politicians who are nominated by the Local Government Association and it will report this summer. If the liberal Democrats genuinely wanted a considered improvement on the status quo, they would not try to pre-empt the review but await the proposals from that all-party review team. We therefore need to ask why the Liberal Democrats have jumped the gun with a muddled and costly local income tax proposal.
    The answer is simple: it diverts attention from the Liberal Democrats' record in local government throughout the country of poorly controlled spending and poor-quality services. Hon. Members have already mentioned the interesting fact that, of the councils that the Audit Commission independently judged to be excellent, some 12 are Labour controlled and none is Liberal Democrat controlled.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Hugh Bayley: The hon. Gentleman has a bit of a cheek. When he was speaking, with all the benefits of a Front Bencher who can speak for more than 30 minutes, I asked four times whether I could intervene on him. He declined and now he wants to intervene when hardly any time remains for Back Benchers to speak and when a Liberal Democrat Back Bencher, miserable though he looks, hopes to be called next. So I shall decline to give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene.
    Until this time last year, City of York had the lowest band D council tax in Yorkshire. Indeed, it had the lowest council tax in Yorkshire in each and every band. Then, a year ago, the Liberal Democrats won control of the council, and I applaud their electoral success. Now, one year later, we no longer have the lowest council tax in Yorkshire; we have the fourth lowest. The band D rate in York is £1,078 this year. In Bradford, it is £1,061; in Wakefield, it is £1,048; and in Leeds, it is £1,040. York has gone from lowest to fourth lowest in just a year.
    Last year, when the Liberal Democrats took control, they promised in York, as elsewhere, that they could deliver a £100 a year reduction in council tax. What actually happened this year was an average increase of about £80 a year. The plan for a £100 cut in council tax has been quietly shelved and replaced by another completely uncosted—and, frankly, equally undeliverable—promise on local income tax.
    The Liberal Democrats cannot blame the Government for this increase. The Government increased the grant for City of York council by 5.5 per cent. this year, which is twice the rate of inflation. The provisional settlement gave us a 4.3 per cent. Increase—a Government grant of more than £100 million for the

    777
    first time. I went into battle for the City of York, and I will support the council tax payers in my constituency irrespective of which party controls the council. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local and Regional Government listened to what was being said, saw what was happening on the ground and increased the Government's support for the City of York by a further £1.2 million, taking the overall increase in Government grant to 5.5 per cent. So the 8.5 per cent. increase in council tax imposed by the Liberal Democrat council in York has not come about because of a poor funding settlement from central Government. It has come about because of a failure of the Liberal Democrat administration in York to control its own soar-away spending.
    So, although York still has one of the lowest council taxes in the country, thanks to a legacy of prudent financial management by a Labour council for a good many years, it came within a hair's breadth of being capped this year. The limit set by my right hon. Friend the Minister was an 8.5 per cent increase in council tax or a 6.5 per cent. increase in the overall council budget. By luck rather than judgment, City of York came in with a council tax increase of exactly 8.5 per cent., and a budget increase of exactly 6.5 per cent. So, had it come in with a council tax increase that was any higher, and had there been just one more council in England to be capped, it would have been the City of York. That is a remarkable turnaround in its financial fortunes in just one year, and it ought to be a stark warning to the Liberal Democrats in control of the council that they have to get their soar-away spending under control before next year.
    The Liberal Democrat income tax proposal is a magician's sleight of hand, because it seeks to move attention from the real world of high-cost Liberal Democrat councils to a fantasy world in which everybody is led to believe that somebody else will pay their council tax bill. Who will pay? Hon. Members should not look at the Liberal Democrats' costings, because, like the £100 cash-back offer last year, they will vanish overnight. Instead, they should look at CIPFA's analysis, which was prepared for the cross-party balance of funding review.
    CIPFA estimates that the Liberal Democrat income tax proposal, which will vary from council to council because it is local, would raise the basic rate from between 3.2p to 6.5p in the pound. That proposal will hit many people on low incomes in places such as York who do not pay council tax at the moment, while excluding some people on high incomes who pay council tax.
    Yorkshire has on average the lowest council tax in England, but it does not have the lowest average incomes, so the Liberal Democrat plans for a local income tax would mean higher bills for working families in Yorkshire. What about people with second homes in York, Harrogate, the Yorkshire dales, or the North York moors? They will not have to pay a penny under the Liberal Democrat local income tax proposals. What about millionaires, who, as my hon Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) said, are not on PAYE and live off investment income? They will not be touched by the Liberal Democrats' proposals.
    I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the balance of funding review, but tonight I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister that, at this stage at
    778
    least, the Government do not intend to increase income tax for hard-working families while at the same time letting off some better-off households from paying local taxes altogether. That is precisely what the Liberal Democrat motion proposes.
    9.32 pm
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: Over the years, each Minister who has spoken on local government has presented to the House the claim that their local government settlement is the best ever. Of course, it always is, because with inflation that will always be so, but Government inflation is based on retail price inflation, not the inflation rate that councils across the country have to meet.
    According to a survey by Barclays bank, the public sector inflation rate in the past 12 months was some 7 per cent. If the average council received an increase of 5.5 per cent., every council received a real-terms decrease in central Government funding. The claim that such and such a council got well above the retail price inflation rate is true—it is not a lie—but it is never the whole story. It misleads and confuses the public over whether the Chancellor should get a pat on the back for his Budget, or whether councillors should get it in the neck for the high council tax.
    The council tax has three failings. I shall speak from the point of view of my constituency in particular. Labour Members—the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), for example, cannot see that under local income tax the people of Wigan would pay less in tax than they pay under council tax—are misunderstanding local income tax, or are happy for their constituents to pay more.
    Mr. Neil Turner: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is short of time, but I have to point out that well over 90 per cent. of households in Wigan are in bands A and B, and that is why they would pay more in income tax than in council tax.
    Mr. Sanders: The hon. Gentleman has read the tax base figures, but he is incorrect. People in Wigan would pay far less under local income tax, given local incomes.
    There are three fundamental flaws in the council tax. First, the grant system is based on historic spend. An authority such as mine, once part of a large shire county with historically low spending patterns, never catches up.
    Mr. Cameron: The hon. Gentleman says that the council tax is fundamentally flawed. Why, then, are the Liberal Democrats not getting rid of it in Scotland?
    Mr. Sanders: We would like to, if we were in government in Scotland, but we are not. We believe in devolution and different solutions fought for by different people.
    Historic spending patterns mean that our grant is kept low and that we never catch up. Secondly, the grant formula is linked to the tax base. If an area has a high base, it gets less money in central Government grant.

    779
    The third flaw lies in demand for services. In an area such as mine, where there is historic low spending, high house prices and low incomes, and simultaneously there is ever-rising demand for services, as is often the case in seaside resorts because of demographic changes as economically inactive people migrate there and elderly people remain alive longer, demand for services rises faster than the grant formula can keep up with.
    There is a further problem, too. Out of the chunk of central Government money that goes to local government, increasing amounts have been top-sliced for a few local authorities that have been able successfully to bid for them. In a sense, the year-on-year increase of that which is available to all councils goes up, but for those that cannot access that top-sliced funding, the amount does not go up by anything like as much as the Government would claim.
    I received figures from the local government Minister following a written question last week that show the impact of that. In my constituency, residents are worth £26 per head less than those in the average unitary authority; I compare like with like because it is unfair to compare unitary authority figures with those for other tiers of local government. For a council that is successful in getting access to top-sliced funding, the ratio is even bigger. Our nearest successful neighbour is Plymouth, where residents get £101 per head more than the residents in my council area. If my local authority got the same per head Government grant funding as Plymouth, we could have cut council tax by a quarter this year without cutting services.
    Let me put straight something referred to earlier that needs to be corrected. There are toilet closures in my constituency, but we are gearing up for a bumper summer season and our lifeblood is tourism. I am not aware of any beach or tourist area that will be without a public convenience. The closures have been carefully chosen, and some of those closed will reopen as a result of a local initiative. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), whose constituency covers part of Torbay, which is a tourist resort, must be corrected. No tourist should be put off as a consequence of his misinformation.
    Bob Russell: He was talking down Torbay.
    Mr. Sanders: That is right.
    There is a perverse capping logic. Our council tax in the past two or three years has been lower than those of our neighbours in Devon and Plymouth, and our council tax is the second lowest in Devon. Why, then, are the neighbouring authorities not capped? Simply, the answer is that the increase has come this year, and this year brings important elections for the Labour party in metropolitan areas. Capping will therefore fall on my constituents because of Labour's electoral chances.
    I must finish now to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) to wind up, but I have one final question for the Minister. He attacked a local income tax on the grounds that many people could evade it. If it is such a big problem, what are the Government doing about all those income tax evaders who fail to make a contribution?
    9.40 pm
    Matthew Green: This debate has shown the House at its worst. The public always say that there is too much yah-boo in the conduct of our business. When my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) stood up today, he had a well written speech—
    David Taylor: Why didn't he use it?
    Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is still at it. My hon. Friend had a well written contribution to make to the debate on local government finance, but the representatives of the Labour and Conservative parties clearly had no intention of debating local government finance. They just wanted to play yah-boo politics. However, I will try to answer some of the questions that have emerged from the debate.
    The Minister claimed that the Government were reducing ring-fencing. We could achieve a cross-party consensus on that, but the Minister must accept that passporting is ring-fencing in all but name. As long as the Government passport education, which is more than 50 per cent. of local government finance, the funds are dictated by central Government. It does not matter whether it is called passporting or ring-fencing: it is the same thing. The change of word does not let the Minister off the hook. If the Minister promised to tackle passporting, we would be happy, but I suspect that he would then invent another word for it and claim that he had dealt with the first two problems.
    The Minister said that the Liberal Democrats should tell our councils to get a grip and lower their council taxes. That comes from a Labour party that has a policy of new localism. I understood that new localism meant giving extra powers to councils and letting them decide issues for themselves. The Liberal Democrats believe that councils should be left to take their own decisions and to face the electorate on that basis, but this Labour Government think that such matters should be decided by central diktat. The Minister cannot have it both ways: he must choose between new localism and capping.
    The Minister mentioned capping and I shall give a local example. West Mercia police have been nominated for capping for next year. That authority has had some large council tax rises recently, including 33 per cent. a few years ago. However, I have not had a single letter of complaint about that rise, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) and the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright), who is no longer in his place, would say the same. That is because the authority was waiting for extra money from central Government, which never came, so in order to deploy 200 extra officers the police authority—
    Mr. Paul Marsdern: My hon. Friend is right, but I had thousands of letters about soaring council tax increases—even though the Government said in 1997 that they would make the council tax fairer. People are happy with the increase in the council tax precept by West Mercia police authority

    781
    that will supply 15 extra bobbies on the beat, because the authority is accountable and people feel that they have more control over that decision.
    Matthew Green: My hon. Friend is right. The Government have capped an authority that the public support because it has increased the number of officers. The Government are getting it wrong and they should withdraw the proposals to cap that authority.
    The Minister would not read out the four advantages of local income tax that were identified by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. He clearly has not read the document in detail, as he did not know that it mentioned five, not six, disadvantages. I want to pick up on the first of those advantages, because a lot has been said about the balance of funding. CIPFA says that one of the main advantages of LIT would be that it is
    "capable of effecting a real shift in the balance of funding".
    Mr. Neil Turner: How?
    Matthew Green: Because once it is in place, one can, over successive years, reduce national income tax and shift it on to local income tax. That shift in the balance of funding could be effected in other ways. For example, the shadow Chancellor proposed in a speech in February that the proportion that is raised locally should rise and that the amount coming through central Government grant should be cut. However, he also said that council tax is the vehicle to do it. That would effectively mean that were one to, say, double the amount raised locally, council tat would double. One might cut national income tax, but one would double council tax. However one looks at it, shifting the balance of funding means reducing national tax and increasing local tax. The easiest way of doing that is through local income tax, as CIPFA says.
    I am short of time, but I do not want to miss the opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) to his post. Speaking for the Conservatives on local government finance is a bit like being handed a hospital pass. If the hon. Gentleman has ever played rugby, he will know what I am talking about. We would love to be able to debate the issue across all three parties, but the difficulty is that the Conservatives have no policy at the moment.
    We know that the Government are thinking about, and consulting on, a new policy. However, I have here the Labour party's local government supplementary manifesto to its 1997 general election manifesto. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yah-boo!"] It is not yah-boo—it is a serious point. The manifesto said:
    "Labour proposes to return the business rate to local control as part of our commitment to improved partnership with local business. We are consulting widely on our plans to ensure that any changes bring maximum benefit to local businesses."
    We share the aim of restoring business rates to local control, but I hope that the first question that the Under-Secretary addresses is this: what was the response to that consultation, and why are the Government still consulting seven years later?
    The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) asked about millionaires and why we would cap the tax at £100,000. I am not sure how many millionaires' houses
    782
    he has seen, but at the moment even if they live in the biggest of houses they pay only three times what is paid by the occupants of the smallest of houses—that is, about twice the amount of band D. The highest amount that a millionaire anywhere in the country pays is about £2,500. Under our proposals, they would pay quite a bit more.
    Mr. David Watts: Not enough.
    Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman says that it is not enough, but what do his Government propose to do to make millionaires pay more? If they had any such proposals, we would welcome them.
    The hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) mentioned excellent authorities, but I am afraid that his Whips' briefing missed one out—Cambridge is an excellent authority with majority Liberal Democrat control.
    Hugh Bayley rose—
    Matthew Green: I cannot give way, because I have only a minute left.
    The hon. Gentleman—this is the most telling point described the idea of local income tax as being for people living in a fantasy world. Clearly, then, people in the United States, Japan and most of Europe live in a fantasy world, because that is where local income tax is used and works. The fact is that local income tax is a fair solution, whereas council tax is an iniquitous tax that hits the poorest and pensioners hardest. The Government should agree with us about scrapping that unfair Tory tax instead of trying to defend the status quo.
    9.49 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): We have had a short debate led by the Liberal Democrats. If they were intending to use it to try to boost their chances in the forthcoming local elections, it was an utter failure. We have yet to see a more lamentable performance in the House.
    I welcome the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. Although we are never quite sure who is who on the Tory Front Bench, it is good to see him there. His performance was good on style but somewhat lacking in substance—I shall come to that in a moment.
    As we are debating local government finance, I remind the House about Labour's record over the last seven years: a real-terms grant increase of 30 per cent. and the longest period of sustained investment in local government in recent decades. This year the grant increase for local councils was 5.5 per cent. Furthermore, we have removed some of the ring-fencing, and that process will continue.
    As my right hon. Friend the Minister reminded the House, Labour councils have the lowest council tax increases this year: the figure is 4.7 per cent. for Labour councils and 5.4 per cent for Tory councils, but Liberal Democrat councils are top of the shop with council tax

    783
    increases of 6 per cent. I am also pleased to say that Labour councils are doing well in their comprehensive performance assessments.
    The missing Liberal Democrat £100 has been mentioned but Members have neglected to mention the extra Labour £100. This year, there is a one-off payment of £100 for pensioners aged over 70 to help them with their council tax costs.
    I turn to the substance of the debate—the Liberal Democrat motion. There has been a noticeable absence of Liberal Democrat Members in the debate, although one or two are coming into the Chamber at this late stage. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) gave an eloquent and devastating exposure of what it is like when Liberal Democrats are in control of local authorities. They lose control of their budgets and find that they are at risk—a clear message to every elector that if they want sensible budgeting and good-quality services they should support Labour councils.
    We have heard that the Liberal Democrats propose to sweep away all council tax—to abolish property taxes entirely and replace them with a local income tax under their popular slogan, "Axe the Tax". Of course, when they say "Axe the Tax", they forget to say, "Oh, by the way we'll have to put up another tax to pay for it": only a minor point of detail. We would not want to remind them too much about that but for the fact that it will mean between 3 and 6 per cent. on income tax. So, "Axe the tax (oh, and we'll put up your income tax)" might be a rather more accurate description of Liberal Democrat policy.
    Moreover, the Liberal Democrats are not actually going to axe the tax. What do they plan to do about second homes? Second homes will still be subject to a form of property tax. There will continue to be a business levy, or rate, on every second home in the country, which means we shall have to count all those second homes, value them and then tax them. That sounds to me like a property tax, which they have just pledged, under "Axe the Tax", to sweep away. Not only will the Liberal Democrats maintain a property tax, they will also increase income tax. We shall get a double whammy from the Liberal Democrats.
    By introducing a local income tax, the Liberal Democrats will attack people such as students. As most Members know, students or nurses in training do not pay council tax. However, a nurse in training who earned some money at weekends or during the holidays and started to pay income tax would be caught by the local income tax, so a new set of people would have to pay local income tax.
    The Liberal Democrat sums do not add up—we had that debate in February. They said that they would pay for all their proposals through an increase on the higher rate of council tax that will generate £4.7 billion. They would spend about £6.2 billion in local tax and £1.7 billion on raising the income tax threshold to £5,000 and
    784
    they would spend on higher education and on care for the elderly. We have costed a list of Liberal Democrat promises and it comes to £6.2 billion, yet they will raise only £4.7 billion.
    That seems to be a bit of a gap. It is only £1.5 billion, but that is the Liberal Democrats' finances. Perhaps they might like to spend time at a numeracy summer school to try to get it right in future.
    The Liberal Democrats' other great slogan is, "Scrap the cap". That sounds a great idea; we will not put a cap on. What happened to the Liberals' concern for pensioners on low incomes? "Scrap the cap", but what do we see? They would allow local councils to put council taxes through the roof. That is why we have introduced capping to bring down council taxes this year. It is important to protect pensioners on low incomes.
    We then come to the great cheque that bounced—the £100 that came and went. Now you see it; now you don't. It is another bit of Liberal Democrat magic for the House. They are not so much pulling a rabbit out of a hat as trying to stuff it rapidly back in as they realise that they cannot afford to pay for it. The Lib Dem agenda is higher income tax, more bureaucracy, sums that do not add up and a U-turn. That is just about right for the Liberal Democrats.
    I would not want this Liberal Democrat-led debate to divert attention entirely from the Conservatives and their proposals for local government. It is interesting that their amendment to the Liberal Democrat motion says absolutely nothing about their proposals for the future of local government funding. So I thought that I would remind the House of one or two proposals that we know are now in the public domain.
    The first thing is that the Conservatives will not repeat their poll tax disaster; for that, we can be thankful. However, they made a record 7 per cent. cut in local government funding in the last four years of the Tory Government. Have they learned that that was probably not a good idea? No, because they have a shadow Cabinet that represents a recession in waiting. For the first two years, if they got back into office, they would cut spending on local councils by no less than £2 billion. That is not just cuts, but hacking off whole services at a local level.
    We have heard some excellent contributions in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) spoke, and the budget of his council in Wigan would be cut by no less than £13 million in the first two years of a Tory Government. The budget of the council in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York would be cut by £5 million if the Tories got back in. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) talked about the capping of Fenland. If his party got back in power, the first thing he would be doing is explaining to his councillors why it was going to cut £350,000 from Fenland's budget. That is the impact of Conservative policies.
    There would not just be cuts for everyone and cuts across the board. The Conservatives would remove resource equalisation, which involves spending more for those who need it most. The sum total of Tory policy is not only cuts for everybody, but cuts for those councils in the areas with the most vulnerable people who need the resources and services the most.

    785
    I might add that the Tories have promised that they would scrap the comprehensive performance assessment and the best value measures. I was trying to work out why that should be. Is it because they want to deny a good management tool for local government? No. Is it because they want to stop local citizens having information to make judgments? No. I shall tell the House what it is about. When they put their cuts in place, they do not want us to know about it. They do not want the citizens to know about it. It is a cover-up for the cuts that the Tories would introduce. We can sum up the Tories' agenda—cuts and cover-up. That is the Conservative way.
    Let me draw to a conclusion on where we are going next. We have seen that the Liberal Democrats' proposals involve higher taxes, more muddle, more bureaucracy and reneging on their promises. From the Conservatives, we have seen that, if they got back into power, there would be cut upon out, with services and councils finding themselves unable to deal with that.
    The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire complained about capping, but his views were in direct contradiction to those expressed by those on the Opposition Front Bench, who have said that they would support capping and keep capping reserve powers if they needed them. He should ensure that his local councillors understand the difference between his position and that of those on the Opposition Front Bench.
    Where are we now? We have a Labour Government who are investing in local services and investing 30 per cent. more in local government than the other parties. We are in a position of lower council tax increases—
    Mr. Andrew Stunell rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put,put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 48. Noes 437.

    Division No. 177]

    [9:59 pm

    AYES

    Allan, Richard

    Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Baker, Norman

    Barrett, John

    Harvey Nick

    Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

    Heath, David

    Breed, Colin

    Holmes, Paul

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

    Burnett, John

    Keetch Paul

    Burstow, Paul

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Lamb, Norman

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Laws, David(Yeovil)

    Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE file)

    Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Moore Michael

    Chidgey, David

    Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

    Cotter, Brian

    Öpik, Lembit

    Davey, Edward(Kingston)

    Price Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Doughty, Sue

    Foster, Don(Bath)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    George, Andrew(St. Ives)

    Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

    Gidley, Sandra

    Rendel, David

    Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

    Sanders, Adrian

    786

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

    Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

    Webb, Steve(Northavon)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Willis, Phil

    Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Teather, Sarah

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Thurso, John

    Bob Russell and

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Mr. Roger Williams

    NOES

    Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

    Chope, Christopher

    Ainger, Nick

    Clapham, Michael

    Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

    Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

    Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

    Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

    Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

    Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

    Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Clelland, David

    Atkinson, David(Bour'mth E)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Bacon, Richard

    Cohen, Harry

    Bailey, Adrian

    Coleman, Iain

    Baird, Vera

    Collins, Tim

    Baldry, Tony

    Colman, Tony

    Banks, Tony

    Connarty, Michael

    Barker, Gregory

    Conway, Derek

    Barnes, Harry

    Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

    Baron, John(Billericay)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Battle, John

    Corston, Jean

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cox, Tom(Tooting)

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Cruddas, Jon

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

    Bell, Sir Stuart

    Cummings, John

    Bellingham, Henry

    Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

    Benton, Joe(Bootle)

    Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

    Bercow, John

    Curry, rh David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Berry, Roger

    Dalyell, Tam

    Betts, Clive

    Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

    Blackman, Liz

    David, Wayne

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

    Boswell, Tim

    Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

    Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

    Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dawson, Hilton

    Brady, Graham

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Brazier, Julian

    Denham, rh John

    Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Browne, Desmond

    Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Bryant, Chris

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Doran, Frank

    Burden, Richard

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Burgon, Colin

    Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

    Burnham, Andy

    Drew, David(Stroud)

    Burns, Simon

    Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

    Burnside, David

    Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

    Burt, Alistair

    Efford, Clive

    Butterfill, Sir John

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Cairns, David

    Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

    Cameron, David

    Etherington, Bill

    Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

    Evans, Nigel

    Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

    Fabricant, Michael

    Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

    Fallon, Michael

    Casale, Roger

    Farrelly, Paul

    Cash, William

    Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

    Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

    Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

    Challen, Colin

    Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

    Fisher, Mark

    Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Flight, Howard

    Chaytor, David

    Flook, Adrian

    787

    Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

    Johnson, miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

    Follett, Barbara

    Foster, rh Derek

    Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

    Foster, Michael(Worcester)

    Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

    Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

    Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Foulkes, rh George

    Keen, Ann(Brentford)

    Francois, Mark

    Kemp, Fraser

    Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

    Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

    Ganier, Edward

    Key, Robert(Salisbury)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

    Kidney, David

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

    King, Andy(Rugby)

    Gilroy, Linda

    King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Goggins, Paul

    Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

    Goodman, Paul

    Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

    Gray, James(N Wilts)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Green, Damian(Ashford)

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Greenway, John

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Grieve, Dominic

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

    Lammy, David

    Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Grogan, John

    Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

    Gummer, rh John

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

    Leigh, Edward

    Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Hammond, Philip

    Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

    Hanson, David

    Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Hayes, John(S Holland)

    Lidington, David

    Heald, Oliver

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Linton, Martin

    Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

    Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

    Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

    Loughton, Tim

    Hendrick, Mark

    Love, Andrew

    Hendry, Charles

    Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

    Heppell, John

    Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Luke, Iain(Dundee E)

    Heyes, David

    Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

    Hill, Keith(Streatham)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Hodge, Margaret

    McCafferty, Chris

    Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    McDonnell, John

    Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

    MacDougall, John

    Hope, Phil(Corby)

    McFall, John

    Horam, John(Orpington)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Mackay, rh Andrew

    Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

    McKechin, Ann

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    McNamara, Kevin

    Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

    McNulty, Tony

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hunter, Andrew

    McWalter, Tony

    Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

    McWilliam, John

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Illsley, Eric

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Malins, Humfrey

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Mallaber, Judy

    Jack, rh Michael

    Mendelson, rh Peter

    Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

    Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

    Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

    Maples, John

    Jamieson, David

    Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

    Johnson, Boris(Henley)

    788

    Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Ruffley, David

    Martlew, Eric

    Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

    Maude, rh Francis

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Salter, Martin

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Mercer, Patrick

    Sawford, Phil

    Merron, Gillian

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Miliband, David

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Miller, Andrew

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Shepherd, Richard

    Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Moffatt, Laura

    Short, rh Clare

    Moran, Margaret

    Simmonds, Mark

    Morley, Elliot

    Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Singh, Marsha

    Mountford, Kali

    Skinner, Dennis

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

    Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

    Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

    Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Norman, Archie

    Smith, John(Glamorgan)

    O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

    Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Soley, Clive

    Olner, Bill

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Organ, Diana

    Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

    Osborne, George(Tatton)

    Spring, Richard

    Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

    Stanley. rh Sir John

    Ottaway, Richard

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Page, Richard

    Steen, Anthony

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Paterson, Owen

    Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Perham, Linda

    Picking, Anne

    Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Pike, Peter(Burnley)

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Plaskitt, James

    Streeter, Gary

    Pollard, Kerry

    Stringer, Graham

    Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

    Pound, Stephen

    Syms, Robert

    Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

    Tami, Mark(Alyn)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

    Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

    Prescott, rh John

    Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Taylor, David(NW Leics)

    Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

    Taylor, Ian(Esher)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Taylor, John(Solihull)

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Purnell, James

    Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Tipping, Paddy

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

    Rammell, Bill

    Touhig, Don(Islwyn)

    Randall, John

    Trend, Michael

    Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

    Trickett, Jon

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Truswell, Paul

    Redwood, rh John

    Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

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

    Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

    Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

    Turner, Neil(Wigan)

    Twigg, Derek(Halton)

    Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

    Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Viggers, Peter

    Rooney, Terry

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

    Walter, Robert

    Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

    Ward, Claire

    Ruane, Chris

    Wareing, Robert N.

    789

    Waterson, Nigel

    Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

    Watkinson, Angela

    Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Watts, David

    Woolas, Phil

    White, Brian

    Worthington, Tony

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

    Whittingdale, John

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Wiggin, Bill

    Wright, David(Telford)

    Wilkinson, John

    Wright, Tony(Cannock)

    Willetts, David

    Wyatt, Derek

    Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

    Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

    Wilshire, David

    Young, rh Sir George

    Winnick, David

    Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

    Paul Clark and

    Charlotte Atkins

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 181.

    Division No. 178]

    [10:16 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

    Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Ainger, Nick

    Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

    Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

    Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

    Clelland, David

    Anderson, Janet(Rossendale & Darwen)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Cohen, Harry

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Colman, Tony

    Bailey, Adrian

    Connany, Michael

    Baird, Vera

    Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

    Banks, Tony

    Corbyn Jeremy

    Barnes, Harry

    Corston, Jean

    Battle, John

    Cox, Tom(Tooting)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Cruddas, Jon

    Beckett, rh Margaret

    Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Cummings, John

    Bell, Sir Stuart

    Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

    Benton, Joe(Bootle

    Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

    Berry, Roger

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Betts, Clive

    Dalyell, Tam

    Blackman, Liz

    Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    David, Wayne

    Blizzard, Bob

    Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

    Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Denham rh John

    Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Dobbin, Jim(Heywood)

    Browne, Desmond

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Bryant, Chris

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Doran, Frank

    Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

    Burden, Richard

    Drew, David(Stroud)

    Burgon, Colin

    Eagle. Angela(Wallasey)

    Burnham, Andy

    Efford, Clive

    Cairns, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

    Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

    Etherington, Bill

    Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

    Farrelly Paul

    Casale, Roger

    Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

    Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

    Fisher, Mark

    Challen, Colin

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

    Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

    Chaytor, David

    Follett, Barbara

    Clapham, Michael

    Foster, rh Derek

    Clark, Mrs Helen(Peterborough)

    Foster, Michael(Worcester)

    Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

    790

    Foulkes, rh George

    McCafferty, Chris

    Gerrard, Neil

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Gibson, Dr. Ian

    McDonnell, John

    Gilroy, Linda

    MacDougall, John

    Godsiff, Roger

    McFall, John

    Goggins, Paul

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

    Mclsaac, Shona

    Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

    McKechin, Ann

    Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Grogan, John

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hanson, David

    McWalter, Tony

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    McWilliam, John

    Henderson, Doug(Newcastle N)

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hendrick, Mark

    Mallaber, Judy

    Heppell, John

    Mandelson, rh Peter

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

    Heyes, David

    Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

    Hill, Keith(Streatham)

    Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

    Hodge, Margaret

    Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

    Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

    Hood, Jimmy(Clydesdale)

    Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

    Hope, Phil(Corby)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

    Martlew, Eric

    Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Meacher, rh Michael

    Meale, Alan(Mansfield)

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Merron, Gillian

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Miliband, David

    Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

    Miller, Andrew

    Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

    Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moran, Margaret

    Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

    Morley, Elliot

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Illsley, Eric

    Mountford, Kali

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

    Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

    Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

    Jamieson, David

    O'Hara, Edward

    Jenkins, Brian

    Olner, Bill

    Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

    Organ, Diana

    Osborne, Sandra(Ayr)

    Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

    Perham, Linda

    Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

    Picking, Anne

    Kaufman, rh Gerald

    Pickthall, Colin

    Keen, Ann(Brenfford)

    Pike, Peter(Burnley)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Plaskitt, James

    Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Pond, Chris(Gravesham)

    Kidney, David

    Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Pound, Stephen

    King, Andy(Rugby)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham

    King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

    Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

    Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

    Prescott, rh John

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Lammy, David

    Purchase, Ken

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Purnell, James

    Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

    Quin, rh Joyce

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Leslie, Christopher

    Rammell, Bill

    Lewis, Ivan(Bury S)

    Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

    Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    Linton, Martin

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

    Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

    Love, Andrew

    Robertson, John(Glasgow Anniesland)

    Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

    Luke, lain(Dundee E)

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

    Rooney, Terry

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

    791

    Ruane, Chris

    Taylor, David(NW Leics)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

    Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

    Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

    Touhig, Don(lslwyn)

    Salter, Martin

    Trickett, Jon

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Truswell, Paul

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

    Sawford, Phil

    Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Turner, Neil(Wigan)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Twigg, Derek(Halton)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Tynan, Bill(Hamilton S)

    Short, rh Clare

    Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

    Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Singh, Marsha

    Ward, Claire

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

    Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

    Watts, David

    Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale

    White, Brian

    Whitehead, Dr. Alan

    Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

    Smith John(Glamorgan

    Winnick David,

    Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

    Soley, Clive

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Woodward, Shaun

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Woolas, Phil

    Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Worthington, Tony

    Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

    Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Wright, David(Telford)

    Stoate, Dr. Howard

    Wright, Tony(Cannock)

    Stringer, Graham

    Wyatt, Derek

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Tami, Mark(Alyn)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

    Charlotte Atkins and

    Taylor, Dan(Stockton S)

    Paul Clark

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

    Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

    Allan, Richard

    Collins, Tim

    Ancram, rh Michael

    Conway, Derek

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Cotter, Brian

    Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

    Curry, rh David

    Bacon, Richard

    Davey, Edward(Kingston)

    Baker, Norman

    Davies, Quentin(Grantham & Stamford)

    Baldry, Tony

    Barker, Gregory

    Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

    Baron, John(Billericay)

    Barrett, John

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Bercow, John

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Boswell, Tim

    Doughty, Sue

    Brady, Graham

    Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

    Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

    Evans, Nigel

    Brazier, Julian

    Fabricant, Michael

    Breed, Colin

    Fallon, Michael

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Burnett, John

    Flight, Howard

    Burns, Simon

    Flook, Adrian

    Burnside, David

    Foster, Don(Bath)

    Burstow, Paul

    Francois, Mark

    Burt, Alistair

    Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

    Butterfill, Sir John

    George, Andrew(St. Ives)

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Gidley, Sandra

    Cameron, David

    Gillen, Mrs Cheryl

    Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE Fife)

    Goodman, Paul

    Gray, James(N Wilts)

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Green, Damian(Ashford)

    Cash, William

    Green, Matthew(Ludlow)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

    Greenway, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Chidgey, David

    Gummer, rh John

    Chope, Christopher

    Hammond, Philip

    792

    Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

    Pugh, Dr. John

    Harvey, Nick

    Randall, John

    Hawkins, Nick

    Redwood, rh John

    Hayes, John(S Holland)

    Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

    Heald, Oliver

    Rendel, David

    Heath, David

    Robathan, Andrew

    Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

    Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

    Hendry, Charles

    Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Holmes, Paul

    Ruffley, David

    Horam, John(Orpington)

    Russell, Bob(Colchester)

    Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Hunter, Andrew

    Sayeecd, Jonathan

    Jack, rh Michael

    Shepherd, Richard

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Simmonds, Mark

    Johnson, Boris(Henley)

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

    Jones, Nigel(Cheltenham)

    Keetch, Paul

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Key, Robert(Salisbury)

    Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Spring, Richard

    Kirkwood, Sir Archy

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

    Steen, Anthony

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Streeter, Gary

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Stunell Andrew

    Lamb, Norman

    Swayne, Desmond

    Lansley, Andrew

    Syms, Robert

    Laws, David(Yeovil)

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Leigh, Edward

    Taylor, Ian(Esher)

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Taylor, John(Solihull)

    Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

    Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Lidington, David

    Teather, Sarah

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Thurso, John

    Loughton, Tim

    Tonge, Dr. Jenny

    Trend, Michael

    Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

    Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

    Mackay, Andrew rh

    Tyrie, Andrew

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Viggers, Peter

    Malins, Humfrey

    Walter, Robert

    Marsden, Paul(Shrewsbury & Atcham)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Watkinson, Angela

    Maude, rh Francis

    Webb, Steve(Northavon)

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Whittingdale, John

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    Mercer, Patrick

    Wiggin, Bill

    Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

    Wilkinson, John

    Willetts, David

    Moore, Michael

    Williams, Roger(Brecon)

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Willis, Phil

    Norman, Archie

    Wilshire, David

    Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

    Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

    O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Osborne, George(Tatton)

    Yeo, Tim(S Suffolk)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Young, rh Sir George

    Page, Richard

    Younger-Ross, Richard

    Paterson, Owen

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Price, Adam E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Mr. Hugo Swire and

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the Government support for local government with its 30 per cent. real terms increase in grant since 1997; notes that the average increase in council tax in 2004–05 is the lowest for nine years; supports the Government's proposals to take action against a number of authorities which have set excessive budgets and council tax increases in 2004–05; and looks forward to the report of the Balance of Funding Review of how local government in England is funded which is due in summer 2004.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  HUMAN RIGHTS
  That the draft Human Rights Act 1998 (Amendment) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be approved.—[Gillian Merron.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  That the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 1164), dated 20th April, a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.—[Gillian Merron.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the direction given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under section 51B(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on 28th April 2004, which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.—[Gillian Merron.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  CO-OPERATION WITH THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES OF THE WEST BANK AND GAZA STRIP
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No.12441/03, draft regulation amending Council Regulation (EC)No.1734/94 on financial and technical cooperation with the Occupied Territories; welcomes this amendment; and supports the European Commission's continued support for Palestinian development and the Middle East Peace Process.—[Gillian Merron.]
  Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, for the purposes of its approval, the draft Guidance proposed to be issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was laid before this House on 23rd March, shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).—[Gillian Merron.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

  Bus Re-regulation (Manchester)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Graham Stringer: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the catastrophic effects of the deregulation of buses in 1986 and the potential for re-regulating the bus system in Manchester and other metropolitan and county areas.
  This is not a dry academic subject based on economic theory or the history of transport legislation; it is a real story of people in my constituency whose lives have been and are being damaged because of the ineffectiveness of the bus system. I could spend the time allotted to me for this Adjournment debate just going through my casework. There are hundreds of cases of people who are upset and complain that, because the 149 does not turn up, they have missed hospital appointments, or because the 151 service is withdrawn they have difficulty getting to work.
  In parts of my constituency, fewer than a third of people have access to a car and therefore are particularly dependent on buses and vulnerable when those buses do not turn up. It is a little known fact that outside London, Manchester, at 22 per cent., has the highest percentage of people using buses. It is well known that one of the largest factors keeping unemployed people from employment is their lack of access to transport. It is estimated from surveys that 40 per cent. of people give that as a reason for not getting a job. Therefore, failures in the bus system have a terrific economic impact and a terrific impact on those who want to use North Manchester general hospital.
  A particular problem in my constituency in north Manchester has been the extremely poor performance of First group in providing services. Some 12 months ago, in one week in particular, it had 600 failures, which meant that the bus did not turn up. That means that if only 10 people wanted to use each service, 6,000 people that week were stranded or had to wait for the next service. When the passenger transport authority considered its reliability performances, it was found that on its 10-minute services a third were not making the scheduled time, and on its 15-minute services 20 per cent. were not running to schedule.
  On point-to-point fares, First group has higher fares on every rate and distance compared with Stagecoach in the south of Manchester. Its weekly ticket is more expensive, although some saver tickets are better than those of other bus companies operating in the area. But overall, its performance on reliability, punctuality and fares is appalling, and that is still the case. More recently, it has averaged 300 failures a week, so there was not just a peak 12 months ago. The service has been consistently bad.
  First group's appalling performance created a crisis before Christmas—it has given a number of reasons to explain why that happened. It claimed that it did not have enough drivers; but when it recruited drivers, it did not have the engineers to start the buses, so the problem did not involve drivers because the buses simply were not there.

  795
  When the Transport Act 1985 went through this House, it was not envisaged that that would happen because competition was supposed to ensure that an ineffective, badly operated company, which First group is in north Manchester, could not succeed. Other bus companies should have come in, provided a better service and competed on fares, the market should have worked well and the passengers should have been happy.
  That has not happened because the people who framed the 1985 Act got it wrong. Nationally, 85 per cent. of the market has been consolidated by five companies, and that situation has been replicated in Greater Manchester. In the north and west of the city, First group run between 80 and 85 per cent. of services, and Stagecoach has a similar dominance of the market in the south of the city. Although about 40 bus companies operate in Greater Manchester, two of them dominate the market. That is a cartel—a monopoly situation—and it was not supposed to happen under the 1985 Act. I am happy to call the situation a cartel, because if it has got a black, cold nose, it wags its tail and it barks, then it is a dog. The two major operators in Manchester engage in little competition and they form a cartel that disadvantages the travelling public.
  What are the remedies? The 1985 Act did not work in the way in which it was envisaged. I have written to the Office of Fair Trading on a number of occasions, and it always asks, "Where is your evidence that there is anti-competitive behaviour? Where is your evidence that meetings have taken place between Stagecoach and First group to arrange those anti-competitive practices?" I do not have such evidence. The evidence is that services are poor and that competition is lacking. The OFT says, "The market should take care of that."
  The Transport Committee has seen that the OFT does not have a high regard for evidence because the OFT relies on dogma and theory. When it argued the case for deregulated hackney carriages, we took evidence in the Transport Committee showing that where taxis are deregulated, against theoretical expectations fares increase beyond the average and waiting times increase. It simply ignored that evidence and said that competition would drive down fares and waiting times, which has not happened in practice, and it views bus services in a similar way.
  I do not know whether you have seen "Planet of the Apes", Mr. Deputy Speaker. The OFT reminds me of the apes who were in charge of the planet and who believed that flight was impossible. When the human beings, who had travelled forward in time, made a paper aeroplane, the apes simply did not believe that it flew. That is how the OFT operates. For an integrated, effective transport system, we need integrated routes so that the timetables meet and people can change from one bus to another. The OFT says that that is anticompetitive and it tries to stop the co-ordination of services. It has failed within the bus industry, and it has no role in examining buses.
  Let us consider the traffic commissioner, with whom I believe the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority is in communication. If it was effective in persuading her of the unreliability and lack of
  796
  punctuality of First group, what are her remedies? They are to fine the company or tell it to remove the service. Removing the service would not be helpful to the people whom I represent when other groups prefer not to operate those routes. First group sometimes tells me that that is because its computer systems try to reduce the dead mileage between the destination and the garages. If that means that it stays on the same routes and does not compete much with Stagecoach and other operators, that is another method of getting computers to arrange an anti-competitive contract for the company.
  What remedies exist in the Transport Act 2000? Can we have a quality contract that would enable the specification of service levels and fares and ensure that competition occurred at the tendering stage, with the public sector controlling the routes? I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary is consulting on reducing the 21-month rule for introducing a quality contract when the scheme has been agreed. However, I do not believe that there is much hope that Greater Manchester or anywhere else can go down the quality contracts route because the hurdle in section 124 of having to prove that a quality contract is the only practicable way of implementing the authority's policies is simply too high.
  In Coventry, which tried to introduce a quality contract, Arriva flooded the area with buses and claimed that there was no need. It might take three and a half or four and a half years to implement a quality contract. If the bus operators do not want it, they can change what they are doing to prevent the PTA from surmounting the legislative hurdle
  What is happening in Manchester and Greater Manchester? Since deregulation in 1986, a drop in passengers of between 30 and 40 per cent. has occurred in all metropolitan areas, including Greater Manchester. There is potentially good news in the bare statistics, which show that, during the past three or four years, the number of people who use buses in Manchester has increased by 6 per cent. However, when we look into that, we find that it has made the position worse because the major operators, not only in Greater Manchester but in other metropolitan areas, are consolidating their services on the main routes, where they pick up more passengers, but withdrawing from the non-radial and cross-conurbation routes and from marginal areas. That leads to social isolation and makes using buses more difficult.
  Companies are also withdrawing services from the weekends and times outside the rush hour. They put more and more buses on the radial routes and during the morning and evening rush hours. People who want to travel at other times are finding it difficult to do so. That led the National Audit Office, in its recent report on trams, to point out that it is not a sensible use of public money to have private sector operators competing against a light railway system. The Government have put money—I hope that they will put some more—into the tram system in Greater Manchester.
  When bus companies consolidate on the radial routes, it means that, if the PTA wants to keep the routes going, it must put the route up for tender. The costs to the PTA in Greater Manchester have more than doubled to £13 million. There is little competition and the bus

  797
  companies that previously ran the routes tender for them, usually at a considerably higher cost. That is the experience throughout the country,
  We find the public sector supporting the buses through concessionary fares in increasing amounts—it is between £55 million to £60 million in Greater Manchester. Also, it is not widely recognised that, as the buses travel backwards and forwards more on the radial routes, they are doing more miles, even though they are going to fewer places. Even when passenger numbers were decreasing, the buses were making that first consolidation and doing more miles, which means that they get more bus service operator grant.
  More money is going into concessionary fares—£60 million in the case of Greater Manchester—via supported tendered services, and the bus service operator grant is going up as mileage goes up, yet we are getting a worse service. In fact, public money is being used to isolate communities and make the public transport system worse. I do not find it tolerable that public money should be used in that way. It is a fact that throughout the metropolitan areas, 30 to 40 per cent. of the bus services' income comes from the public purse, but the passenger transport authorities and county councils have no control over how that money is used. The travelling public find that very difficult to understand.
  I believe that bus services should be re-regulated, but they are opposed to that idea. That is not surprising. The one area that was not deregulated in 1986 was London. There, the bus companies get 8 per cent. of their income from the public purse, whereas those in the metropolitan areas get considerably more than that. Over the period since deregulation, and with very low subsidies, there has not been the loss of passengers, in Greater London that there has been in the metropolitan areas, and with more money going into the system, we are now seeing huge increases in the number of passengers using buses in Greater London. The Government have to answer this question: why, if a regulated scheme is good enough for London, is it not good enough for the rest of the country? It is better for the travelling public and for the public purse, people know what they are getting for their money, and the system is transparent.
  I should like to finish by citing my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who was asked on at least two occasions when he came before the Select Committee whether it was possible to have an integrated transport system without re-regulating the buses. He was clear and unambiguous in his response, which was that that was impossible, because it is not possible to co-ordinate the services to the benefit of the travelling public. I agree with him that that is the case.
  I hope that the Government will listen to the arguments and consider re-regulating the buses, whether through a pilot scheme or in some other way, because the pathway to a more sensible use of public money and to a more effective transport system—not just in Manchester but throughout the country—is through a different system from the one that we have. At the moment, the bus companies are laughing all the way to the bank. They are taking more and more money from the Exchequer and providing a service that is less and less good for the travelling public. That is leading to social exclusion and keeping people from jobs and from access to health and education services.
  798
  I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to stand up and say, "Yes, we will do that tomorrow", but I hope that he and the Government realise the power of the arguments that have been put tonight and that the current situation is not a sensible way of providing a transport system or of using public money.
  10.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) on securing this debate, on his contribution to the discussion on bus regulation and on recognising the importance of buses to Manchester. I can cheerfully say that I shall not disappoint him, as I am not going to say, "Yes, you can have all you want." The significance of this debate lies in a recognition—much overdue in many areas of the debate on transport—of the importance of buses.
  Buses provide two thirds of all public transport journeys, and they are key to making public transport a viable alternative to the car. As my hon. Friend suggests, they also play a vital role in tackling congestion and, crucially, promoting access and inclusion. I welcome this opportunity to set out what the Government are doing to make buses central to our integrated transport strategy.
  My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that buses can deliver and are beginning to do so. We have set the target of securing a 12 per cent. increase in the use of local public transport—buses and light rail—by 2010, while improving the accessibility, punctuality and reliability of services. The latest figures for England show a 3 per cent. overall increase last year, including London. Despite my hon. Friend's caveats, Greater Manchester has contributed to that, with bus patronage up 6 per cent. since 1999–2000. I congratulate both cities on that.
  To dwell on the wider context for a moment, progress is already being made on fleet modernisation. The average age of the bus fleet has fallen from 9.6 to 8.1 years over the past 10 years and some 30 per cent. of full-sized buses are accessible for wheelchairs. As my hon. Friend will know, there have been significant advances in CCTV and other dimensions, not least real-time information equipment.
  Of course, to achieve patronage growth and service improvement, a number of key factors have to be brought together: investment in traffic management, quality, partnership and the appropriate regulatory framework all have a role to play, as indeed does strong political leadership.
  My hon. Friend has made the case for re-regulation, and I listened to his arguments carefully. I know others share his view. I certainly agree that it is essential that a city such as Manchester has high-quality bus services as part of a modern, integrated transport system. We are keen to help to create the conditions to make that happen, but we need to look closely at how best to go about it.
  The fully tendered system, which my hon. Friend referred to and which operates in London, has produced impressive increases in bus patronage. Ken Livingstone has shown that buses can deliver a quality service and help to tackle congestion when combined with traffic

  799
  restraint. I welcome that progress, but London is unique in its size and complexity, and it has one of the largest and most comprehensive urban transport systems in the world. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend will know, London was at a different starting point in terms of regulation. We have to think carefully before assuming that replicating the London arrangements is a necessary or sufficient condition for delivering better bus services elsewhere. It is important to recognise both that the existing regulatory framework has strengths and that that system has not been tested to the extremes or as much as could have been the case. The existing regulatory framework has the scope to encourage innovation—responding to customer needs, providing choice and attracting new custom. Many operators have risen to the challenge; indeed, Stagecoach Manchester won an award for its Unirider summer online ticket scheme at the 2003 bus industry awards.
  Our experience is that the effectiveness of bus services depends on the level of partnership between local authorities and bus operators. Partnership has shown that it can deliver in some places, and we are keen to build on that. The Bus Partnership Forum has been helping to take this forward by producing many useful resources and sharing best practice.
  Where that is not happening, the existing legislation makes provision for strengthening the hand of local transport authorities. The Transport Act 2000 offers a number of avenues for local authorities to pursue if appropriate. As my hon. Friend said, those include statutory quality partnerships and quality contracts. The latter allow authorities to plan and control bus services within a designated area. That can include fares, routes, timetables and driver training.
  The legislative framework is already in place. The task is to make it work. We are keen to remove barriers to the introduction of a quality contract where the criteria set down in the 2000 Act can be met, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words on the consultation to reduce significantly the 21-month statutory minimum waiting period before implementation of a scheme. We are analysing the results of that consultation, and we will shortly publish for consultation guidance on applying for a quality contract. That is important, not least because metropolitan and other areas have suggested that the 21-month period has been an impediment to the regulatory framework, and we are happy to consider that.
  My hon. Friend kindly made much of the amount of money going into bus services in Manchester and elsewhere, in both revenue and capital terms. That is an important part of the mix of factors that have to be brought to bear. In December, we announced a £1.9 billion capital settlement for local transport—an increase of more than £200 million on the previous year, much of which is for bus-related projects. Indeed, we have approved £26.3 million for the Greater Manchester quality bus network.
  I certainly take to heart my hon. Friend's points about social inclusion. More funding is being provided for urban and rural bus challenges. Greater Manchester was notably successful in the 2003 awards, securing £2 million for six new schemes, among them precisely the
  800
  sort of schemes that fill the social inclusion gap to which my hon. Friend referred. It is not the fault of people living in communities on a particular side of our great towns and cities if, for whatever historical reason, the key employment activity on that side of town has diminished or entirely gone so that most economic activity is on the other side of town. We are working closely with operators and local authorities to fill those gaps where restoring a fully fledged route would not be appropriate.
  I totally agree that it is vital that we get the best use out of the public funding that goes into buses in terms of achieving our objectives. We have been looking at that in the bus subsidy review and the current spending review, the outcomes of which are due this summer. I urge just a little patience on my hon. Friend in that regard, but it is right and proper given the amount of money going in from a range of sources, including bus service operator grant and the challenge funds, that we should look to see whether we are getting entirely the service and return that we need for that investment.
  I entirely agree that reliability is crucial. I am aware of the service delivery issues raised by my hon. Friend with First in northern Manchester. As he said, some of the problems have been caused by staff shortages and others by the absence of vehicles. The traffic commissioners have a vital enforcement role, and they are currently working with the bus partnership forum on gleaning better data about bus performance. I hope that Greater Manchester passenger transport executive and First can work together to ensure that users experience better service levels in problem areas.
  Reliability also depends on local traffic conditions and traffic management issues such as congestion. We are encouraging local authorities to implement bus priorities to help tackle that. My hon. Friend will know that there is at best a mixed picture nationwide on that, and I believe that keenly focused operators, sharp political leadership and such things as bus priority measures are equally important to securing the service that we need. In addition, the Traffic Management Bill currently going through its parliamentary stages contains provision to encourage the smooth flow of traffic in local areas and reduce disruption caused by street works.
  In recent months, we have had discussions with the Greater Manchester authorities, and others around England, about the focus of their next local transport plans. I am heartened by the amount of common ground that we have found. Greater Manchester has made huge strides in recent years—not only in patronage, although I take on board what my hon. Friend said about that. The new night bus has been very successful and trials of yellow buses are showing that they can improve safety and cut congestion.
  The Government's vision is of an integrated system that encourages the use of public transport as well as offering choice. Buses are essential in that regard, but we need the right framework of regulation. We are looking in the round at public subsidy for buses.
  I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and his contribution, and I wish him well in his desire to see buses playing a greater, more efficient role in Manchester as they fulfil their role in the integrated transport system that Manchester and all our urban and

  801
  rural areas deserve. Whatever discussions we have about the regulatory framework, it is absolutely clear to the Government that buses are central to all that we are trying to do, not just on public transport and integrated transport, but in terms of exclusion—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Departmental Computers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to update computer(a) hardware and (b) software standard packages used in her Department. [166363]

  Alun Michael
  The wide range of Defra's responsibilities and its geographic spread result in a variety of computer hardware and software being employed. These are constantly reviewed and updated where necessary in order to ensure they continue to meet business requirements, offer value for money and are fully supportable.

  The supply of computer hardware and software standard packages to Defra is currently subject to an outsourcing procurement exercise.

  Food Labelling
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the use of the red tractor logo on food produced in the UK. [172451]

  Alun Michael
  The Red Tractor logo is privately owned and its use on food is licensed by a private company, Assured Food Standards (AFS). The logo denotes foods which comply with standards of production set by AFS or by schemes that AFS has recognised as being equivalent. The Government plays no part in setting those standards nor in validating its operations.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she will take during 2004(a) to increase awareness of the dangers of global climate change and (b) to promote education about ways in which (i) citizens, (ii) businesses, (iii) public services and (iv) the media can help the Government to reach its target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. [171228]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department provides funding to two key bodies which as part of their activities run programmes to promote energy efficiency and climate change, including advertising schemes, events, marketing, and awards.

  The Energy Saving Trust encourages the sustainable use of energy in the domestic and small business sectors. Work includes an Energy Efficiency campaign to encourage domestic consumers to take up energy efficiency measures.
  656W
  The Carbon Trust aims to enable UK business and public sectors to move towards a sustainable, low carbon economy while maintaining business competitiveness. Their recent "Lifeblood" campaign has had wide coverage.

  "Energy Efficiency: the Government's Plan for Action" published on 26 April confirms the Government's commitment to raising awareness on climate change and its links to energy use. As stated in the Action Plan, the Government are exploring the scope for a new climate change information campaign.

  The UK has also signed up to Article 6 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), through which Parties to the Convention have a legally binding commitment to carry out activities on education, public awareness, public access to information, public participation and international co-operation.

  At the Eighth Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COPS) in New Delhi, in October-November 2002, the Parties adopted a five-year non-binding Article 6 work programme, known as the New Delhi Work Programme to steer Parties towards implementation of Article 6. As part of this, UK officials are currently involved in the planning stage of a web-based internet clearing house that will act as hub for public users to find out information on Article 6 related activities carried out by different countries.

  Milk (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many milk processing companies in Lancashire are available for farmers in Lancashire to sell the milk they produce. [172072]

  Alun Michael
  There are 112 milk processing establishments in Lancashire, approved under the Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995. However, producers are not restricted to delivering their milk to purchasers or processors within their county. Farmers in Lancashire can therefore deliver their milk to milk processing companies outside Lancashire.

  Orchards
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice her Department gives on how many years should elapse before apple trees can be replanted in the same field. [168144]

  Alun Michael
  Defra has not issued advice on this subject.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) parish and (b) town councils have been awarded Quality status in (i) Lancashire and (ii) Chorley. [172071]

  Alun Michael
  To date no applications for Quality status has been received from parish councils or town councils in Lancashire or Chorley. However, the Lancashire and Mersey County Training Partnership
  657W
  (CTP) has received 14 registrations from clerks who are working towards the Certificate in Local Council Administration. So far one clerk has passed the qualification that was developed in line with the Quality Council Scheme launched in August 2003.

  Websites
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total annual cost of her Department's websites, including those of its agencies, was in the most recent year for which figures are available. [159514]

  Alun Michael
  The use of websites is now a mainstream of communication for any organisation in the public sector or the private sector and for business units throughout any large organisation. Direct operating costs for the main Defra website (www.defra.gov.uk)—including technical and staff costs associated with hosting of the site, and staff costs for the central team with lead responsibility for updating and maintaining the content of the site—are estimated at around £294,000 for the financial year 2003–04.

  Additional costs arise from the activities of a large number of staff in business units across the Department, contributing to the content of the website as part of their communications activities, but an overall cost for this could not be accurately estimated without incurring disproportionate cost.

  A number of other websites are operated by the Department and its agencies, for which costs are either covered by the budgets for specific programmes (and not separately identified), or included within the above figures. Detailed information is not held centrally for other websites managed by the Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies, and could not be obtained without incurring disproportionate cost.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Community Sports
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the effects of Government expenditure policy on community sports since 1994. [173478]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government has invested over £3 billion Exchequer and lottery funding in sport since 1997. Government policy is to marry mass participation with sporting excellence, as illustrated by the 45 County Sports Partnerships, comprising local authorities, schools, governing bodies of sport and the voluntary sector, established to generate competitive and grass roots sport. Community sport has also benefited from unprecedented investment in facilities, improving community access. To complement this, the Government is investing in coaching and volunteering to deliver community activities. For children and young people the Government is investing almost £120 million this year to deliver the entitlement to high quality PE and School Sport.

  Licensing Act
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what consultations were held with the police about the effects of binge drinking on local alcohol and violence problems before the introduction of the Licensing Act 2003; and what consultations are going on now about its implementation. [173665]

  Mr. Caborn
  Prior to the publication of the White Paper on licensing reform in April 2000 (Cm 4696), the Association of Chief Police Officers ("ACPO") were thoroughly consulted on the related development of the policy. Following the publication of the White Paper, ACPO, the Association of Police Superintendents' Association and the Police Federation engaged in the public consultation, as well as several individual police forces. In developing the legal instructions for the Licensing Bill, ACPO provided advice to officials in weekly meetings. In July 2002, a Licensing Bill Advisory Group was formed which included a wide range of stakeholders, including ACPO, and assisted the Government in preparing the Bill. The Group met on a weekly basis and continued to meet regularly throughout the Bill's parliamentary stages. Since Royal Assent in July 2003, this Group has continued to meet on a monthly basis to discuss issues relating to the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003. In addition, during the House of Commons stages of the Licensing Bill, my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State also met ACPO to discuss underage drinking and the way in which the Bill dealt with children and the then Minister responsible, the hon Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), also met ACPO to discuss other general licensing issues. More recently, I have met the police in a Working Group which is examining issues relating to alcohol related violent crime.

  Ministerial Visits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she 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. [171560]

  Tessa Jowell
  I have listed visits made by each Minister in my Department, specifying date and constituency visited. The cost of each visit could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Date of visit

  Constituency

  Tessa Jowell

  3 December

  Cities of London and Westminster

  4 December

  Hackney, South and Shoreditch

  6 December

  North Southwark and Bermondsey

  7 December

  Cities of London and Westminster

  15 December

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  22 December

  Stratford-upon-Avon

  10 January

  Islington, North

  Cities of London and Westminster

  13 January

  Oxford, West and Abingdon

  16 January

  Cities of London and Westminster

  27 January

  Cities of London and Westminster

  1 February

  Brent, South

  3 February

  Cities of London and Westminster

  9 February

  Cities of London and Westminster

  10 February

  Bradford, West

  Pudsey

  Shipley

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  659W

  Date of visit

  Constituency

  25 February

  Cities of London and Westminster

  26 February

  Cities of London and Westminster

  3 March

  Cities of London and Westminster

  4 March

  Telford

  North Southwark and Bermondsey

  Cities of London and Westminster

  6 March

  Twickenham

  8 March

  Cities of London and Westminster

  9 March

  Birmingham, Ladywood

  Leicester, South

  Harborough

  11 March

  Harrow, West

  21 March

  Dulwich and West Norwood

  23 March

  Leeds, Central

  Leeds, East

  City of York

  24 March

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  25 March

  Vauxhall

  28 March

  Islington, North

  29 March

  Cities of London and Westminster

  30 March

  Nottingham, South

  4 April

  Bethnal Green and Bow

  6 April

  Regents Park and Kensington, North

  18 April

  Greenwich and Woolwich

  20 April

  Belfast, East

  21 April

  Holborn ant St. Pancras

  22 April

  Cities of London and Westminster

  29 April

  Regents Park and Kensington, North

  Estelle Morris

  8 December

  Hackney, South and Shoreditch

  Cities of London and Westminster

  9 December

  Vauxhall

  10 December

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  11 December

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  15 December

  Cities of London and Westminster

  17 December

  Cities of London and Westminster

  18 December

  Cities of London and Westminster

  6 January

  Bethnal Green and Bow

  8 January

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  9 January

  Birmingham Ladywood

  Stoke-on-Trent, Central

  11–13 January

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central

  Tyne Bridge

  14 January

  Vauxhall

  15 January

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  19 January

  Cities of London and Westminster

  22 January

  Wolverhampton, South-west

  29–30 January

  Cambridge

  30 January

  South Cambridgeshire

  2 February

  Vauxhall

  3 February

  Cities of London and Westminster

  6 February

  Birmingham Edgbaston

  9 February

  Croydon, North

  Cities of London and Westminster

  10 February

  Brighton Pavilion

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15 February

  Cities of London and Westminster

  16 February

  Bristol, West

  17 February

  Kensington and Chelsea

  18 February

  Cities of London and Westminster

  3 March

  Cities of London and Westminster

  4 March

  Vauxhall

  7 March

  Cities of London and Westminster

  9 March

  Folkestone and Hythe

  12 March

  Sunderland, South

  Sunderland, North

  Tyne Bridge

  Houghton and Washington, East

  16 March

  Cities of London and Westminster

  16–17 March

  Liverpool Riverside

  18 March

  Cities of London and Westminster

  20 March

  Birminghan Ladywood

  22 March

  West Ham

  Cities of London and Westminster

  23 March

  Cities of London and Westminster

  24 March

  Cities of London and Westminster

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  660W

  25 March

  Bournemouth, West

  Vauxhall

  26 March

  Cities of London and Westminster

  Greenwich and Woolwich

  28 March

  Cities of London and Westminster

  29 March

  Greenwich and Woolwich

  31 April

  Cities of London and Westminster

  1 April

  Cities of London and Westminster

  6 April

  Truro and St. Austell

  St. Ives

  7 April

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  20 April

  Cities of London and Westminster

  21 April

  Cities of London and Westminster

  22 April

  Manchester, Central

  23 April

  Enfield Southgate

  25 April

  Stratford-on-Avon

  26 April

  Cities of London and Westminster

  27 April

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  28 April

  Beaconsfield

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  29 April

  Lewisham, West

  Cities of London and Westminster

  Vauxhall

  Andrew McIntosh

  9 January 2004

  Cities of London and Westminster

  23 January 2004

  Oxford, West and Abingdon

  Abingdon

  26 January 2004

  Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush

  2 February 2004

  Winchester

  19 February 2004

  Camberwell and Peckham

  Bethnal Green and Bow

  4 March 2004

  North Down

  Belfast, North

  Belfast, East

  Belfast, South

  Belfast, West

  8 March 2004

  Cities of London and Westminster

  11 March 2004

  Edinburgh, Central

  Glasgow Kelvin

  Glasgow Maryhill

  15 March 2004

  Cardiff Central

  Cardiff, North

  Cardiff, South and Penarth

  Cardiff. West

  24 March 2004

  Streatham

  Vauxhall

  29 March 2004

  Bournemouth, East

  Bournemouth, West

  Southampton Itchen

  Southampton Test

  27 April 2004

  Bethnal Green and Bow

  Richard Caborn

  2 December 2003

  Greenwich

  9 December 2003

  Edmonton

  11 December 2003

  Horsham

  12 January 2004

  Bethnal Green and Bow

  14 January 2004

  Bethnal Green and Bow

  21 January 2004

  Bournemouth, West

  23 January 2004

  Louth and Horncastle

  29 January 2004

  Cities of London and Westminster

  2 February 2004

  Brent, East

  3 February 2004

  Wimbledon

  8 February 2004

  Sunderland, North

  10 February 2004

  Barking and Dagenham

  12 February 2004

  Leeds, Central

  13 February 2004

  Huddersfield

  18 February 2004

  Winchester

  20 February 2004

  Haltemprice and Howden

  21 February 2004

  Warrington, North

  24 February 2004

  Bristol

  25 February 2004

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  26 February 2004

  Penrith

  26 February 2004

  Meriden

  1 March 2004

  Greenwich and Woolwich

  3 March 2004

  Meriden

  4 March 2004

  Telford

  661W

  Date of visit

  constituency

  5 March 2004

  Meriden

  16 March 2004

  Cheltenham

  30 March 2004

  Liverpool Riverside

  2 April 2004

  Mansfield

  19 April 2004

  Belfast, East

  25 April 2004

  Sheffield, Central

  26 April 2004

  Meriden

  28 April 2004

  York City

  30 April 2004

  Doncaster, Central

  30 April 2004

  Sheffield, Central

  Radio Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what consultations she has held with the commercial radio sector about the relationship between its activities and proposed commercially-funded community radio stations, with particular reference to(a) the protection of the economic viability of existing services, (b) the requirement to offer specific and quantifiable evidence of any harm to that viability, (c) the establishment of clear and transparent rules for withholding any licence on the basis of harm to viability and (d) the interaction of OFCOM and her Department in determining these issues. [172960]

  Estelle Morris
  A public consultation of the draft community radio Order finished on 20 April 2004. We are carefully considering all the issues raised, including those from the commercial radio sector. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, Ministers and officials have met, or will be meeting, representatives of the Commercial Radio Companies Association to discuss these issues before the Order is laid. Officials will also discuss these views with Ofcom.

  Satellite Digital Television
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has held with broadcasters on the introduction of a free satellite digital television service; and if she will make a statement. [172884]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department is in ongoing discussions with broadcasters and with Ofcom about the further development of digital television services. Ofcom have indicated that they will consider whether regulatory intervention is needed to secure a viable free-to-view satellite proposition before switchover.

DEFENCE

  BAE Systems
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's relations with BAE Systems. [173166]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence's relationship with BAE Systems is based on the need to purchase and maintain equipment to meet the requirements of the armed forces affordably and effectively.

  BAE Systems is currently the largest defence supplier to the Ministry of Defence. The changing pattern of demand for defence equipment makes it important that
  662W
  the Ministry of Defence works closely with them and other defence suppliers, in keeping with the Government's Defence Industrial Policy.

  Our relations with BAE Systems' work force continue to be excellent. I pay tribute to their dedication and commitment.

  Defence Logistics
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes he has made to defence logistics operations in the light of lessons learned from Operation Telic. [173167]

  Mr. Ingram
  In light of the lessons learned from Operation Telic the Ministry of Defence has taken steps to address issues such as its holding of a range of desert equipments including body armour, clothing and boots. A package of improvements for logistics materiel management has been introduced which will greatly increase our visibility of logistic materiel in theatres of operations.

  Future Rapid Effects System
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Future Rapid Effects System will enter service with the Army. [173168]

  Mr. Ingram
  The in-service date for Future Rapid Effects System will not be endorsed until the main investment decision, but on current plans, the intention is to introduce early variants into service around the end of the decade.

  Iraq
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to change the(a) number and (b) composition of British troops serving in southern Iraq; and how regularly this is reviewed. [173170]

  Mr. Hoon
  We keep under continuous close review the level of forces we require in Iraq. We are currently considering, with other partners, the levels and dispositions of forces in the context of the forthcoming crucial period from the handover of authority to the Iraqi Interim Government on 30 June, through to the election of the Transitional Assembly and Government around the turn of the year.

  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of investigations into allegations of abuse by the military in Iraq. [173169]

  Mr. Hoon
  Investigations by the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch into allegations of abuse continue and as I have already informed the House, I cannot put a precise timeframe on how long these might take. As I said, in my statement last week, it is essential that the integrity of the criminal justice process be maintained. This can involve detailed and lengthy processes, but these are crucial to allow the necessary impartial evaluation of the evidence. As I said last week, two cases have reached an advanced stage with decisions on prosecution pending.
  663W
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the legal immunity granted to coalition forces in Iraq from prosecution under local law will continue after the handover of power to the Iraq Governing Council. [162665]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following the hand over of authority to the Iraqi Interim Government on 30 June 2004, currently we expect that coalition forces will continue to be granted immunity from prosecution under local law by virtue of an amended Coalition Provisional Authority Order 17. However, they will be subject to the jurisdiction of their home state.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of UK forces in protecting(a) tankers at ports and (b) oil terminals in Iraq. [171419]

  Mr. Ingram
  Currently coalition forces, including those from the United Kingdom, are working closely with the Iraqis to provide effective protection of both ports and offshore installations within Iraqi territorial waters.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place for families of Iraqis detained by British forces to(a) have access to information about the detention and (b) visit those detained; and if he will make a statement. [172304]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following the detention of a suspect the individual is taken to the Divisional Temporary Detention Facility. Upon arrival at the detention facility the suspect is provided with a form setting out the reasons for their detention (this has been approved by the International Commission of the Red Cross) and is asked to provide details of a person who he wishes to notify of the detention. The military then inform the person nominated. Internees are entitled to three visits per week by members of their family.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the Iraqi individuals whose treatment by UK armed forces personnel has been the subject of a Special Investigation Branch inquiry, broken down by individuals for whom(a) investigations are ongoing, (b) the finding is that there is no case to answer and (c) a report has been submitted to the Army Prosecuting Authority. [172346]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 January, Official Report, column 917–18W. In addition the death of Tanik S Mahmud in April 2003 is the subject of an ongoing RAF Police investigation and the deaths of Mr. Zaher in March 2003 and Ghanim Gala'e Hacham Daghir Roomi in January 2004 are the subject of ongoing Royal Military Police investigations. However, it would be inappropriate to disclose the names of living individuals whose alleged treatment has been the subject of a Service Police investigation.

  Of the 33 cases I referred to in the statement I made to the House on 4 May 2004, offical Report, column 1213, 16 involve alleged ill treatment by members of the UK Armed Forces. Of these, eight are subject to ongoing Service Police investigations, four have been discontinued for lack of evidence and two have been referred to the Army Prosecuting Authority
  664W
  for consideration. In the remaining two cases the police investigation has concluded and legal advice is being sought in relation to what further action might be necessary.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the outcome was of the investigation into the deaths of the six Royal Military Police soldiers killed in Iraq on 24 June 2003; whether Her Majesty's Government received a response to it from the families of the men; whether he plans to make public the relevant communications log; and if he will make a statement. [173319]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 12 February 2004,Official Report, column 1637W. Although extensive inquiries have been undertaken, the investigation is still ongoing and it remains unclear when it will conclude.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the aircraft carrier orders placed with BAE Systems. [173171]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Future Carrier (CVF) programme remains in the Assessment Phase. Ministers are currently considering proposals on the overall CVF programme, the Alliance strategy, and on when to proceed to the Demonstration and Manufacture phases.

  Defence Exports
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the measures the Ministry of Defence is taking to promote defence exports. [173172]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Export Services Organisation, within the Ministry of Defence, promotes legitimate defence exports by offering advice and assistance to the United Kingdom defence industry. The organisation invites and hosts foreign delegations at defence exhibitions in the United Kingdom, and provides military support teams in the promotion of military products and services. The Department continues to work for better market access for United Kingdom manufacturers to foreign defence markets.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the US Administration on the implementation of the Joint Strike Fighter programme. [173173]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Joint Strike Fighter has been selected to meet our Joint Combat Aircraft requirement to replace our current Harrier aircraft. It will be flown from our new aircraft carriers and from land bases. It will also create thousands of jobs and help to boost our economy. Ministers and officials regularly discuss the progress of the programme with our US partners.

  Afghanistan
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) quantity and (b) type of observation equipment is deployed for British troops to use in Afghanistan. [153038]
  665W
  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding information on observation equipment available to British Forces in Afghanistan under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the(a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by his Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170797]

  Mr. Ingram
  For the last five years the Ministry of Defence's requirements for crockery, cutlery and glassware have been procured through the Office of Government Commerce (OGC).

  The OGC have provided the following information covering the use of British Manufacture, in percentage terms, over the last five years:

  British Manufacture

  Percentage

  Crockery

  100

  Cutlery

  100

  Glassware

  0

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department will receive a discount on its order for the second tranche of Eurofighters similar to that achieved by the German Defence Ministry. [172318]

  Mr. Ingram
  Negotiations between partner nations and industry for the second Tranche of Eurofighters (Typhoons) are ongoing. We are working to ensure that the Tranche 2 contract is affordable and soundly based to deliver the required capability.

  Flakjackets
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further investigations his Department has undertaken into the(a) reasons and (b) those responsible for the flakjackets missing since 1999; what conclusions he has reached; and if he will make a statement. [173318]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have assumed that my hon. Friend has in mind the National Audit Office Report on Operation Telic, which reported that approximately 200,000 sets of Enhanced Combat Body Armour had been issued since the Kosovo campaign in 1999, but seemed to have disappeared.

  I should explain that the figure quoted in the NAO report was an estimate provided for the NAO inquiry of the equivalent number of sets of body armour that would have been issued since 1999. However, the body armour ensemble is not usually issued as a complete set. Instead, units request the number of components required to make up the sets they need (covers, fillers and ceramic plates). The fillers and covers are accounted for as items of consumable stock and are, therefore, usually disposed of locally when they wear out,
  666W
  although items may be returned to stock and re-issued if undamaged. Due to their value, the plates, when surplus to unit requirements and serviceable, are returned to stock for re-issue as the need arises.

  In light of the concern raised about the supply of body armour, the Defence Logistics Organisation conducted an audit of Enhanced Combat Body Armour The audit has provided a picture of our current holdings. It shows that current stock holdings account for 66 per cent. of the total number of Enhanced Combat Body Armour components procured since 1992. The remainder will have been consumed over this period as a result of wear and tear, and operational loss.

  Future Aircraft Carrier
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the prime contractor for the Future Aircraft Carrier programme. [170330]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 5 May 2004,Official Report, column 1514W, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne East (Mr. Brown).

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has studied the Amnesty International Report published on 6 May 2004, Protecting the Human Rights of Women and Girls Trafficked for Forced Prostitution in Kosovo; what assessment(a) he and (b) his Department have made of the Report's claims that the international community, including United Kingdom members of KFOR and the UN, make up a significant concentration of these women's clientele; and if he will make a statement. [173235]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has studied the Amnesty International report 'So does it mean that we have the rights?—Protecting the Human Rights of Women and Girls Trafficked for Forced Prostitution in Kosovo'. The report's findings are a matter of grave concern. The Government condemns the exploitation of vulnerable people, and expects UK military personnel to adhere to the rules for conduct on operations. Military personnel breaking these rules are dealt with under the relevant military disciplinary procedures and, depending on the offence, UK criminal law. With the exception of two cases where, as the report recognises disciplinary measures were taken, we are not aware of any involvement of UK military personnel in the activities the report describes.

  Nimrod MRA4
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 5 May 2004,Official Report, column 1523W, on the Nimrod MRA4, what plans he has to ensure that, in the event of an eventual favourable decision to continue production of the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft, a workforce with the sufficient skills and product knowledge will be available at Woodford. [172415]

  Mr. Ingram
  BAE Systems is clearly best placed to manage their workforce to provide the skills and knowledge to meet current obligations and likely future business requirements.
  667W
  Acceptable design maturity and price are needed before a full production order can be placed. The Ministry of Defence, however, has been approving low risk production activities when it makes sense to do so, where these help maintain essential skills and product knowledge as well as preserve schedule.

  Prison Warder Duties
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what qualifications armed forces personnel have in prison warder duties; whether the training they receive for such duties leads to a recognised qualification; and if he will make a statement. [171586]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence does not run prisons. However, members of the Adjutant General's Corps Military Provost Staff (AGC(MPS)) receive the relevant training to run the Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC) in Colchester.

  The MCTC is subject to independent inspection and is a National Vocational Qualifications Award accredited custodial care assessment centre. Individual qualifications are not awarded; however close liaison with Her Majesty's Prison Service is undertaken in order that best practice is maintained.

  AGC(MPS) also run the Regimental Police course at MCTC. This course prepares soldiers to run the unit guardroom and to provide them with the skills necessary to handle soldiers serving short-term periods of detention in the unit guardroom. The course covers all legal, administrative and welfare aspects of detention and provides a City and guilds Qualification.

  Radioactive Material
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 when radioactive material has been unaccounted

  Table 2: Other ranks

  Specialism

  Warrant Officer

  Flight Sergeant

  Chief Technician

  Sergeant

  Corporal

  Junior Technician

  Senior Aircraftsman

  Leading Aircraftsman/Aircraftsman

  Total

  Pharmaceutical technicians

  1

  2

  —

  5

  5

  1

  1

  5

  20

  Laboratory technicians

  1

  7

  —

  10

  4

  2

  —

  —

  24

  Radiographers

  —

  3

  —

  6

  3

  1

  1

  1

  15

  Staff nurse (Registered Mental Nurse)

  —

  5

  —

  13

  7

  —

  —

  —

  25

  Operational theatre

  1

  5

  —

  12

  1

  6

  2

  3

  30

  Environmental health technician

  1

  6

  —

  7

  2

  14

  7

  5

  42

  Medical administration

  23

  43

  2

  130

  111

  —

  2

  —

  377

  Medical assistant

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  265

  137

  407

  Staff nurse (Registered General Nurse)

  4

  21

  —

  123

  96

  3

  56

  30

  333

  Total

  31

  92

  2

  306

  300

  27

  334

  181

  1,273

  Table 3: Locations of officer and other ranks

  Location

  Number of personnel: Officer ranks

  Numbers of personnel Other ranks

  Total

  Aldergrove Northern Ireland

  2

  14

  16

  Aldershot Duller Barracks

  1

  —

  1

  Aldershot DMSTC (Keogh Barracks)

  4

  106

  110

  Armed Forces Careers Office, Belfast

  —

  1

  1

  Armed Forces Careers Office, Newcastle

  —

  1

  1

  Armed Forces Careers Office, Nottingham

  —

  1

  1

  Defence Academy Shrivenham

  —

  1

  1

  Defence College of Aeronautical Engineering Cosford

  1

  18

  19

  668W
  for, broken down by (a) location, (b) volume and (c) radioactivity level of the material; and whether the material remains missing in each case. [173142]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 14 May 2004]: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  RAF (Medical Personnel)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the strength of the RAF Medical Services is, broken down by(a) service, (b) rank, (c) specialisation and (d) establishment. [169996]

  Mr. Caplin
  Tables 1 and 2 show the strength of personnel in the RAF Medical Services, by rank and specialisation. Table 3 details the number of RAF medical personnel by Ministry of Defence establishment. These figures do not include dental officers and other ranks.

  Those deployed on operations are not shown separately but are recorded at their home unit.

  All figures are correct as at 1 April 2004.

  Table 1: Officer ranks

  Specialism

  Rank

  Medical officer

  Medical support

  Princess Mary Royal Air Force Nursing Service

  Total

  Air Vice Marshall

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Air Commodore

  7

  —

  —

  7

  Group Captain

  20

  1

  1

  22

  Wing Commander

  62

  11

  11

  84

  Squadron Leader

  59

  18

  46

  123

  Flight Lieutenant

  51

  30

  57

  138

  Flight Officer

  12

  10

  4

  26

  Pilot Officer/Acting Pilot Officer/Officer Cadet

  33

  3

  —

  36

  Total

  245

  73

  119

  437

  669W

  Table 3: Locutions of officer and other ranks

  Location

  Number of personnel: Officer ranks

  Number of personnel: Other ranks

  Total

  Defence Community Psychiatry Catterick

  —

  2

  2

  Defence Dental Agency HQ Halton

  2

  —

  2

  Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre Headly Court

  5

  15

  20

  Defence Medical Services HQ London

  27

  1

  28

  Defence School of Transport Leconfield

  —

  2

  2

  Department Community Psychiatry Shrewsbury

  1

  2

  3

  DMETA, Gosport

  4

  4

  8

  External Training

  52

  9

  61

  Gosport Fort Blockhouse Defence Medical College

  —

  55

  55

  HQ DISC Support Unit, Chicksands

  —

  1

  1

  Joint Personnel Administration Worthy Down

  —

  1

  1

  Joint Services Command and Staff College Defence Academy Shrivenham

  2

  —

  2

  JSU RMC

  —

  2

  2

  Lossiemouth

  3

  14

  17

  MDHU Derriford Plymouth

  6

  —

  6

  MDHU Frimley Park

  3

  —

  3

  MDHU Haslar, Portsmouth

  23

  84

  107

  MDHU Peterborough

  41

  92

  133

  Medical Supply Agency Ludgeshall

  3

  1

  4

  MoD Fire Centre Manston

  —

  3

  3

  Northolt

  —

  10

  10

  Overseas not deployed

  26

  76

  102

  Permanent Joint Headquarters Northwood

  1

  —

  1

  RAF Benson

  3

  19

  22

  RAF Bentley Priory SHU

  —

  2

  2

  RAF Boulmer

  —

  9

  9

  RAF Brampton

  —

  22

  22

  RAF Brize Norton

  6

  41

  47

  RAF Buchan

  1

  4

  5

  RAF Coltishall

  3

  14

  17

  RAF Conningsby

  1

  12

  13

  RAF Corsham

  —

  5

  5

  RAF Cosford

  —

  2

  2

  RAF Cottesmore

  2

  17

  19

  RAF Digby

  —

  7

  7

  RAF Fylingdales

  —

  2

  2

  RAF Halton

  4

  87

  91

  RAF Henlow

  59

  26

  85

  RAF High Wycombe

  6

  17

  23

  RAF Honington

  2

  17

  19

  RAF Innsworth

  46

  42

  88

  RAF Kinloss

  2

  19

  21

  RAF Leeming

  2

  16

  18

  RAF Leuchars

  2

  19

  21

  RAF Linton on Ouse

  2

  19

  21

  RAF Lyneham

  26

  85

  111

  RAF Marham

  4

  28

  32

  RAF Odiham

  2

  20

  22

  RAF Saxa Vord

  —

  1

  1

  RAF Sealand Support Unit

  —

  9

  9

  RAF Shawbury

  1

  13

  14

  RAF Spadeadam

  —

  2

  2

  RAF St. Athan Support Unit

  —

  14

  14

  RAF St. Mawgan

  —

  6

  6

  RAF Stafford

  —

  8

  8

  RAF Uxbridge

  —

  7

  7

  RAF Valley

  1

  11

  12

  RAF Waddington

  2

  16

  18

  RAF Wittering

  2

  15

  17

  RAF/RAFC Cranwell

  23

  41

  64

  RAFSU Boscombe Down

  —

  3

  3

  Royal Centre of Defence Medicine Selly Oak

  28

  58

  86

  Royal Military College of Science Shrivenham

  —

  1

  1

  St Thomas' Hospital London

  —

  1

  1

  Totals

  437

  1,273

  1,710

  RAF Bases
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the savings projected from the transfer of functions from RAF Boulmer to RAF Scampton are assumed to derive from savings in(a) personnel costs, (b) maintenance and infrastucture running costs and (c) depreciation and capital charges. [172987]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Prime Minister's letter of 21 April to the right hon. Member explained that the estimated net running cost saving from the transfer of functions from RAF Boulmer to RAF Scampton is £13 million a year. Some three fifths of this is attributable to personnel costs and one fifth to maintenance and infrastructure running costs. In accordance with standard accounting practice, depreciation and capital charges were not included in the Investment Appraisal.

  Special Service Medal (Nuclear Testing)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which members and former members of the UK's armed forces will be entitled to qualify for the Special Service Medal (Nuclear Testing) approved by Royal Warrant SR2002/224; and if he will make a statement. [173529]

  Mr. Caplin
  None. The Special Service Medal (Nuclear Testing) was instituted by the Government of New Zealand in 2002. Retrospective awards instituted by Commonwealth countries with the permission of Her Majesty The Queen are the sole responsibility of the countries concerned.

  Watchkeeper Programme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress with the Watchkeeper programme. [173372]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Watchkeeper programme will deliver, incrementally, an intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR) capability using tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. Proposals for the demonstration and manufacture phase of the Watchkeeper project were received from Northrop Grumman and Thales on 18 March 2004 and are currently being assessed. The main investment decision is due later this year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Citizens (Deaths Abroad)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens were(a) killed and (b) murdered while living in or visiting another country in each of the last three years, broken down by the country in which the deaths occurred. [171255]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office collected data on how British citizens died overseas on an informal basis until the end of the 2001–02 Financial Year period. Our records show that the total number of British citizens reported as killed overseas in 1999–2000 was 200, in
  672W
  2000–01 was 308 and in 2001–02 was 216. Our records show that the total number of British citizens reported as murdered overseas in 1999–2000 was 27, in 2000–01 was 43 and in 2001–02 was 95.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance he has issued to British embassies and high commissions in respect of encouraging international dialogue about the future of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. [171230]

  Mr. Rammell
  We remain committed to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and its overall aim to stabilise emissions at a level that will prevent dangerous climate change. We are working hard to ensure that ambitious action is taken under its auspices. Our immediate focus is to bring the Kyoto Protocol into force and we are working hard to achieve that. Discussions on further action to follow the Kyoto Protocol commitment period 2008–2012 are not due to start until 2005. However, we regularly brief our posts on the full range of the UK's climate change priorities and are exchanging views informally with other countries on how to promote further effective action on climate change.

  Colombia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning(a) threats to and (b) abuses of human rights of native tribes in Colombia by (i) paramilitary groups and (ii) drugs lords; and if he will make a statement. [173367]

  Mr. Rammell
  It is often difficult to distinguish in the field between paramilitary, guerrilla or criminal drug trafficking organisations. Our embassy in Bogota has regular contact with representatives of indigenous groups. In recent months they have met such groups from Amazonas, Choco, the Sierra Nevada de Santa Maria and La Guajira. The meetings covered such groups' treatment by paramilitary and guerrilla groups. Embassy staff have also discussed the situation of indigenous people with representatives of the key UN agencies, the Catholic Church and civil society, and with the Colombian Government.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions(a) he, (b) senior members of his Department, (c) the UK Government's representatives in Colombia, (d) the Government's representatives in New York and (e) his ministerial colleagues in London have (i) had, (ii) agreed to have and (iii) sought to have with (A) Jan Egeland, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Co-ordinator, (B) other officials of the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs, (C) members and representatives of the Government of Colombia and (D) non-governmental organisations, in the UK and Colombia, following Jan Egeland's statement of 10 May 2004; and if he will make a statement. [173370]
  673W
  Mr. Rammell
  Our ambassador had three separate meetings with Mr. Egeland during his visit to Colombia, including dinner and a private conversation with him on 8 May. He subsequently met the UN Co-ordinator on 11 May. EU Heads of Mission have a private meeting arranged with the Colombian Foreign Minister on 17 May, and ambassadors from the countries represented at the July 2003 London Meeting on Colombia (the G24) will meet the Colombian Defence Minister on 18 May. Our Ambassador spoke to representatives of British NGOs in Colombia following Mr. Egeland's visit on 10 May. A further meeting with NGOs is planned for later in the month. The foregoing is the extent of our engagement with the UN to date; we are considering our next steps.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department last assessed the security and humanitarian situation in the Chocó Department in Colombia; and if he will make a statement. [173436]

  Mr. Rammell
  British embassy officials visited Chocó in February to assess the situation there. During their visit they met a cross-section of society. In addition the ambassador visited the region twice in 2003. He also had a meeting in Bogota to discuss the region's problems with the Bishop of Chocó in March 2004. We are very concerned about the severe social problems the people of Chocó face, including high levels of poverty, illegal drug activity, the presence of illegal armed groups and a vulnerable population. We have raised these with the Colombian authorities. In partnership with UNHCR, we support a project aimed at helping displaced communities there.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of Colombia's(a) economic and (b) humanitarian situation; and when this was last updated. [173459]

  Mr. Rammell
  Our embassy in Bogota provides regular reporting on economic and humanitarian issues, drawing its information from a wide range of governmental and non-governmental sources. The latter includes the Church, local and international NGOs, the business community, academic circles and others. They also supplement their knowledge by travelling around the country to see the situation firsthand. Such reporting is vital as it helps us ensure that our policy towards Colombia is based on the most up to date information and analysis.

  Cyprus
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to seek a new settlement plan for the EU for the Cyprus problem which does not involve the indefinite presence in Cyprus of foreign troops. [173224]

  Mr. MacShane
  We will continue to work with all sides with a view to realising the ultimate objective of achieving a just, lasting and comprehensive settlement so that we can see a reunited Cyprus within the EU.

  We believe the UN Secretary General's comprehensive plan established the best possible basis for achieving a settlement. We welcomed the fact that the settlement
  674W
  would have seen a reduction in Greek and Turkish troop numbers to a purely symbolic level. It is now time for reflection on the deal that was rejected and a considered examination of where we go from here.

  We look forward to the UN Secretary General's report on the settlement talks as an important first step in that process. In the meantime there is no prospect of a renegotiation of the UNSG's plan, including the provision for a limited number of Greek and Turkish troops to remain. Any change in this would have to be by mutual agreement of the parties concerned.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to seek a solution to the Cyprus problem on the basis that refugees should, in reasonable time, be allowed the right to return to their homes. [173225]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him today (UIN 173224).

  The UN Secretary General's comprehensive settlement proposals would have enabled a large number of Greek and Turkish Cypriots the right to return to their former homes. Furthermore, every dispossessed owner was entitled to a guaranteed proportion of all their former property under a regime designed to deliver material benefits to all.

  We will continue to work with all sides in pursuit of a just and lasting settlement. We continue to believe that the UNSG's plan offers the best possible basis.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to seek a solution to the Cyprus problem on the basis that Cyprus has control of future migration across its sovereign borders. [173226]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave him today (UINs 173224 and 173225).

  An effective migration regime, agreed by the parties and in line with EU principles would be one important element of any future settlement.

  European Convention on Human Rights
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place between the UK Government and(a) other European Governments and (b) institutions of the European Union regarding the application of the European Convention on Human Rights in Iraq; what the results were; and if he will make a statement. [171553]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government have not had discussions with other European Governments nor with the institutions of the European Union regarding the application of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in Iraq. As the Government have said in relation to the current High Court cases brought by the families of 13 Iraqi the Government's position is that ECHR rights have no application in Iraq.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what areas of Iraq are under the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of(a) section 1 of the European Convention

  675W
  on Human Rights, (b) the Geneva Convention and (c) UN Security Council Resolution 1511; and if he will make a statement. [171555]

  Mr. Straw
  The question of whether any areas of Iraq are within the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are matters in issue in the current cases before the High Court brought by the families of 13 Iraqi civilians. The Government's position in those cases is that ECHR rights have no application in Iraq. The applicability of the Geneva Conventions and of UN Security Council Resolution 1511 are not matters that turn upon whether jurisdiction is being exercised. Resolution 1511 is a binding Security Council resolution and therefore binds the UK and all other UN member states. The mandate given to the multi-national force to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in resolution 1511 applies to UK forces in those areas where they are operating. The UK accepts that the Geneva Conventions apply to the conduct of UK forces engaged in an armed conflict and that in some areas of southern Iraq, UK forces are exercising sufficient control as an occupying force for the purpose of the application of the Geneva Convention IV.

  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether UK officials are bound by the European Convention on Human Rights wherever they discharge their duties; and if he will make a statement. [171557]

  Mr. Straw
  Whether the European Convention on Human Rights applies extra-territorially to the actions of UK officials turns upon whether the United Kingdom can be said to be exercising jurisdiction over an individual in the particular circumstances for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Spanish Government concerning cruise liners which have previously docked at Gibraltar being prevented from entering Spanish ports; [171965]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the decision by the Spanish Government to refuse entry to the cruise liner Norwegian Dream to the port of Barcelona. [171966]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: On the instructions of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the British ambassador in Madrid delivered a message to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Friday 30 April and complained again over the weekend of 1–2 May. He complained once more, to the Spanish State Secretary for Europe and the Americas, on 12 May, and to a senior Spanish official on 13 May. He expressed HMG's disappointment and surprise at the Spanish action and stressed how seriously HMG views such hindrance to legitimate business by cruise liners. HMG is in close touch with the Spanish Authorities with a view to achieving an early solution to this problem. I will also raise the issue in meetings with Spanish officials this week.

  Honours
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much time his Department spent dealing with honours in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by Civil Service grade. [173039]

  Mr. Straw
  Five staff in my Department are employed full-time on honours work: one ×D6 (Principal), two × C4 (Higher Executive Officer), one × A2 (Administrative Officer), one × A1 (Administrative Assistant).

  In addition, members of the Senior Management Structure (Senior Civil Service) spend a total of approximately six to seven person-weeks in aggregate a year on honours.

  Iraq
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what areas of Iraq are under the effective control of the UK. [171554]

  Mr. Straw
  The UK commands Multinational Division South East (MND SE) which comprises all Coalition military forces in the provinces of Basra, Muthanna, Maysan and Dhi Qar. Troops from 10 states operate in the MND SE Area of Responsibility.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his latest estimate is of the amount owed by Iraq in reparations. [171982]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Compensation Commission has assessed 98 per cent. of the claims submitted to it for direct losses arising as a result of Iraq's illegal invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1990. The total amount awarded so far amounts to US$ 48,170,438,256 of which US$ 18,389,089,070.86 has been paid. An amount of US$ 29,781,349,185.20 remains to be paid. Work on assessing the remaining claims is ongoing.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what payments his Department has made to private military companies working in Iraq. [172695]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not employ any private military companies. It does employ two private security companies to provide armed protection for its staff and assets in Iraq. Payments under these contracts to 31 March 2004 have amounted to approximately £15 million.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on encouraging the development of secular political parties in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [173008]

  Mr. Rammell
  We fully support the vital role of the UN in helping Iraq prepare for elections in early 2005 to a Transitional National Assembly, as requested by the Iraqi Governing Council. As part of that process, the UN are helping the Iraqis to produce a political parties law which will provide the legal basis for the activities of Iraqi political parties. This and the Transitional Administrative Law will provide the framework in which Iraqis will be free to form political parties and to
  677W
  compete in elections. The Department for International Development have created a Political Participation Fund for Iraq to increase the opportunities for Iraqi citizens to participate in the democratic process. It is now for the Iraqis to decide what sort of political parties they wish to develop within the legal framework being established.

  Official Vehicles
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of official vehicles used by his Department are run on(a) petrol, (b) diesel, (c) liquid petroleum gas and (d) compressed natural gas. [172766]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) runs two distinct fleets of vehicles. The first is the home fleet run by FCO Services and managed by the Supply Chain Service Delivery Group. Vehicles are situated in London (based at King Charles Street) and at Hanslope Park. London vehicles are used to run the London Messenger and London Car Service; the Hanslope fleet is a diplomatic freight/mail delivery service covering the UK and Europe. The required breakdown of this fleet of vehicles is:

  Percentage

  Total number of vehicles (London and Hanslope combined)

  36

  Petrol

  13

  Diesel

  67

  LPG

  20

  Our vehicle replacement programme for the home fleet pays particular attention to the provision of LPG vehicles in London; this is part of our commitments under the FCO's environmental 'green issues' policy.

  The second FCO vehicle fleet is that run by overseas missions in pursuit of diplomatic business, the details we have available on this fleet are as follows:

  Percentage

  Total number of vehicles in the FCO Overseas Fleet

  1,352

  Petrol

  45.8

  Diesel

  33.8

  LPG/Hybrid

  0.3

  Unknown1

  20.1

  1Overseas Missions have the option to procure pool vehicles locally.

  Productivity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to(a) increase the productivity and (b) cut the costs of his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [171881]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my honourable Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Ruth Kelly) on 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 149W.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will mount an independent investigation with the UN and EU into the role of, and support for, the Janjaweed militias operating in the Darfur region of the Sudan, with specific reference to human rights abuses. [173488]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government of Sudan has announced the creation of a national independent human rights committee to investigate alleged human rights abuses in Darfur, with particular focus on the activities of the Janjaweed armed militias. The UK's Special Representative for Sudan is currently in Sudan where he will meet with the head of this committee and senior Government officials to discuss the situation in Darfur.

  We are in close contact with the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) about Darfur. We are considering the best way to take forward recommendations made following their recent mission to Sudan. We are also working to ensure that the Independent Expert, mandated by 23 April UN Commission on Human Rights decision on Sudan, is appointed as soon as possible. We and our EU partners have made clear that alleged abuses should be thoroughly investigated, and we will continue both to monitor the situation closely and to press the OHCHR to follow up effectively.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with representatives of(a) the Sudanese Liberation Army and (b) the Justice and Equality Movement about bringing peace to Darfur, Sudan. [173784]

  Mr. Mullin
  Through our embassy in Khartoum we have been in regular contact with both the Sudanese Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement in the run up to the ceasefire talks in Chad, during the talks, and subsequently. We are urging both groups, and the Sudanese Government, to fully implement the ceasefire agreement, and to ensure unhindered humanitarian access and the protection of civilians, in order to find a sustainable solution to the problems in Darfur in the long-term.

  Targeted Assassinations
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 10 May 2004, on targeted assassinations, question reference 169853, on what basis the Government has determined that the policy of targeted assassinations by the Government of Israel is illegal. [173000]

  Mr. Rammell
  We recognise Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism but it must act in accordance with the applicable law. We do not consider that Israel's policy of targeted killings is in conformity with its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention and international human rights law. In particular, the policy does not appear to meet the conditions required for a killing to be justified as self-defence.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister for Women what recent representations she has received from(a) trade unions, (b) employers and (c) other bodies concerning the pay gap between men and women in Hampshire. [171642]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have had no specific representations concerning the pay gap between men and women in Hampshire. However I have ongoing dialogue with trade unions, employers and others including the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and Opportunity Now concerning action to tackle the gender pay gap. For example, last week I met with over 40 trade union women from across the country to discuss this issue and identify action which builds on what we have already achieved. We have made it easier for employers to pay fairly through EOC toolkits, which have been well received. Recent EOC research shows a significant increase in the number of large organisations undertaking pay reviews which suggest we are on track to meet our Public Service Agreement target of 35 per cent. by April 2006. 41 per cent. of those that had carried out a pay review or were planning to do one said that government policy and publicity had influenced them.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Minister for Women pursuant to the answer of 26 February 2004,Official Report, column 486W, on equal pay, what methodology was used to conclude that the gender pay gap in the South East is the second biggest in Great Britain. [171710]

  Ms Hewitt
  The figure I reported on 26 February 2004 was based on April 2002 figures. Using April 2003 figures shows that the South East had the third largest pay gap of regions in Great Britain. The figures in both cases were taken from the New Earnings Survey (NES), conducted by the Office for National Statistics.

  Average earnings are estimated for full-time employees on adult rates of pay whose pay was unaffected by absence during the pay period, by their place of work. This is the standard definition used for NES tables. The gender pay gap for each region is derived from the male and female estimates for those regions.

  Working Hours
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Minister for Women what research she has commissioned into the effect of a long working hours culture on women's employment and promotion prospects; and if she will make a statement. [172845]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have commissioned no specific research into the impact of a long working hours culture on women's employment and promotion prospects, however last year my Department published "Working Long Hours: a review of the evidence" which was commissioned from the Institute for Employment Studies. It is available on the internet at hppt://www.dti.gov.uk/er/emar.

  Its main findings are that 11 per cent. of employees in the UK work long hours (over 48 hours per week). There are clear gender differences with men more likely
  680W
  to work long hours than women. Two thirds of women who work long hours are in managerial and professional occupations (23 per cent. and 40 per cent. respectively).

  Through the Work-Life Balance Campaign and the introduction of the right to request flexible working, my Department has sought to demonstrate the benefits of alternative work patterns. Employers who pursue family friendly policies and provide their employees with choice about how they work, report greater motivation and productivity and a reduction in recruitment and retention costs.

  In April my Department published research complied by the Office for National Statistics on the first year of the flexible working law. It showed that overall the new flexible working law is proving to have been a huge success. Many more flexible working requests (86 per cent.) are being either fully or partly accepted by employers compared to the rate immediately prior to the new law (77 per cent.). The study can be found at the website mentioned above. 11 per cent. of flexible working requests made since April 2003 were declined, which represents a near halving of the rate of refusal by employers compared with the previous two years. And it suggests the new law has significantly increased employers' willingness to consider employee requests.

  The Second Work-Life Balance Baseline Survey of Employers published in 2003 showed that more than nine out of 10 employers agree that people will work best when they can strike a healthy balance between work and the rest of their lives. The report is also available at the website mentioned above. The report also revealed an increase in the provision of flexible working time practices by employers. Significantly this increase was not confined to workplaces of a particular size or in a particular sector or industry.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Child Pornography
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department has taken to export the UK model of co-operation between Government, police and industry to tackle child pornography on the internet. [173047]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department of Trade and Industry attaches great importance to protecting children from illegal or harmful material on the internet. The Government are primarily addressing it through the Home Secretary's Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet. The Department takes part in the activities of the Task Force, and in particular, supports cooperation between Government, law enforcement, industry and other stakeholders to develop self-regulatory responses to problems arising, in order to strengthen the take-up of the internet and the growth of e-commerce. We strongly support the work of the industry-led Internet Watch Foundation.

  Child protection on the internet is a common challenge in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world. The UK's approach has served as the model for the EU's main programme to tackle it, the Safer Internet Programme. Since 1999, Safer Internet has funded

  681W
  over 130 projects across Europe bringing together Government, industry, law enforcement and child protection agencies in the following streams of activity:
  hotlines: Safer Internet supports at least one hotline along the lines of the UK's Internet Watch Foundation in each of 17 countries in Europe, allowing users to report internet content they regard as illegal or harmful. INHOPE, based in the UK, is the European hotline coordinating body, responsible for monitoring standards and spreading best practice for these hotlines.
  rating and filtering technology: the programme encourages the development of software that empowers users to filter or otherwise limit the amount of unwanted material they receive, as well as ways to measure and benchmark its performance.
  promoting cooperation: it has created European-level forums to drive consensus on the challenges and solutions among experts from industry, law enforcement, government, educators, consumer groups, child welfare and other NGOs.
  raising awareness: support is offered to initiatives at country, regional or other levels to inform parents and educators of means to use the internet more safely, using techniques based largely on practice developed by members of the Home Office Task Force on Child Protection on the Internet.

  UK companies and NGOs are very well represented among the participants in the various projects, and some of them act as coordinators at European level (e.g. for best practice for ways of promoting awareness of self-help techniques).

  In March 2004, the European Commission adopted a proposal for Safer Internet Plus, a programme to continue these activities for the next four years. It will increase the international reach of the UK's model approach because it will particularly encourage hotlines and awareness activity in the 10 new member states, and provide resources for the EU to pursue effective cooperation and solutions in international forums and with third countries, especially those which are the origins of a large proportion of illegal, harmful or unwanted material, such as child pornography and spam.

  The Government also take opportunities to raise the profile of a cooperative approach to online child protection in international discussions: for example, at the conclusion of the first phase of the United Nations sponsored World Summit on the Information Society in December 2003, the UK, working with its EU partners, strongly supported a statement to the effect that
  "all actors in the Information Society should take appropriate actions and preventive measures, as determined by law, against abusive uses of ICTs, such as … all forms of child abuse, including paedophilia and child pornography…" (Declaration of Principles, para. 59).

  As part of its strategy to promote a globally competitive environment for electronic communications businesses, the Department has developed a number of dialogues with other countries' regulators, officials and industry representatives. These discussions have frequently covered the implications of offensive or harmful online material. The Internet Watch Foundation and other leading UK players take part to give a first hand account of the UK's cooperative approach, and also actively pursue their own extensive international contacts, supported wherever possible by the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments. In addition, meetings recently arranged or to take place within the framework of dialogues with the United States, Japan
  682W
  and Australia will address cooperative solutions to the issue of unsolicited messages (or "spam"), some of which can be linked to child pornography.

  Energy Generation
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the relative efficiency of energy generation by wind power in relation to(a) wave power, (b) nuclear, (c) gas and (d) coal generation. [173632]

  Mr. Timms
  Comparing the efficiency of renewable and non-renewable technologies is difficult. Fuel costs for the majority of renewables are zero, so obtaining the highest level of efficiency is less of a priority than reducing the overall cost of each unit of energy generated. The Department has published estimates of the cost of electricity generation from a variety of technologies by 2020. These come from the 2001 PIU energy review, 2002 Interdepartmental Analysts Group report, and the 2004 Renewables Innovation Review. The following ranges are based upon the lowest and highest estimates from each of these reports:

  p/kWh

  Onshore wind

  2.0–3.2

  Offshore wind

  2.0–4.6

  Gas

  2.0–2.9

  Nuclear

  2.6–4.0

  Marine

  4.0–6.2

  Equal Pay
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the pay gap between men and women employed by her Department and its agencies in(a) Southampton, (b) Eastleigh, (c) Winchester and (d) Romsey constituencies. [171643]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department, including the Small Business Service Executive Agency, currently employs no staff in Southampton, Eastleigh, Winchester and Romsey constituencies.

  Agency Chief Executives will be replying on behalf of their organisations where they employ staff within the constituencies mentioned. These are Employment Tribunal Service and the Insolvency Service.

  Letter from Desmond Flynn to Mr. John Denham, dated 17 May 2004:
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has asked me to reply to directly on behalf of The Insolvency Service in respect to your question (2003/2875) asking what assessment have been made of the pay gap between men and women employed by her Department and its agencies in (a) Southampton, (b) Eastleigh, (c) Winchester and (d) Romsey constituencies.
  In March 2003, The Insolvency Service carried out an Equal Pay audit on a national basis. The Audit along with The Service's action plans setting out proposals for future reviews are available in the House of Commons and published on The Service's website www.insolvency.gov.uk.
  683W
  Letter from Roger Heathcote to Mr. John Denham, dated 17 May 2004:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the pay gap between men and women employed by her Department and its agencies in (a) Southampton, (b) Eastleigh, (c) Winchester and (d) Ramsey. I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Employment Tribunals Service (ETS).
  ETS undertook an Equal Pay Review in 2003. The Review was undertaken separately for all those staff on London and National pay scales and did not cover the situation in individual offices. The results for staff on our National pay scales, which would include those staff in our Southampton office, showed a differential in favour of males of 5.2% (only 0.2% above the Equal Opportunities Commission benchmark).

  Identity Theft
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps her Department is taking to reduce identity theft in areas within the remit of her Department and its agencies. [173052]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI will work closely with—particularly small business—trade unions and others so that a system to combat identify theft maximise the benefits and minimise the compliance costs to law-abiding business and to develop an effective enforcement system that will deal with illegal workers and the majority of businesses that deliberately flout the law.

  Effective recruitment procedures are in place to deter identity fraud being used to gain employment within the Department itself.

  Imperial Measurements
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many prosecutions have been carried out against shopkeepers selling goods in imperial measurements in(a) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (b) England. [172759]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department does not hold comprehensive information on prosecutions carried out by trading standards departments. However, we are aware of five prosecutions of traders selling goods in imperial measurements: one each in Sunderland, Hackney and Sutton and two in Cornwall.

  East Riding Trading Standards Department inform us that it has carried out no such prosecutions.

  Large Combustion Plants Directive
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the likely impact on the UK coal industry of the Large Combustion Plants Directive. [173388]

  Mr. Timms
  This Department commissioned independent research into the likely impact of the two options for implementing the Large Combustion Plants Directive, by a national plan or by emissions limit values. The results of this study will inform the implementation decision, which has not yet been made. The research report will be published in due course.

  Ministerial Visits
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 4 May 2004,684W
  Official Report, column 1404W, on ministerial meetings/visits, which people and organisations in Japan the Minister of State for Energy, e-Commerce and Postal Services plans to meet or visit; and what matters are to be discussed. [173398]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 14 May 2004]: I hope to be able to meet a number of Ministers, senior Government officials and senior representatives from utility power companies responsible for energy, e-commerce and telecommunications issues, including the following;
  Mr. Fuji, Chairman of Federation of Electric Power, Mr. Nakagawa, Minister for Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), Mr. Kusaka, Director General, Agency of Natural Resources and Energy, part of the Ministry of Economy and Industry, Mr. Aso, Minister and Mr. Nabekura, Vice-Minister for Policy Co-ordination (International Affairs), Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications, Mr. Abe Senior Vice-Minister, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

  I also hope to meet representatives of British companies operating in Japan.

  I shall be having wide-ranging discussions on telecommunications and energy issues, including nuclear and BNFL related issues. I shall also be explaining the changes to the UK nuclear industry described in the Energy Bill and hope to hear an update on Japan's plans for its nuclear energy programme.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will instruct Post Office Ltd. not to withhold information requested by hon. Members on closures of local post offices. [172068]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: Under the public consultation process, Post Office Ltd. supplies extensive information to assist stakeholders and other interested parties in their consideration of post office closure proposals, but detailed financial information is, necessarily, commercially confidential.

  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advertising is taking place to promote(a) Post Office card accounts and (b) the use of post offices for the collection of pensions. [172323]

  Mr. Timms
  The DWP Direct Payment information campaign raises awareness of all the account options for Direct Payment, including bank and building society and Post Office accounts and also accounts that can be accessed through Post Office branches. It is for customers themselves to decide which account will best meet their needs and circumstances.

  Post Office Ltd. is responsible for advertising its own services and has undertaken a number of advertising campaigns promoting the banking services which are available at post offices. The current campaign recently launched nationally advertises the banking services of the High Street Banks and the Post Office card account available at post offices.

  Post Office Modernisation Fund
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the Government's Post Office
  685W
  Modernisation Fund has been spent in Brent since the fund was initiated; and how much has been spent to (a) keep post offices open and (b) to encourage closures. [172821]

  Mr. Timms
  Rationalisation is necessary in urban areas where there are too many post offices for all of them to survive on the current levels of business available. Parliament has approved funding of up to £210 million to support Post Office Ltd.'s programme to restructure the urban post office network comprising £180 million to compensate sub-postmasters exiting the business and £30 million for investment in modernising offices.

  The administration of the restructuring programme is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member on how much has been utilised in Brent.

  Post Offices (Government Funding)
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much Government funding was made available for post offices in(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04, broken down by local authority; and what spending is planned for 2005–06, broken down by local authority. [172921]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's on-going nationwide package of funding for Post Office Ltd. and the post office network amounts to some £2 billion in total since 1999. This funding is not allocated on the basis of local authority boundaries.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the visual impact of wind farms currently in operation. [173633]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department has made assessments of the visual impact of wind farms currently in operation. Applications for consent to construct wind farms are accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment statement, which includes details of visual impact.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what vote was recorded by the UK director of the International Finance Corporation at the 4 November 2004 meeting on the approval for a commercial loan for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipeline. [172504]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  A decision to support the approval of a loan for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline was reached by consensus by the shareholders of the International Finance Corporation at the 4 November 2004 Board meeting. No vote was taken. The UK supported the proposed investment in the BTC pipeline as it was felt that both the IFC and EBRD had fully complied with their polices and procedures. DFID 686W
  also supported the project due to the potential developmental benefits that it will bring to Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey.

  Although DFID supported the provision of loans for this pipeline, DFID recognises that complex, large-scale projects of this nature raise difficult issues and present risks, including the weak governance environment and the potential social and environmental impacts of the pipeline, which will need to be carefully managed. It is important that both the International Financial Institutions (IFI)s and the international community remain engaged with the implementation of the project going forward so that we can ensure that commitments are delivered. DFID therefore expects the International Finance Corporation (IFC) management to ensure regular independent consultation on monitoring the implementation of the project; encourage enhanced transparency of revenue management; and demonstrate how IFC has learnt from the project.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [171147]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department for International Development (DFID)'s 2004 Annual Report cost approximately £45,000 (estimated figure, not all final invoices have been received) for a print run of 3,050 copies.

  600 copies were provided to The Stationary Office Ltd. (TSO) for sale, of which 128 copies have been sold to date at the cover price of £27.00.

  As of May 11 2004, 1,478 copies had been distributed free of charge to staff, and external contacts such as other donors, parliamentary and ministerial contacts, NGOs, embassies and high commissions, as well as multilateral organisations such as the UN. This leaves 972 copies to cope with any future demand.

  The report is also available to download free of charge from the DFID website www.dfid.gov.uk.

  HIPC Initiative
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the countries which have now reached decision point in the highly indebted poor countries initiative. [172464]

  Hilary Benn
  27 countries have reached Decision Point under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative. These countries are Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. Of these countries, 13 have reached Completion Point. These are: Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Guyana, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Senegal, Tanzania and Uganda.

  Nuba Mountains
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid is being provided to projects to assist the people of the Nuba Mountains. [173652]

  Hilary Benn
  Since 2003 the Department for International Development has committed more than £3 million through the UN system and international NGOs, in support of projects to assist the people of the Nuba Mountains. Projects supported include joint monitoring of the Nuba Mountains Cease-Fire Agreement, local peace building initiatives and support to basic education.

  Productivity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action he is taking to(a) increase the productivity and (b) cut the costs of his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [171878]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  I refer the hon. Member for Castle Point to the written answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Paul Boateng) on 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 149W.

  Statistical Methodologies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what the changes are to survey methods and the revisions to statistical estimates in relation to the poverty reduction target for South Asia referred to on page 186 of the 2004 departmental report; [171711]

  (2) what the changes in statistical methodologies are which make it impossible to measure firm progress on the target for sustainable poverty reduction in East Asia and the Pacific. [171704]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The 2000 poverty data are not directly comparable with the 1998 baseline data in these two regions because of significant changes to the raw data used to estimate the poverty figures. This, combined with the inherent uncertainty associated with the data and the small time period being considered, means the available data does not allow an accurate assessment of progress. However, the data does point to a reduction in poverty. More details are provided in the following paragraphs.

  Progress towards these poverty reduction targets is measured using the proportion of the population living in absolute poverty (defined as less than an international $1 a day). The data comes from the World Bank, which publishes estimates in their annual Global Economic Prospects report. Each year the World Bank provides the data for the latest year (currently 2000), and revises the data for 1990.

  Estimates for past years can change because additional or updated data is included in the analysis, or the estimation methodology is updated.
  688W
  Usually this results in a relatively small change to the data for previous years. However, this year there were substantial changes to the China and India data. These populous countries have a large impact on the East Asia and the Pacific and South Asia regional figures.

  In China, data on household expenditure instead of income was used for the first time (this has not been available before). Expenditure data is considered more reliable than income data for poverty analysis as expenditure tends to be more accurately reported by households than income. In India, data from an additional household survey was included in the analysis. This additional data, and other more minor methodological changes, resulted in a significant reduction to the poverty figures in East Asia and the Pacific and South Asia for both 1990 and the latest year when compared with the estimates available last year.

  The World Bank does not currently update figures for the years between the latest year and 1990. Hence we do not have 1998 poverty figures that have been estimated using the additional data sets. This means the 1998 baseline data is not directly comparable with the 2000 data published in the Departmental Report.

  There are many problems with the accuracy and reliability of this data. However, it is still the best internationally comparable measure of absolute poverty currently available. DFID is working with the World Bank to improve the quality of this data.

  More information on the methodology is available in Chapter 1 of the World Bank's 2004 Global Economic Prospects:http://www.worldbank.org/prospects/gep2004/chapter1.pdf.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on development in Vietnam. [172694]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Government of Vietnam has made rapid progress in reducing poverty in recent years and in maintaining a high rate of economic growth. The number of people living in poverty halved from 58 per cent. in 1993 to 29 per cent. in 2002 and economic growth has averaged at approximately 7 per cent. over the last 10 years. Despite this, approximately 23 million people still live below the poverty line and an estimated 8.8 million live in hunger. However, health and education indicators are at similar levels to those normally seen in a country with a per capita income two or three times higher than Vietnam's.

  This progress is a result of the Government of Vietnam's sustained commitment to development and poverty reduction. Recognising this, DFID has rapidly increased it's programme in Vietnam from £19 million in 2002–03 to an expected spend of up to £60 million by 2005–06. The programme supports the Government of Vietnam's own poverty reduction and growth strategy, and DFID works very closely with the Government and other donors to ensure that we achieve the maximum impact of our resources. Copies of DFID's new Country Assistance Plan for Vietnam have been placed in the House Library.
  689W
  DFID also supports poverty reduction in Vietnam through our contributions to the European Commission development budget (currently approximately 18 per cent. of the total budget). The EC spent 22.7 million Euros in Vietnam in 2002 (UK contribution: 4.1 million Euros), and is likely to spend 101 million Euros between 2002 and 2004 (UK contribution: 18.2 million Euros).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Academy for Irish Cultural Heritages
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the role of the Academy for Irish Cultural Heritages; and how it is funded. [173196]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Academy for Irish Cultural Heritages at the Magee campus of the University of Ulster is one of the centres of research excellence funded under round one of the Support Programme for University Research. The Department for Employment and Learning provides 50 per cent, of the total cost over the period of the programme, the other half being provided by the charitable organisation, Atlantic Philanthropies.

  The role of the project is to conduct research of international excellence in the fields of History, Celtic Studies and English.

  Alcohol-Related Illness
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will break down the funding allocated to treat alcohol-related illness by(a) main budget head and (b) recipients. [173594]

  Angela Smith
  The information is not available in this format.

  Autism Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he is taking to improve services for children with autism in the Northern Board area. [173616]

  Angela Smith
  In the forthcoming year the Northern Health and Social Services Board proposes to improve diagnostic and assessment services by investing £77,000 to strengthen the existing service in Homefirst Trust with additional speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and clerical support.

  £50,000 is also being provided to increase paediatrician and speech and language therapy input, in addition to clerical support, to begin to establish a local service.

  £7,000 has been made available for staff training related to Autistic Spectrum Disorders.

  Essential Skills
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to extend educational policy on essential skills beyond numeracy and literacy; and if he will make a statement. [173212]
  690W
  Mr. Gardiner
  The Department for Employment and Learning is currently considering its position on the introduction of Information and Communications Technology as a third essential skill with literacy and numeracy.

  Parliamentary Questions
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many(a) ordinary written and (b) named day questions his Department received in (i) the 2002–03 and (ii) this parliamentary session up to the most recent date for which figures are available, broken down by month; [170766]

  (2) what proportion of (a) ordinary written questions to his Department we re answered within five sitting days of tabling and (b) questions for a named day received a substantive answer on that day in (i) 2002–03 and (ii) the current parliamentary session up to the most recent date for which figures are available, broken down by month. [170767]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The following table sets out the total number of ordinary written question and named day questions asked of my department by hon. Members in 2003 and up to 31 April 2004, broken down by month.

  2003

  2004 (up to 31 April)

  Ordinary written

  January

  233

  324

  February

  163

  263

  March

  198

  327

  April

  125

  248

  May

  208

  —

  June

  354

  —

  July

  214

  —

  August

  0

  —

  September

  172

  —

  October

  147

  —

  November

  105

  —

  December

  143

  —

  Total

  2,062

  1,162

  Named day

  January

  15

  22

  February

  34

  31

  March

  32

  49

  April

  33

  27

  May

  9

  —

  June

  19

  —

  July

  16

  —

  August

  0

  —

  September

  10

  —

  October

  17

  —

  November

  10

  —

  December

  28

  —

  Total

  223

  129

  The other information sought is not available in the form requested, but the following may be of use. From 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003, a total of 3,134 parliamentary questions, including those asked by Members in Another Place, were tabled for answer by ministers in my Department, or on their behalf.

  From 1 May 2003 to 31 December 2003, the 11 Departments of the NI administration for which I currently have responsibility answered 986 ordinary

  691W
  written questions, of which 79 pet cent. were responded to within a working week of the question being tabled. of the 65 named day questions tabled in the same period 80 per cent. were answered by the specified date. The corresponding information in respect of the Northern Ireland Office itself is not currently available.

  Productivity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is for(a) increasing the productivity and (b) cutting; he costs of (i) his Department and (ii) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [172179]

  Mr. Pearson
  The NIO is committed to delivering the Government's policy on efficiencies of 2.5per cent. a year over the SR2004 period. This policy is applicable to the core Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies.

  The same focus on promoting efficiency will apply to the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland Administration, with a target for annual efficiency gains of at least 2.5 per cent. applying to Departments, and other public bodies funded by them, over the SR 2004 period. This will be a central theme to the Northern Ireland Priorities and Budget process, which will conclude with the publication in December 2004 of the Government's spending and efficiency plans. As a starting point, the departments have been asked to draw up plans for efficiency gains, with measures to include a combination of productivity gain; and cost reductions that will free up resources to be redeployed to priority front line public services.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of printing in Government Departments in Northern Ireland in 2003–04 was on recycled paper. [168932]

  Mr. Pearson
  The percentage spend on recycled paper, compared with new paper, during the period April 2003 to 31 March 2004 is 5.63 per cent.

  This answer is based on the value of orders placed electronically by Departments for the purchase of paper used for printing and reprographic purposes "in house" and paper purchased by the Central Print Unit, Department of Finance and Personnel. Data on all printed matter produced in-house by Departments and purchased from commercial printers is not readily available and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Following the adoption of guidance to integrate environmental considerations into procurement practices, as approved by the Procurement Board on 6 April 2004, Departments are required to move to the use of recycled paper. CPD is now implementing this decision.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many rheumatoid arthritis sufferers(a) have commenced treatment since 1 January 2004 with, (b) are prescribed and (c) remain on the waiting list for (i) Embrel and (ii) Remicade. [171756]
  692W
  Angela Smith
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, data collected by Health and Social Services Trusts suggest that there are around 230 people who have received or are currently receiving biologic therapies using Embrel and Remicade, and around 450 people on the waiting lists for such treatment.

  Statins
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the availability of statins in the NHS. [173609]

  Angela Smith
  A range of medicines classified as 'statins' are available to patients on health service prescription, and will remain so.

  In addition, it was announced on 12 May 2004 that Ministers had accepted the advice of the expert Committee on Safety of Medicines, that one particular brand of simvastatin in a 10 mg dose, Zocor Heart-Pro, should become available to people with a specific risk of heart disease, without prescription and supplied under pharmacist supervision. This will happen here from July 2004.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Careers Guidance
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many practising qualified teachers(a) were qualified careers advisers and (b) provided careers guidance in schools in each year since 1997. [172627]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on the numbers of qualified teachers who are also qualified careers advisers is only available in respect of those who teach careers as a specific subject. This information was published in table 24 of the School Workforce in England Volume 2003 edition and is available from the House of Commons Library or downloaded from the following internet link: www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DBA/OL/v000443/index.shtml.

  This information is not collected on an annual basis.

  Careers advice in schools may also take place within other contexts such as during the provision of Personal Social and Health Education. Information is not available in respect of this provision.

  Child Care Regulation
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent changes he has made to the regulation of child care; and if he will make a statement. [172854]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: We have made two sets of significant changes to the regulation of child care since the national standards for under 8s day care and childminding came into force in the summer of 2001. First, in April 2003, we introduced regulations enabling the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted), the national registration authority for child care in England, to suspend a provider's

  693W
  registration in certain circumstances, for example, where there were concerns about their suitability to look after children. Second, the national standards and associated regulations were revised in September 2003, following a public consultation. Amongst the changes were new rules allowing childminders to care for more babies and preventing them from smacking or smoking in front of the children in their care. At this time we also extended the registration requirements to child care provided by schools, which had previously been exempt.

  Further changes to improve the regulation of child care are under consultation at present and are planned for introduction in September 2004.

  Connexions
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many one-stop-shops are operated by the Connexions Service in England. [170022]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]: A survey in December 2003 showed there were nearly 300 one-stop shops already open, operated by Connexions Partnerships. This number is set to increase with a further 100 one-stop-shops planned to open in the next 18 months.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his Department's preferred model of delivery is for Connexions partnerships. [172661]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 12 May 2004]: There is no preferred model, and it is for each Connexions Partnership to decide on a structure which they believe will be the most efficient in delivering the Connexions service in their sub-region.

  Early Years Education
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to promote the appropriate training of workers engaged in multi-agency work with early years children. [172343]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Sure Start Unit has allocated £129.9 million to local authorities for the training and development of early years and child care workers for 2004–06 to meet the requirements of the national standards for under 8s day care and childminding. This will include training and development of those working in multi-agency settings such as Children's Centres.

  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new recruits he estimates will be needed over the next three years in the nursery and child care sector to ensure the workforce is at full strength. [171370]

  Margaret Hodge
  Allowing for the expected growth of child care places and continuing staff turnover, we estimate that up to around 180,000 new recruits may be needed in the early years, child care and play work sector over the three-year period April 2003 to March 2006.

  This is a broad estimate, which depends on a range of assumptions, and we will continue to keep it under review in the light of further information about child care growth and staff turnover levels.

  Education Act Powers
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many times he has used the power under section 71 of the Education Act 2002 to direct a local education authority to exercise its powers to secure provision for an additional number of pupils. [173783]

  Mr. Miliband
  It has not yet been necessary to exercise this power under section 71 of the Education Act 2002. It was introduced as a complement to the powers of Section 70 of the Act, which require competitions for additional secondary schools. Effectively, it extends the powers of Schedule 7 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 to allow LEAs to respond to a direction to provide for an additional number of pupils by either holding a competition for a new school, or using their other powers for the reorganisation of schools.

  LEAs are responsible for the provision of sufficient school places in their; area, and these powers were always intended as reserve powers in exceptional circumstances.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) free nursery and (b) pre-school places were available for (i) 3 and (ii) 4-year-olds in Oldham, West and Royton in each of the last seven years. [170912]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  Figures on the number of free nursery education places taken up by 3 and 4-year-olds in Oldham local education authority area are shown in the table.

  The latest figures on provision for 3 and 4-year-olds in England were published in a Statistical Bulletin ?Provision for children under 5 years of age in England—January: 2003' which is available on the Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/.

  From April 2004, six months ahead of our original target, all 3-year-olds in England whose parents want one, are eligible for a free, part-time early education place.

  Number of free nursery education places1,2 taken up by 3 and 4-year-old children in maintained nursery and primary schools and private, voluntary and independent providers—Oldham 1997–2003

  Position in January each year

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  1997

  1,500

  3,100

  1998

  1,500

  3,100

  1999

  1,600

  3,000

  2000

  2,300

  3,100

  2001

  2,500

  3,100

  2002

  2,500

  3,100

  2003

  2,600

  3,000

  1Part-time equivalent number of free nursery education places taken up by 3 and 4-year-old children.

  2A free nursery education place comprises five 2í12 hour sessions of early years education per week, for 33 weeks of the year, usually three terms of 11 weeks.

  Education Services
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many child care places have been created in Blackpool, South since 1997. [173066]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department is unable to provide details of child care places for Blackpool, South. However, from April 1999 to March 2004 Blackpool local authority created 3,060 new child care places helping some 5,505 children. This shows an increase in the stock of child care places, taking into account turnover, of 2,149 helping some 3,899 children.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was spent on capital projects in schools in(a) the County of Essex in each year from 1980 to 1997 and (b) the County of Essex and the unitary authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock in each year from 1998 to 2003. [173322]

  Mr. Miliband
  The majority of capital funding is now allocated to local authorities and schools by needs-related formulae. Authorities invest according to priorities agreed in their asset management plans. The following table shows total capital allocations to Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock local education authorities (LEA) since 1996–97. We do not hold details of the capital allocation figures per authority for periods before 1996–97.

  Capital allocations in £

  Essex LEA

  Southend-on-Sea LEA

  Thurrock LEA

  1996–97

  12,186,000

  —

  —

  1997–98

  11,477,000

  —

  —

  1998–99

  13,796,000

  2,577,000

  1,874,000

  1999–2000

  20,204,000

  1,056,000

  3,190,000

  2000–01

  53,120,000

  6,547,000

  6,014,000

  2001–02

  35,575,000

  5,868,000

  5,129,000

  Nursery and primary

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  City of London

  10

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Camden

  580

  560

  550

  560

  550

  580

  610

  Greenwich

  1,020

  990

  980

  990

  1,000

  960

  980

  Hackney

  840

  860

  870

  880

  910

  870

  950

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  440

  400

  400

  440

  470

  470

  500

  Islington

  780

  770

  720

  730

  700

  820

  750

  Kensington and Chelsea

  360

  350

  360

  340

  360

  380

  400

  Lambeth

  1,010

  1,020

  980

  940

  970

  1,030

  1,020

  Lewisham

  960

  970

  940

  1,030

  1,050

  1,080

  1,100

  Southwark

  1,000

  1,010

  1,040

  1,050

  1,140

  1,170

  1,210

  Tower Hamlets

  1,180

  1,090

  1,200

  1,170

  1,140

  1,160

  1,130

  Wandsworth

  820

  810

  840

  850

  900

  900

  900

  City of Westminster

  560

  530

  530

  530

  610

  630

  620

  Barking and Dagenham

  710

  690

  690

  700

  750

  740

  750

  Barnet

  1,160

  1,210

  1,200

  1,190

  1,250

  1,280

  1,290

  Bexley

  880

  860

  900

  880

  930

  930

  890

  Brent

  1,100

  1,090

  1,090

  1,020

  1,050

  1,080

  1,120

  Bromley

  960

  980

  990

  990

  1,120

  1,140

  1,120

  Croydon

  1,400

  1,390

  1,370

  1,430

  1,570

  1,490

  1,510

  Ealing

  1,190

  1,190

  1,200

  1,180

  1,200

  1,210

  1,160

  Enfield

  1,070

  1,090

  1,080

  1,260

  1,180

  1,300

  1,270

  Haringey

  980

  970

  960

  970

  990

  1,020

  1,020

  Harrow

  930

  880

  860

  770

  900

  900

  910

  Havering

  880

  880

  890

  910

  910

  940

  940

  Hillingdon

  910

  910

  920

  970

  1,020

  1,050

  1,030

  696W

  Capital allocations in £

  Essex LEA

  Southend-on-Sea LEA

  Thurrock LEA

  2002–03

  75,405,000

  6,330,000

  5,249,000

  2003–04

  63,462,000

  9,907,000

  11,007,000

  2004–05

  60,322,000

  13,242,000

  12,834,000

  *Includes allocations to the voluntary aided sector

  Education Statistics (London)
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching staff have taken early retirement in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each London borough in each year since 1997; and what the average figures for a local education authority in England were in each year. [172805]

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

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching staff have left the profession as a result of stress or similar conditions in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each London borough in each year since 1997; and what the average figures for a local education authority in England were in each year. [172806]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teaching posts there were in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each London borough in each year since 1997; and what the average figures for a local education authority in England were in each year. [172807]

  Mr. Miliband
  The tables show the full-time equivalent number of regular teachers in local education authorities in London and the national average for all maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England, in January of each year.
  697W

  Nursery and primary

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Hounslow

  900

  870

  880

  860

  900

  890

  840

  Kingston upon Thames

  460

  460

  460

  470

  500

  510

  520

  Merton

  670

  640

  660

  650

  700

  710

  660

  Newham

  1,010

  1,000

  1,060

  1,160

  1,260

  1,290

  1,330

  Redbridge

  850

  870

  900

  940

  1,020

  1,010

  1,030

  Richmond upon Thames

  520

  530

  530

  520

  560

  530

  580

  Sutton

  580

  590

  600

  600

  620

  640

  690

  Waltham Forest

  910

  960

  960

  920

  940

  1,000

  910

  National average

  1,240

  1,230

  1,240

  1,250

  1,300

  1,320

  1,320

  Secondary

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  780

  790

  770

  650

  780

  850

  680

  Greenwich

  880

  860

  870

  880

  900

  970

  1,020

  Hackney

  500

  520

  550

  530

  500

  530

  580

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  370

  420

  440

  470

  460

  460

  480

  Islington

  520

  510

  500

  520

  520

  560

  550

  Kensington and Chelsea

  260

  250

  260

  250

  260

  260

  280

  Lambeth

  500

  510

  500

  520

  490

  530

  520

  Lewisham

  750

  740

  740

  750

  820

  850

  810

  Southwark

  600

  630

  640

  660

  670

  750

  740

  Tower Hamlets

  930

  920

  940

  920

  910

  940

  1,060

  Wandsworth

  650

  650

  650

  640

  670

  690

  690

  City of Westminster

  530

  550

  560

  570

  600

  640

  660

  Barking and Dagenham

  680

  660

  680

  690

  690

  730

  780

  Barnet

  1,420

  1,370

  1,400

  1,400

  1,420

  1,460

  1,480

  Bexley

  910

  930

  950

  940

  960

  1,090

  1,070

  Brent

  940

  970

  950

  960

  950

  980

  1,150

  Bromley

  1,190

  1,210

  1,210

  1,210

  1,320

  1,400

  1,380

  Croydon

  1,030

  1,070

  1,050

  1,210

  1,140

  1,170

  1,200

  Ealing

  900

  880

  910

  930

  900

  960

  1,040

  Enfield

  1,260

  1,310

  1,350

  1,300

  1,310

  1,250

  1,430

  Haringey

  740

  730

  760

  760

  760

  760

  770

  Harrow

  570

  550

  570

  540

  560

  570

  590

  Havering

  920

  930

  940

  910

  990

  1,050

  1,070

  Hillingdon

  970

  1,000

  980

  1,010

  1,050

  1,070

  1,090

  Hounslow

  1,010

  980

  1,010

  990

  1,040

  1,030

  1,070

  Kingston upon Thames

  520

  530

  520

  520

  520

  520

  600

  Merton

  460

  460

  460

  440

  460

  470

  540

  Newham

  1,010

  1,030

  1,060

  1,060

  1,110

  1,170

  1,190

  Redbridge

  1,060

  1,080

  1,110

  1,080

  1,220

  1,230

  1,300

  Richmond upon Thames

  480

  480

  470

  440

  440

  520

  470

  Sutton

  730

  760

  780

  810

  850

  880

  970

  Waltham Forest

  840

  860

  880

  920

  840

  880

  890

  National average

  1,260

  1,260

  1,280

  1,290

  1,310

  1,350

  1,380

  Source:

  Annual survey of teachers in service and teacher vacancies.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) free nursery and (b) pre-school places were available for (i) three and (ii) four-year-olds in Bootle in each of the last seven years. [172785]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 29 April 2004,Official Report, column 1257W.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many(a) Sure Start centres and (b) Early Excellence centres have been created in Bootle; [172786]

  (2) how many new nurseries have been established in Bootle since 1997. [1727831]

  Margaret Hodge
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given on 6 May 2004,Official Report,
  698W
  column 1775W and 6 May 2004, Official Report, column 1776W.

  Examination Results
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) males and (b) females achieved five A*–C grades at GCSE in each year since 1994; and how many (i) males and (ii) females achieved 5 A*—C grades at GCSE in the 10 per cent. (A) most and (B) least deprived wards in each year since 1994. [170113]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the following tables Data for years prior to 1997 is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  699W

  Number of males and females achieving. 5 A*—C Grades at GCSE: 1997–2003

  Male

  Female

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  2003

  133,462

  46

  158,525

  56

  2002

  125,476

  44

  150,769

  55

  2001

  119,862

  43

  145,645

  53

  2000

  112,719

  41

  138,218

  52

  Male

  Female

  10 per cent. most deprived wards

  10 per cent. least deprived wards

  10 per cent. most deprived wards

  10 per cent. least deprived wards

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  2003

  9,005

  32

  19,136

  60

  11,349

  42

  21,969

  71

  2002

  8,335

  30

  18,101

  59

  10,507

  40

  21,129

  70

  2001

  7,883

  29

  17,320

  57

  9,855

  37

  20,982

  69

  2000

  7,137

  27

  16,737

  56

  9,037

  36

  19,587

  68

  1999

  6,892

  25

  16,243

  55

  8,711

  34

  19,223

  67

  1998

  6,340

  24

  15,760

  54

  8,122

  32

  18,604

  66

  1997

  6,368

  24

  15,319

  52

  7,904

  30

  18,359

  64

  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) males and (b) females achieved level 5 or above at Key Stage 3 in (i) English, (ii) mathematics and (iii) science in the 10 per cent. (A) most and (B) least deprived wards in each year since 1994. [170114]

  Number of males and females achieving level 5 or above at Key Stage 3: 1997–2003

  Male

  Female

  10 per cent. most deprived wards

  10 per cent. least deprived wards

  10 per cent. most deprived wards

  10 per cent. least deprived wards

  Subject/year

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  English

  2003

  14,067

  48

  24,616

  74

  17,704

  63

  27,070

  86

  2002

  13,486

  44

  23,270

  71

  18,180

  63

  27,134

  86

  2001

  12,723

  43

  22,392

  70

  16,954

  59

  25,432

  85

  2000

  12,053

  40

  21,883

  69

  16,184

  58

  25,135

  84

  1999

  12,309

  41

  21,156

  70

  16,617

  59

  25,431

  85

  1998

  11,605

  41

  20,727

  69

  15,755

  58

  23,652

  84

  1997

  9,535

  33

  18,219

  62

  13,831

  50

  22,472

  80

  Maths

  2003

  16,333

  55

  26,823

  80

  16,149

  58

  26,185

  83

  2002

  15,465

  51

  25,621

  78

  15,078

  52

  25,209

  80

  2001

  14,723

  49

  24,896

  78

  14,609

  51

  24,347

  80

  2000

  13,951

  47

  24,347

  77

  13,232

  47

  23,393

  78

  1999

  13,281

  44

  23,017

  76

  12,442

  44

  22,802

  76

  1998

  11,823

  41

  21,433

  72

  10,808

  40

  20,491

  73

  1997

  11,966

  41

  21,795

  74

  11,060

  40

  21,119

  75

  Science

  2003

  15,177

  51

  26,880

  80

  14,528

  52

  25,811

  82

  2002

  14,876

  49

  25,918

  79

  14,333

  49

  25,306

  80

  2001

  14,318

  48

  25,245

  79

  13,619

  47

  24,316

  80

  2000

  12,345

  41

  23,436

  74

  10,819

  39

  21,752

  73

  1999

  10,909

  36

  21,366

  70

  10,254

  36

  21,182

  71

  1998

  10,912

  38

  21,089

  71

  9,518

  35

  19,577

  70

  1997

  11,808

  41

  22,167

  75

  10,922

  40

  21,083

  75

  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) males and (b) females achieved level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 in (i) English, (ii) mathematics and (iii) science in the 10 per cent. (A) most and (B) least deprived wards in each year since 1994. [170115]
  700W

  Number of males and females achieving 5 A*-C Grades at GCSE: 1997–2003

  Male

  Female

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1999

  109,564

  40

  134,307

  51

  1998

  103,546

  39

  127,677

  49

  1997

  102,894

  38

  125,761

  48

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Data for years prior to 1997 are not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Data for years prior to 1997 is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  701W

  Number of males and females achieving level 4 or above at Key Stage 2: 1997–2003

  Males

  Females

  10 per cent. most deprived wards

  10 per cent. least deprived wards

  10 per cent. Most deprived wards

  10 per cent. least deprived wards

  Subject/year

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  English

  2003

  27,223

  57

  22,845

  83

  31,481

  69

  23,540

  90

  2002

  27,323

  57

  22,431

  83

  30,921

  67

  23,536

  89

  2001

  27,046

  57

  21,951

  83

  31,645

  69

  23,364

  90

  2000

  26,863

  57

  21,894

  83

  30,534

  67

  22,464

  90

  1999

  24,391

  50

  20,648

  79

  29,199

  63

  21,914

  88

  1998

  20,083

  42

  18,192

  73

  27,415

  59

  20,547

  86

  1997

  19,712

  42

  17,612

  73

  24,608

  54

  19,407

  84

  Maths

  2003

  29,842

  63

  23,117

  84

  27,739

  61

  21,490

  82

  2002

  30,053

  63

  22,571

  83

  28,898

  63

  21,933

  83

  2001

  28,517

  60

  21,755

  82

  27,291

  59

  21,064

  81

  2000

  28,451

  61

  21,824

  83

  26,955

  59

  20,504

  82

  1999

  27,503

  57

  21,068

  81

  26,098

  56

  20,175

  81

  1998

  21,174

  44

  18,722

  75

  19,831

  43

  17,567

  74

  1997

  22,809

  48

  18,465

  77

  21,118

  47

  17,713

  76

  Science

  2003

  36,763

  77

  25,807

  94

  35,392

  78

  24,528

  94

  2002

  37,482

  78

  25,187

  93

  36,116

  78

  24,551

  93

  2001

  37,529

  79

  24,895

  94

  36,700

  80

  24,511

  94

  2000

  35,072

  75

  24,304

  92

  34,419

  76

  23,326

  93

  1999

  32,126

  66

  23,261

  89

  30,837

  66

  22,315

  89

  1998

  26,281

  55

  20,938

  83

  24,673

  53

  19,874

  83

  1997

  25,573

  54

  19,732

  82

  24,830

  55

  19,301

  83

  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) males and (b) females achieved level 2 or above at Key Stage 1 in (i) English, (ii) mathematics and (iii) science in the 10 per cent. (A) most and (B) least deprived wards in each year since 1994. [170116]

  Number of males and females achieving level 2 or above in the Key Stage 1 Test Tasks: 1998–2003

  Males

  Females

  10 per cent. most deprived wards

  10 per cent. least deprived wards

  10 per cent. Most deprived wards

  10 per cent. least deprived wards

  Subject/year

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  English reading

  2003

  33,082

  71

  23,558

  89

  36,194

  81

  23.981

  94

  2002

  34,128

  71

  23,880

  89

  36,353

  81

  24,035

  94

  2001

  34,186

  71

  24,667

  89

  37,230

  80

  24,439

  94

  2000

  34,667

  70

  23,831

  89

  37,887

  80

  24,120

  94

  1999

  35,212

  68

  24,179

  87

  38,511

  78

  24,307

  93

  1998

  34,136

  64

  23,298

  86

  38,169

  76

  24,030

  92

  English writing

  2003

  30,752

  66

  22,662

  85

  35,246

  79

  23,700

  93

  2002

  34,653

  72

  24,163

  90

  37,535

  83

  24,434

  95

  2001

  34,963

  72

  24,957

  90

  38,354

  83

  24,800

  95

  2000

  34,992

  71

  24,004

  89

  38,728

  82

  24,371

  95

  1999

  35,407

  68

  24,353

  88

  39,247

  79

  24,586

  94

  1998

  34,552

  65

  23,587

  87

  39,010

  77

  24,257

  93

  Maths

  2003

  38,662

  83

  25,064

  94

  38,477

  86

  24,397

  95

  2002

  39,820

  83

  25,355

  94

  38,939

  86

  24,472

  95

  2001

  40,680

  84

  26,234

  95

  40,165

  87

  24,990

  96

  2000

  40,910

  82

  25,245

  94

  40,619

  86

  24,562

  96

  1999

  40,774

  78

  25,598

  93

  40,156

  81

  24,532

  94

  1998

  39,769

  75

  24,611

  91

  39,786

  79

  24,165

  93

  702W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Data for years prior to 1998 is not readily available and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Failing Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the schools categorised as(a) subject to special measures, (b) having serious weaknesses, (c) underachieving and (d) having inadequate sixth forms as of 9 April were placed in those categories. [173139]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which schools Office for standards in Education categorised as(a) subject to special measures, (b) having serious weaknesses, (c) underachieving and (d) having inadequate sixth forms between 1 January and 9 April. [173140]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 14 May 2004]: This is a matter for Ofsted. HM Chief Inspector, David Bell, will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Family Fund Trust
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many families have been provided with grants through the Family Fund Trust; what funding will be provided for the Trust over the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [170606]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Family Fund was set up by the Government in 1973 to give practical help to families with severely disabled and seriously ill children under the age of 16. Since 1998 the charity has received separate funds from the Governments of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales amounting to over £27 million in 2003–4. The number of families assisted in England was £35,226 in 2002–3. England has allocated funding of £22.773 million. for 2004–5. The budgets for the years 2005–6 and 2006–7 are yet to be determined.

  Family Support Grant
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many organisations have applied for funding from the family support grant in 2003–04; and how many were successful in their application. [172498]

  Margaret Hodge
  A total of 287 applications were received for the family support grant (FSG) 2003–04, of which 26 were successful. In addition, three organizations

  (a) Initiatives: 2001–02

  Title

  Cost (£)

  Organisation

  Supporting the Better Government for Older People Network

  20,000

  Better Government for Older People (BGOP)

  Celebrating Older Learners

  25,000

  DfES

  The Dark Horse Encourage Programme

  15,000

  The Dark Horse Venture

  Financial Literacy and Older People

  60,000

  National Institute of Adult Continuing Education (NIACE)

  Learning Support for Older People

  50,000

  NIACE

  Peer tutors project

  66,000

  Community Education Development Centre

  Senior Peer Physical Activity Motivator Programme

  14,600

  British Heart Foundation National Centre for Physical Activity and Health

  Celebrating Older Learners sponsorship project

  25,000

  NIACE

  Leicester LiveAge project

  32,000

  Leicester Adult Education College

  704W
  continued to receive core funding from FSG 2003–04, together with another 55 organisations who received ongoing funding originally awarded in previous years. Total funding was £6.3 million.

  I announced details of FSG 2004–05 projects on 10 May 2004.

  Fostered Children
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children within the foster care system were born outside the UK. [172492]

  Margaret Hodge
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ministerial Visits
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [171559]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  For domestic visits, the Department does not hold this detailed information centrally. To provide this information could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  For overseas visits, the Government publishes on an annual basis the total costs of all ministerial overseas travel and a list of all visits by Cabinet Ministers costing in excess of £500. Information for 2003–4 is currently being collected and will be published as soon as it is ready.

  Older People
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what(a) initiatives, (b) campaigns and (c) advisory bodies relating to older people his Department (i) is responsible and (ii) has provided funding since 2001; and what the cost in each year was for each one. [166237]

  Alan Johnson
  The tables set out the work the Department for Education and Skills has undertaken or funded since 2001 to promote learning for older people (50+). The main work is support for projects under(a) initiatives.

  The Department has not been responsible for or funded any (b) campaigns. Likewise the Department has not established or funded any national advisory bodies for older people under (c).
  705W

  (a) Initiatives: 2001–02

  Title

  Cost (£)

  Organisation

  4th Age Learning at home and in day care

  33,000

  NIACE

  Senior Learner Awards

  17,100

  NIACE

  Skills for Older People

  50,000

  NIACE

  Drawn from Memory

  20,000

  Adult and Community Learning in Oxfordshire

  Total funding

  427,700

  2002–03

  Title

  Cost (£)

  Organisation

  DfES/BGOP conference

  9,000

  Better Government for Older People

  Senior Peer Physical Activity Motivator Programme

  9,700

  British Heart Foundation National Centre for Physical Activity and Health

  Peer Group Training for Older People

  80,000

  Community Education Development Centre

  Days out! Days in!—4th age learning at home and in day care provision

  33,000

  NIACE

  Fred Moore Institutional Award

  21,300

  NIACE

  Why, Where, What and How Older People Learn

  37,800

  NIACE

  Spotlight 2002

  146,440

  Meridian Broadcasting Charitable Trust

  Senior Learner Awards

  28,942

  NIACE

  USA Development Projects

  26,680

  The Third Age Trust

  Learning Support for Older People

  70,000

  NIACE

  Involving adults in learning through sport

  3,000

  Youth Sport Trust

  LiveAge cd-rom

  13,105

  Leicester Adult Education College

  e-Finance Project

  2,000

  Coventry City Council

  Total Funding

  480,967

  2003–04

  Title

  Cost (£)

  Organisation

  Senior Learner Awards

  31,430

  NIACE

  Fred Moore Institutional

  21,300

  NIACE

  Awards for 2004

  USA Development Projects

  17,180

  The Third Age Trust

  Older and Bolder

  71,750

  NIACE

  Total Funding

  141,660

  Pre-schools
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the requirements are for pre-school assistants to be able to work in pre-schools; and if he will make a statement. [173382]

  Margaret Hodge
  The criteria supporting the national standards for under 8s day care and child minding indicate:that all pre-school staff should be subject to checks to ensure that they are not disqualified from registration because of previous criminal convictions;
  that they are suitable, both mentally and physically, to care for children; and
  that they have the appropriate skills and ability to do their jobs.

  Reading Disability
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to improve the availability of reading material for those with reading disabilities. [171265]

  Margaret Hodge
  During the past three financial years £220 million has been made available to schools through the Schools Access Initiative; a further £100 million per annum is available for the current year 706W
  and for 2005–06. This funding can be used to produce materials in alternative formats to enable access to the curriculum for pupils who have reading disabilities.

  It is for schools and local education authorities (LEAs) to ensure that such materials are produced in good time, so that children with reading disabilities are not disadvantaged. Schools and LEAs can use the Department for Education and Skills' Special Educational Needs inclusion site to share information about materials that are required; in production; or already available in different formats.

  Recycled Paper
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he has put in place to ensure that his Department meets the quick win targets set by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that all paper for printed publications bought by the Department is 60 per cent. recycled of which a minimum of 75 per cent. is post-consumer waste content. [166792]

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

  School Sports (Preston)
  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) if he will make a statement on the effects on schools of changes since 1997 in the level of investment in school sports in Preston; [168138]
  707W
  (2) how much money has been allocated to develop school sports in Preston since 1997. [168711]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  This information is not held in the format requested.

  Within the context of the statutory National Curriculum, where Physical Education (PE) is compulsory for pupils aged 5–16, it is for individual schools to use their budgets as they judge appropriate.

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

  The Department is providing just over £440,000 to support the delivery of a School Sport Partnership in Lancashire LEA area. The partnerships includes five secondary and 21 primary schools and provides enhanced sports opportunities for all young people to ensure that their pupils spend a minimum of two hours a week on high quality PE and School Sport. A key objective for all School Sport Partnerships is to ensure that the improvements and enhanced opportunities that they deliver are sustainable and embedded within schools to ensure a lasting legacy. The New Opportunities Fund has provided schools in the Lancashire LEA area with nearly 12 million specifically to enhance PE and school sport facilities.

  Latest research, published by the Departments on 4 March 2004 shows that 68 per cent. of pupils in schools that have been in a Partnership for three years, are taking up the two hour entitlement, rising to 90 per cent. at Key Stage 3. Data has been collected from the remaining partnerships and will be published in April.

  Schools (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many wave 1 approvals under Building Schools for the Future involved(a) local authorities other than in their capacity as local education authorities, (b) learning and skills councils, (c) primary care and other NHS trusts and (d) other public sector bodies. [172906]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the number of local education authorities in wave 1 of Building Schools for the Future who made specific reference to the requested categories in their proposals.

  Local education authorities

  Number

  Other local authority services

  1

  Learning and Skills Councils

  12

  Primary care and other NHS trusts

  4

  Other public sector bodies

  9

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria were used in issuing invitations to local education authorities to submit bids 708W
  for consideration for wave one of Building Schools for the Future; and what criteria were used to assess the bids. [172959]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in guidance to local authorities, issued in July 2004. A copy is in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the local education authorities which applied to wave one of Building Schools for the Future; and what the reasons were for each unsuccessful bid. [172962]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following list shows those authorities which applied for wave one funding in the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. Projects that were successful in wave one were those which best met our criteria for prioritisation. The criteria for prioritisation were fully set out in the guidance on applying for prioritisation in the BSF programme which we published last July.

  We have discussed with all unsuccessful authorities the reasons why their proposals meet our criteria less well, usually in face to face meetings with my officials.

  Birmingham

  Haringey

  Manchester

  Bracknell Forest

  Harrow

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Cambridgeshire

  Havering

  Newham

  Cheshire

  Herefordshire

  North Tyneside

  Cornwall

  Hertfordshire

  Nottingham

  Derbyshire

  Islington

  Nottinghamshire

  Doncaster

  Kingston upon Hull

  Oldham

  Dorset

  Knowsley

  Portsmouth

  Dudley

  Lambeth

  Richmond upon Thames

  Durham

  Lancashire

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Leeds

  Rotherham

  East Sussex

  Leicester

  Salford

  Gateshead

  Lewisham

  709W

  Sandwell

  Hackney

  Liverpool

  Solihull

  Somerset

  Telford and Wrekin

  West Sussex

  South Tyneside

  Walsall

  Westminster

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Waltham Forest

  Wolverhampton

  Sunderland

  Wandsworth

  Tameside

  West Berkshire

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the performance of Pathfinder local education authorities in Building Schools for the Future. [172963]

  Mr. Miliband
  Partnerships for Schools is monitoring and supporting the pathfinder local authorities. By their nature as pathfinders, we are working with authorities to develop Building Schools for the Future, identifying and resolving issues along the way. The pathfinder projects are progressing well and will be submitting outline business cases shortly for formal assessment.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of each successful local education authority's secondary schools in wave one of Building Schools for the Future are covered by its bid. [172965]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the proportion of schools in wave 1 of Building Schools for the Future as a percentage of each local authority's total number of secondary schools.

  LEA

  Total schools in LEA1

  Of which: included in BSF wave

  Percerntage

  Knowsley

  11

  11

  100.0

  Lancashire

  134

  26

  19.4

  Leeds

  68

  42

  61.8

  Leicester

  26

  26

  100.0

  Manchester

  25

  13

  52.0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  11

  11

  100.0

  Newham

  15

  15

  100.0

  Solihull

  23

  9

  39.1

  South Tyneside

  13

  13

  100.0

  Stoke-on-Trent

  23

  23

  100.0

  Sunderland

  18

  9

  50.0

  Waltham Forest

  19

  9

  47.4

  1Total number of schools that have been included by the LEA in their submissions to Building Schools for the Future; this may include special, middle and other schools, or units such as pupil referral units, in addition to secondary schools.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local education authorities participating in wave one of Building 710W
  Schools for the Future have (a) identified city academies as an integral part of the plans and (b) included provision for 14–19 education. [172966]

  Mr. Miliband
  Six local education authorities (LEAs) participating in wave 1 of Building Schools for the Future mentioned planned or established Academies in their proposals. We now expect all projects to provide a proper evaluation of Academy options.

  All proposals submitted included provision for 14–19 education.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Department's financial commitment is for each successful bid in wave one of Building Schools for the Future, broken down by(a) private finance initiative credits and (b) cash grants. [172967]

  Mr. Miliband
  Total funding available for pathfinder and wave one Building Schools for the Future projects is over £2.2 billion. This includes PFI credits, capital grant and supported borrowings. Details of allocation will not be made until authorities have submitted satisfactory outline business cases, which is expected later this year.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many projects in wave one of Building Schools for the Future will use the exemplar building design. [172968]

  Mr. Miliband
  It is too early to say how many projects Wave 1 will use any one of the exemplar designs in their entirety. However, all authorities in Wave 1 have warmly welcomed all the exemplar designs and are actively using them in their deliberations with schools to develop their educational vision.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost was of preparing the exemplar building designs in Building Schools for the Future. [172969]

  Mr. Miliband
  The cost of preparing 11 Exemplar Designs to RIBA Stage C—Scheme Design, including fees, securing copyright for the designs, publishing and dissemination was £3.45 million. We expect that through the stimulation of exemplar designs a number of standardised processes, including strategic partnerships, along the supply chain and off-site fabrication will develop to meet the demands of an increased building programme and secure savings on the costs of new schools of around 10 per cent.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which local education authorities have indicated that they wish to participate in wave 2 of the Building Schools for the Future programme. [172970]

  Mr. Miliband
  Local authorities were invited to submit a proposal for wave 1 and/or an expression of interest for the programme as a whole. All have done so. We will use this information to prioritise projects for the next waves of investment.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who owns(a) new and (b) refurbished schools built under the Building Schools for the Future programme. [172971]
  711W
  Mr. Miliband
  Ownership of schools will not usually change when schools are built or refurbished in the Building Schools for the Future (BSF) programme. Exceptions to this are where investment is through a Private Finance Initiative contract, where ownership of the buildings will pass to the public sector provider for the length of the contract, and then revert to the previous owner, and also where an Academy is created. In this case, the Academy Trust' will own the buildings for as long as the Academy remains in operation. If the Academy ceases to exist, ownership of the Academy land, and any buildings on it, will revert to the previous owner, which would be either the LEA or the voluntary aided sector body.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether the pathfinders for Building Schools for the Future were originally private finance initiative schemes. [172972]

  Mr. Miliband
  An offer to all local education authorities in 2003 to submit projects which would access Private Finance Initiative (PFI) credits in 2004–05 also invited expressions of interest to be pathfinders in the Building Schools for the Future programme. Part, but not all, of the funding to support pathfinder Building Schools for the Future projects will be PFI credits.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what controls there are to ensure that a wave 1 Building Schools for the Future scheme develops plans for secondary schools, once accepted. [172973]

  Mr. Miliband
  The development of each local authority project will be monitored by Partnerships for Schools. The Department will also see their plans at two formal points, when the outline and final business cases for each project are submitted for approval. We are also encouraging local authorities to use the local government gateway review process.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when he expects to announce the results of the second round of the Building Schools for the Future initiative. [173005]

  Mr. Miliband
  We hope to announce the next waves of investment under Building Schools for the Future later in the year—probably in the autumn. We are working to provide this information as soon as possible, once the Secretary of State has decided how to allocate the spending review settlement.

  Schools (Physical Exercise)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to(a) increase the percentage of pupils spending at least two hours a week on physical exercise and school sport and (b) increase the time children spend on exercise; and if he will make a statement. [171447]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Government are investing more than £1 billion in England to transform PE, school sport and club links. The funding will help deliver an ambitious Public Service Agreement target, shared with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, to increase the percentage of 5–16 year olds who spend a712W
  minimum of two hours each week on high quality PE and school sport within and beyond the curriculum to 75 per cent. by 2006.

  Spearheading action is the creation of a network of 400 specialist sports colleges and School Sport Partnerships. There are six other interlinked programmes within the strategy which are designed to help schools and their partners ensure pupils take up their PE and sports entitlement:

  1. Professional Development

  2. School/Club Links

  3. Step Into Sport

  4. Gifted and Talented

  5. Swimming

  6. The QCA PE and School Sport Investigation

  Learning through PE and Sport provides a comprehensive guide to the strategy and a copy has been placed in the House Library.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of special educational needs co-ordinators. [171367]

  Margaret Hodge
  Special educational needs co-ordinators (SENCOs) play a vital role, in conjunction with head teachers and governing bodies, in co-ordinating schools' work on identifying, assessing and meeting the needs of children with special educational needs.

  The Office for Standards in Education considers the effectiveness of schools in meeting the needs of all learners and this takes account of the contribution made by SENCOs. Ofsted is currently carrying out a thematic study of the implementation of the inclusion framework introduced through the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 and the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice 2001. The code of practice introduced changes to the school based elements of SEN provision, including measures designed to help reduce paper work for SENCOs.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to ensure that teachers have appropriate training to identify and to respond to the special needs of children in school settings. [172342]

  Margaret Hodge
  New standards for Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) came into effect in September 2002 and new induction standards came into force a year later. Both place a greater emphasis on special educational needs (SEN). The Department's guidance on induction also reflects the duties of head teachers and schools under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  In order to be awarded QTS, trainee teachers must demonstrate that they understand their responsibilities under the statutory SEN Code of Practice, know how to seek advice from specialists on less common types of SEN, can differentiate their teaching to meet the needs of pupils, including those with SEN, and can identify and support pupils who experience behavioural, emotional and social difficulties.
  713W
  The standards for the Induction Support Programme for those awarded QTS require that newly qualified teachers can demonstrate that they can plan effectively to meet the needs of pupils in their classes with SEN, with or without a statement, and, in consultation with the SEN co-ordinator, contribute to the preparation and implementation of individual education plans or the equivalent.

  Once qualified, teachers are expected to identify their developmental needs through performance management arrangements, and to address identified needs, including improving their teaching skills in the area of SEN, by undertaking appropriate professional development.

  Our recently published SEN Strategy, "Removing Barriers to Achievement", recognises the importance of training. We are committed to working closely with the Teacher Training Agency, higher education institutions and other interested parties to ensure that effective arrangements are in place.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures are being taken to reduce levels of teenage pregnancy in the UK. [172574]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: The Government have set a target to reduce under 18 conceptions by 50 per cent. by 2010. To achieve this, each local authority has developed a local 10 year strategy, with reduction targets of between 40 and 60 per cent. Based on the best available international research, local strategies adopt a multifaceted approach, which includes a range of measures: to help young people resist peer pressure to have early sex; to improve the quality of sex and relationship education and access to effective contraceptive services; and to involve parents and the wider community. Research published in February 2003 by the Health Development Agency further endorses this approach.

  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the effect of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy on the number of teenage pregnancies in the UK. [172576]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: Provisional data for 2002 published on 26 February by the Office for National Statistics, shows that the conception rate among under 18-year-olds in England has fallen by 9.4 per cent. since 1998 (baseline year for Teenage Pregnancy Strategy).

  Under-five Testing
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on testing for under fives. [172629]

  Margaret Hodge
  We do not test under fives. We do ask for a written summary of a child's progress and learning needs at the end of the Foundation Stage, based on teacher observation. Assessment is an integral part of teaching and learning. The Foundation Stage Profile 714W
  summary ensures that every child is assessed on a consistent basis. The information helps teachers and parents to support each child's development and progress; at local and national level it ensures that support is targeted appropriately to improve classroom practice.

TRANSPORT

  Civil Contingencies
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are in place to cope with the immediate(a) physical and (b) economic effects of a floating bomb. [170059]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government regulates a comprehensive maritime security regime under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. From 1 July 2004 this will be augmented by the introduction of the International Maritime Organisation's "International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code". We have in addition measures that would enable us to respond proportionately to a range of scenarios.

  The response to mitigate the economic effects would depend on the size and location of a particular incident.

  Early Retirement
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff in his Department took early retirement, and at what total cost, in the last financial year. [171867]

  Mr. McNulty
  In the financial year 2003–04, 11 officials of the Department for Transport took early retirement, i.e. before they reached the age of 60, at a cost of £1.45 million.

  Electric Cars
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking to promote the use of electric cars. [173824]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department promotes the use of electric cars in a number of ways. The PowerShift programme provides grants towards the purchase of electric vehicles and the New Vehicle Technology Fund is currently supporting the demonstration of several electric vehicles. The Government also provides fiscal incentives. Electric vehicles are subject to zero vehicle excise duty, an enhanced capital allowance rate of 100 per cent. in the first year and lower personal benefit in kind tax liability. PowerShift approved electric vehicles are also exempt from the London Congestion Charge.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many electric cars have been in use in each of the last 10 years. [173905]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following number of electric cars were licensed at the end of each of the last 10 years.
  715W

  Number

  1994

  93

  1995

  74

  1996

  94

  1997

  116

  1998

  151

  1999

  195

  2000

  221

  2001

  272

  2002

  326

  2003

  372

  Source:

  DVLA vehicle database.

  Light Rail
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps his Department is taking to encourage the building of light rail systems; and if he will make a statement; [171956]

  (2) what assessment he has made of whether the target for 25 light rail systems set out in the 10-Year Transport Plan will be met. [171957]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department recognises that light rail can bring significant benefits in some places, but has always been concerned with what works best locally and represents value for money, this may or not be light rail; it is not in the business of promoting one mode over another. The 10-Year Plan for Transport stated that up to 25 new light rail lines might be affordable with the 10-Year Plan provision subject to passing the Department's value for money criteria.

  MOTs
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the MOT computerisation system to be fully operational. [172136]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The computerised MOT service is due to go live on 29 November 2004. It will take approximately six months for Siemens Business Services to install computer terminals into all MOT testing stations and train station staff. Consequently, it will be June 2005 before all MOT testing is expected to be conducted using the new service. It will be a further year before there will be an electronic test record of every vehicle subject to test for re-licensing purposes.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how the monies raised from MOT garages as a result of increased MOT certificate fees have been used. [173891]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All monies raised from MOT certificate fees have been credited to the MOT Scheme account. The funds have been used to finance MOT administration and enforcement activities and the costs incurred on the MOT Computerisation Project.

  Any surpluses on the MOT schemes are identified in our Annual Report and Accounts and it is the intention to balance the scheme on a year-by-year basis.

  Nettleton Bottom/Brockworth
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions he has had with the 716W
  Highways Agency about the possibility of building a tunnel from Nettleton Bottom to the Brockworth Bypass, Gloucestershire; what advice he received from that body on this option; and if he will make a statement; [173791]

  (2) what instructions he gave to the Highways Agency with regard to further investigations regarding improving the A417 between Nettleton Bottom and the Brockworth Bypass, Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement; [173792]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of (a) building a tunnel and (b) the current favoured option of the Highways Agency to improve the A417 between Nettleton Bottom and the Brockworth Bypass, Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement; [173793]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the cost of building a tunnel from Nettleton Bottom to the Brockworth Bypass, Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [173794]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The interim findings of an environmental study, undertaken by the Highways Agency, to look at options for improving the length of A417 from Cowley to Brockworth were published in a pamphlet in March 2003. The tunnel option was discarded as a result of its high cost (at around £200 million), environmental impact and the implications for road safety. In the light of this the Highways Agency was asked to continue work on various surface options. This work is continuing in liaison with the statutory environmental bodies and other stakeholders. I expect to receive further advice on these options later this year. I will then consider the way forward and make an announcement.

  Radioactive Materials
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether radioactive materials may be legally transported(a) on passenger ferries and (b) through the Channel Tunnel. [173476]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Yes. The transport of radioactive material on passenger ferries is permissible subject to the safety requirements and restrictions of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, Amendment 31–02, as required by The Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1997 (SI 1997 No 2367); Merchant Shipping Notice No. M 1772(M), "The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants in Packaged Form—Amendment 31–02 to the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code" and, where applicable, The Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel etc.) (INF Code) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 3216).

  (b) Yes. Transport through the Channel Tunnel of limited amounts of radioactive material complying with RID1/ADR2 is permissible only as authorised through Eurotunnel Freight by prior agreement between the manufacturer/producer and Eurotunnel. Radioactive

  717W
  material other than that in/as Excepted Packages is further restricted to new manufactured goods in their original packaging.
  1Convention concerning International Carriage by Rail (COTIF) Appendix B. Uniform Rules concerning the Contract for International Carriage of Goods by Rail (CIM) Annex 1 Regulations concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Rail (RID) 2001 Edition.
  2European Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR) 2001 Edition.

  Road Schemes
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the occasions on which his Department has asked regional assemblies to choose between alternative road schemes, broken down by region; and on what date assembly meetings were held to consider such alternatives. [173483]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The choice between alternative road scheme options is made by Ministers, not regional assemblies. However, through the regional planning process, the programme of multi-modal and road based studies, and the Highways Agency's consultation processes, we have obtained the views of regional assemblies on all trunk road and motorway schemes considered for entry to the Targeted Programme of Improvements, including, where relevant, their views on the choice between alternative scheme options. Given the number of schemes that have been subject to these processes since the establishment of the Targeted Programme of Improvements, it is not practicable to list all of the occasions on which the views of the regional assemblies have been sought or the dates of assembly meetings at which scheme proposals and alternative scheme options have been considered.

  Port Security
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for vetting the histories of applicants to become(a) port facility security officers and (b) airport security officers; and what the vetting process is. [169960]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Both port facility security officers and airport security officers are required to undergo appropriate vetting procedures. This is carried out by the vetting section of my Department's Transport Security Directorate (TRANSEC) in conjunction with other Government Agencies.

  No Government clearance will be issued until we are satisfied the person in question does not pose a security threat. The vetting process includes stringent reference checks over a number of years, and a verification process to ensure no inexplicable gaps.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much time it takes to train(a) port facility security officers and (b) airport security officers. [169961];

  (2) whether the level of training given to port facility security officers will have to be reviewed for the UK to be compliant with the International Ship and Port Facility Code to be implemented by the UK on 1 July. [170066]
  718W
  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's Transport Security Directorate (TRANSEC) is responsible for developing the required training standards and course criteria for Port and Airport Security Officers.

  In order to comply with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS) Code, all Port Facility Security Officers (PFSOs) must have completed a TRANSEC approved PFSO course.

  Under the UK National Aviation Security Programme all staff carrying out listed security activities at UK airports have to receive mandatory training modules applicable to their duties.

  TRANSEC carries out regular audits of training providers to ensure high standards and compliance with legal requirements.

  Ship Searches
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of cargo ships over 500 tonnes that docked in Britain in 2003 were boarded and searched by border security personnel. [170065]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ships calling at UK ports may be boarded for a variety of reasons and such operations are conducted by different Government bodies and agencies; including the Police, Immigration, Customs and Excise, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), and my own Department's Transport Security Directorate (TRANSEC) inspectors. This information is not collated centrally.

  Trinity House Lighthouse Service
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the report of the Business Process Review of Trinity House Lighthouse Service. [167359]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is not within the remit of this Department to place a copy of the Report of the Review in the Library of the House, however, it has now been issued to staff and the Trade Unions who have accepted the Report's findings.

  Under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, the Secretary of State is required to sanction expenditure by the General Lighthouse Authorities and any proposal to establish new aids to navigation. He has no powers of direction over GLA internal operational matters. The Business Process Review was an internal exercise commissioned by Trinity House Lighthouse Service (THLS) to examine their business processes and update these to take account of best practice and future needs of the lighthouse service.

  In terms of granting access to official information, THLS as a non-departmental public body falls under the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. It therefore has its own commitment under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information to extend access to official information and to respond to reasonable requests for information except where disclosure would not be in the public interest in accordance with statutory requirements and the exemptions set out in Part II of the Code. There is no commitment to provide access to documents as distinct

  719W
  from information. Nor does the Code require Government Departments to acquire information that they do not possess.

  Vehicle Activated Signs
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicle activated signs are in operation in England. [171895]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally. Local highway authorities are solely responsible for the installation of any traffic signs and all traffic calming measures including vehicle activated signs. The Highways Agency uses vehicle activated signs in special situations where standard signing has failed to resolve a speed related accident problem.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the(a) installation cost and (b) annual maintenance and running costs of vehicle activated signs. [171896]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not held centrally. Local highway authorities are solely responsible for the purchase, installation and maintenance of any traffic calming measure, including vehicle activated signs. Variable Message Signs on motorways have an annual maintenance and running cost of £5,550 per sign per year.

  Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the Traffic Area Network's financial position was at the point of merger with the former Vehicle Inspectorate; and whether balances were transferred to the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. [173888]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The financial position of the Traffic Area Network at the point of merger was contained within the Trading Fund Order which brought the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency into being—the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency Trading Order 2003 (SI 2003 No. 942). The balances transferred into the newly-formed VOSA, based on estimated valuations at that time, were as follows:

  £ million

  Net Assets

  58.2

  Net Liabilities

  42.6

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on the SchlumbergerSema contract in the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, broken down by main expenditure category. [173892]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SchlumbergerSema IT Business has been purchased by Atos Origin. The original contract came into effect on 1 January 2003. The expenditure for the financial year 2002–03 was £3.4 million and the estimated expenditure for the financial year 2003–04 is £14.2 million.

  The detailed analysis of this cost is commercial in confidence.
  720W
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what impact on(a) services and (b) procedures of the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency the award of the contract to SchlumbergerSema has had. [173893]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The strategic partnership contract between Atos Origin (formerly SchlumbergerSema) and VOSA commenced in January 2003.

  The 10-year relationship involves design, build and implementation of a series of integrated business solutions that will have a significant impact on VOSA's business and the quality of services it provides to its customers.

  Early stages include enhancements to project and programme management and significant enhancement to the quality of the IT platform. This will allow development of better, more timely data for VOSA examiners and enable the introduction of new EU initiatives such as Digital Tachographs. This will in turn improve the targeting of likely offenders allowing law-abiding Operators to go about their business with less interference.

  Future plans include developments of a commercial customer portal bringing together current DVO e-services for commercial customer along with a range of new 'e' enabled services, including e-test bookings and e-payments.

CABINET OFFICE

  Contingency Planning
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether he has created a working group to consider how to issue advice to individual households within the UK. [170054]

  Mr. Alexander
  A number of working groups have been established to develop the regulations and guidance which will accompany the Civil Contingencies Bill. These working groups are convened by the Cabinet Office, and include members from across the civil protection community. One of these working groups is considering those parts of the legislation covering awareness, warning and informing the public. Full details of these working groups were outlined in the Civil Contingencies Bill update letter to key stakeholders on 2 April 2004, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. A copy of the letter is also available at www.ukresilience.info

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to issue advice to households in the UK detailing how to plan for and cope with a terrorist attack. [170127]

  Mr. Alexander
  As part of a deliberate strategy by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, an increasing amount of information and advice has been and will continue to be made available to the public about what to do in an emergency, including a terrorist attack.

  Public safety is our first priority in all decisions about public information or warnings. If a warning is necessary to protect public safety in the face of a specific

  721W
  and credible threat, we will issue one without hesitation, as well as giving out any further information that will help the public respond effectively.

  The Government and the emergency services will provide immediate information and advice in the event of a discernible threat or a specific incident.

  There is a wide range of advice and information on the terrorism section of the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism, at www.ukresilience.gov.uk and on the MI5 website at www.mi5.gov.uk

  Government continue to review the best way to keep the public informed and consider alternatives as part of our wider package of information to the public accordingly.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many caseworkers in the London office of the Legal Services Commission will deal with applications by publicly-funded providers of immigration services for extensions to the number of hours permitted for advice and appeal preparation; and what their(a) legal qualifications and (b) experience of immigration work are. [172150]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are 22 caseworkers in the London Office of the Legal Services Commission dealing with these applications. Seven of the caseworkers have been working on Legal Help, Controlled Legal Representation and certificated immigration and asylum work for over nine months, and three for over three years.

  The London team has six solicitors, each of whom has a minimum of three years' immigration experience and acts as a coach and mentor for the more junior members of staff. The team can draw on support from a further three immigration solicitors, all with a minimum of three years' experience of immigration in private practice, and a team of eight consultants, all of whom are currently working in private practice.

  The head of the London team has 19 years' experience in civil litigation and 15 years' experience in relation to immigration and asylum work specifically.

  Public Defenders
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Public Defender System. [172992]

  Mr. Lammy
  In order to assess better the performance of the Public Defender Service (PDS) the Legal Services Commission (LSC), with the agreement of Ministers, increased the number of PDS offices from six to eight in 2003. Ministers will make a decision on the future of the PDS in the light of the research at the end of 2005. There 722W
  are no current plans to open further offices but the Government and the LSC have always said that the PDS provides a flexible option to deliver criminal defence services where existing provision is low, or of poor quality.

  Criminal Defence Service
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action is being taken by the Legal Services Commission to ensure that the Criminal Defence Service works effectively with other parts of the criminal justice system in order to meet the needs of the community as a whole. [172320]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Legal Services Commission is heavily engaged with other agencies to improve the performance of the Criminal Justice System as a whole. The Commission is represented on key standing co-ordination and management groups, such as the National Criminal Justice Board and the Criminal Justice Council. It is playing an integral part in key reform initiatives, such as the Effective Trial Management Programme. In addition, it has a wide range of direct contacts with other agencies aimed at improving particular aspects of the system.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the Legal Services Commission is doing to improve the quality of defence services in terms of delays caused in the administration of justice. [172321]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Legal Services Commission is working with other agencies within the Effective Trial Management Programme to reduce delays in court proceedings and in the number of ineffective trials.

  Criminal Justice System
  David Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what discussions his Department has had with the(a) Home Office and (b) Department for Transport on reform of the criminal justice system. [172787]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department and the Home Office are in continuous dialogue on reform of the criminal justice system. We also hold discussions with the Department of Transport when necessary.

  Personal Injury Litigation
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many personal injury cases were commenced(a) in the High Court and (b) in the county court in each of the last 10 years; and in relation to (b) how many were (i) in the fast track and (ii) in the multi-track since their introduction; and if he will make a statement on trends in the volume of personal injury litigation. [173564]

  Mr. Lammy
  Figures on personal injury claims commenced in the High Court are set out in the table. Reliable figures on the number of claims to the county court and on how many were dealt with in the fast track and the multi-track are not available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  723W

  Claims issued

  1994

  1,474

  1995

  1,224

  1996

  1,543

  1997

  1,464

  1998

  1,754

  1999

  1,187

  2000

  1,024

  2001

  1,019

  2002

  827

  2003

  570

  Solicitors
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to introduce regulations in Northern Ireland to make provision for solicitors to offer their services on a no-win-no-fee basis. [173423]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 provides for the introduction of conditional fee agreements, commonly called no-win-no-fee agreements, and litigation funding agreements. The Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission is currently considering the full implementation of the Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order, including the introduction of conditional fee agreements and litigation funding agreements. Decisions on this issue will be taken in the context of the Commission's recommendations on implementation of the Order.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Planning
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what restrictions are placed on local councillors in respect of(a) receiving representations from residents in respect of planning applications when they are (i) a member of the planning committee and (ii) any other councillor and (b) the ability of these councillors then to speak in debate on such representations. [173082]

  Keith Hill
  There are no restrictions in land use planning legislation on councillors or members of planning committees receiving representations from residents on planning applications. However, where any councillor has a personal 'and' prejudicial interest in any issue to be discussed by a local authority (whether or not in a planning committee), he or she should consider whether the provisions in the relevant authority's Code of Conduct affect their ability to speak in debate on such representations and require them to withdraw from that committee. In making their decision, they may wish to take the advice of their authorities' monitoring officers or the Standards Board for England. In the case of planning committees, they may also wish to consider the Local Government Association's Guidance Note to local planning authorities on preparing Codes of Conduct for councillors and officers specifically involved in planning matters, "Probity in Planning (Update): the role of councillors and officers". This Guidance Note recognises the importance of expressing local concerns in the planning system, while not calling into question the impartiality and integrity of 724W
  councillors, and ensuring that planning applications are seen to be processed and determined in an open and fair manner.

  Brighton and Hove Council
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what meetings have taken place, and on what date, between representatives of Brighton and Hove council and(a) Ministers and (b) officials in the last two years. [173143]

  Keith Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) met representatives of Brighton and Hove council on 14 January 2003 and 16 February 2004.

  Cllr Ken Bodfish is a member of the Central Local Partnership on the Future of Europe which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope). The Partnership has met four times in the last two years. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby also went to a New Statesman Round Table event on eGovernment attended by Cllr Bodfish on 11 May 2004.

  The information requested about officials' meetings is not held centrally and could only provided only at disproportionate cost. However Government Office South East officials regularly meet with local authorities to discuss a range of issues for which the Government Office has responsibility.

  Departmental Procurement
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of the(a) crockery, (b) cutlery and (c) glassware procured by his Department over the last five years is of British manufacture. [170795]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was established in May 2002, since this time we have procured replacement crockery through the Office of Government Commerce's pre-tendered, EU compliant contracts.

  European Charter on Regional Self-Government
  Adam Price
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what amendments the Government has tabled since 1998 to the Draft European Charter on Regional Self-Government. [172286]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 1997 the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe recommended that member states of the Council of Europe adopt a European Charter on Regional Self Government and proposed a draft text for states to consider. Within the Council of Europe, member states' governments are continuing to consider the appropriateness of a charter or other legal instrument on regional self government. Within these discussions the United Kingdom, along with a number of other states, continues to oppose the adoption of a Charter, believing that, given the diversity of States' regional arrangements, a binding charter would be inappropriate.

  Housing
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) affordable housing units and (b) housing units have been built in (i) England and (ii) each English region in each year since 1980. [172878]

  Keith Hill
  The national and regional figures that are available are published in Housing Statistics 2003 (Tables 2.2 and 2.5c). These tables each include a breakdown for those new dwellings built by local authorities and registered social landlords for social renting. A copy of this publication is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many affordable homes were empty for(a) less than 12 months and (b) more than 12 months in (i) England and (ii) each English region in each year since 1980. [172880]

  Keith Hill
  No data is available for empty affordable homes. However, a table with data on empty local authority dwellings from 1983 and empty registered social landlord (RSL) dwellings from 1990 has been made available in the Library of the House.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the local authorities in Essex which(a) retain control of housing stocks and (b) have made representations to him about large scale voluntary transfer of their housing stocks. [173085]

  Keith Hill
  In Essex those local authorities which retain direct control of their housing stock are: Basildon, Braintree, Brentwood, Castle Point, Epping Forest, Harlow, Rochford, Tenering, Thurrock and Uttlesford.

  Both Maldon and Chelmsford have transferred their stock to registered social landlords under the Large Scale Voluntary Transfer programme (LSVT). To date no other authorities in Essex have formally applied for LSVT.

  Colchester has established an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) for its stock. The housing stock in Colchester is still owned by the local authority but is managed by the ALMO.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will take steps to discourage migration within the UK from areas of sufficient housing supply to those where it is in deficit. [173112]

  Keith Hill
  It is not the policy of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to discourage, or prevent, movement within the UK. To do so would be to undermine the flexibility of our labour market and, with it, economic growth. Statistical returns do not suggest that large scale migration is taking place between English regions.

  Constraining growth in the more successful regions would not necessarily benefit the less successful ones, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to improving the performance of all the regions and to reducing the disparities in growth between them through targets in our Regional Economic Performance Public Service Agreement.
  726W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also working to regenerate those areas worst hit by population loss through our market renewal pathfinders. The programme aims to tackle the low demand and abandonment in these areas and create a balanced and sustainable housing market for the future.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the provisional findings of 2002–03 data from the English House Condition Survey; how many(a) council and (b) registered social landlord properties that were classified in the survey as non-decent; and what the total cost of the repair backlog on these properties is. [173413]

  Keith Hill
  There are no provisional figures for 2002 from the continuous English House Condition Survey (EHCS).

  The continuous survey was designed to provide estimates combining data from two years which could then be rolled forward annually.

  The first results from the continuous EHCS, updating the published 2001 baseline and based on the 2002–03 and 2003–04 financial years, will be available before the end of 2004.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will announce a target for the provision of additional social housing to address long-term need. [173414]

  Keith Hill
  The Government have accepted that there is a case for increased investment in social housing and will begin to address this in the 2004 Spending Review. There are currently no plans to announce a long-term target for the overall provision of additional social housing.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the Government expect to meet its target of 100,000 affordable homes by 2004; and what the state of progress was on 1 April. [173415]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is on course to achieve our target to provide 100,000 new or improved homes for low cost renting or owning in the three years to 1 April 2004. Provisional figures indicate that 103,000 homes have been provided.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whether the Government are on track to achieve their target of elimination of non-decent stock by 2010; and what proportion of stock remained non-decent on 1 April; [173416]

  (2) whether the Government achieved their target of cutting the number of non-decent local authority homes by a third by April; and how many local authority homes were classed non-decent on 1 April; [173417]

  (3) whether the Government achieved their target of cutting the number of non-decent housing association homes by a third by April; and how many housing association homes were classed as non-decent on 1 April. [173418]

  Keith Hill
  The target of eliminating non-decent social sector stock in 2010 is challenging but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is making good progress, reducing the number of non-decents by 1 million since
  727W
  1997. The increase in resources to £3.6 billion per year by 2005–06 together with the package announced on 5 May put us on track.

  The milestone of one third reduction applies to the whole social sector not the sectors individually. Our estimates of the position at 1 April 2004, based on local authority and housing association outturn up to March 2003 and their plans to March 2004 shows a 26 per cent. reduction across both sectors. We expect to meet the one third reduction during 2004. From the same data source we estimate the proportion of non-decent homes remaining at 1 April 2004 is 28 per cent.

  for the local authority sector the estimated reduction by 1 April 2004 is 32 per cent. with 810,000 non-decents remaining. For housing association it is 6 per cent. with 360,000 non-decents remaining. These figures take into account the impact of the transfer of stock from local authorities to housing associations.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the change in the level of council funding for housing has affected the residents of Blackpool, South since 1997. [173072]

  Keith Hill
  Since 1997 allocations of capital funding to local authorities for housing purposes have risen consistently by about 15 per cent. per annum on average. This includes the Major Repairs Allowance introduced in 2001–02 specifically for the improvement of local authority stock, alongside the Decent Homes standard which sets out minimum standards to be met by 2010. Blackpool's allocations in the period 1997 to 2003–04 have risen by 109 per cent. In addition to this welcome increase there is support through the Community Housing Task Force and Government Office for the North West to help the local authority and its tenants to choose the best strategy for long-term improvement.

  Housing Renewal Programme
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what funds and on what basis are paid to Pathfinder housing renewal programmes; how this changes the finance available for(a) registered social landlords and (b) finance councils; and what the effects are of such changes in each region. [173559]

  Keith Hill
  A Market Renewal Fund has been created which will provide an additional £500 million across the nine pathfinder areas over the three year period 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  Funding will be performance related throughout and agreed in negotiation with each pathfinder on the basis of their strategic schemes. The schemes are subject to Independent Scrutiny by the Audit Commission.

  Funding will be used for the additional housing action needed to address the most acute areas of low demand. Projects will include demolitions, new building and refurbishment and will be chosen or commissioned by the pathfinder on the basis that they support the strategic objectives for their area. This may include projects delivered by RSLs, LAs and other delivery partners.
  728W
  The Market Renewal Fund is in addition to other finance available to registered social landlords and local authorities from existing funding streams.

  The effect of this funding is to support the additional costs of tackling the most acute areas of low demand. These areas could not be tackled at the scale and pace necessary within the constraints of existing funding streams.

  Local Authority Statutory Officers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whether a local authority has the power to suspend one of the authority's statutory officers before the appointment of a designated independent person under The Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001, if the authority has received an independent report from an external consultant of the serious effect of bullying and harassment by the statutory officer on the physical and mental well-being of other officers of the authority; [173348]

  (2) whether a local authority has the power to suspend one of the authority's statutory officers before the appointment of a designated independent person under The Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001, if the authority has received more than one allegation of bullying and harassment by the statutory officer; and if he will make a statement. [173349]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Arrangements for councils to handle allegations of misconduct by their head of paid service, monitoring officer or chief finance officer are set out in the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001. The Regulations provide that the authority may suspend the officer for up to two months in order to allow investigation of the allegation. This period may begin before the appointment under the Regulations of an independent person to investigate the allegation and who, once appointed, may extend the period of suspension. Apart from this, no disciplinary action may be taken by an authority in respect of the officer concerned other than in accordance with a recommendation of a report made by the independent person. It is for the authority to decide whether it appears to them that an allegation requires investigation and to ensure that the decisions it makes are within the powers available to it.

  Productivity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he is taking to(a) increase the productivity and (b) cut the costs of his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [171883]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ruth Kelly) on 10 May 2004,Official Report, columns 148–49W.

  Regional Assemblies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish the texts of his speeches, and those of his colleagues, made as part of the regional hearings on elected regional assemblies. [169260]
  729W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Formal speeches used at the regional hearings can be found on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website: www.odpm.gov.uk.

  However, at some hearings Ministers did not use a scripted speech; therefore speeches are not available in all cases.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the location was of the regional hearings on elected regional assemblies held in Halifax and Sheffield; and how many(a) members of the public and (b) invitees attended. [172757]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Sheffield hearing was held in the Pennine Theatre at Sheffield Hallam University. It is estimated that there were 135 members of the public who attended, including 67 invitees.

  The Halifax hearing was held at the Viaduct theatre at Dean Clough. It is estimated that there were 210 members of the public who attended, including 84 invitees.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what his estimate is of the average monthly rent and charges falling on the average property in(a) housing associations and (b) council housing in Yorkshire and Humberside. [173560]

  Keith Hill
  The latest available rental figures for social housing within Yorkshire and The Humber are as follows:

  £ per month

  Housing Associations

  Council Housing

  Reference period

  end-March 2003

  2003–04

  Average Net Rent (excluding service charges)

  210.90

  184.47

  Average Gross Rent (including service charges)

  227.72

  n/a

  Note:

  Reliable information on average service charges for council housing is not available at the present time.

  Sources:

  (a) Housing Corporation, Regulatory and Statistical Return, 2003.

  (b) Local authorities, second advance subsidy claim forms.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Adviser Discretion Fund
  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to(a) increase the Adviser Discretion Fund levels for lone parents and (b) allow for multiple Adviser Discretion Fund awards to those with multiple barriers to finding employment. [170041]

  Jane Kennedy
  We have no plans to increase the Adviser Discretion Fund levels for lone parents as we believe that the current levels are sufficient. The 730W
  maximum amount from the ADF that a lone parent can access in a 12 month period is £300. However, the average amount awarded by the fund is £91. These levels are kept under review.

  In exceptional circumstances where lone parents need assistance totalling more than £300, the award of a higher amount from the ADF may be authorised.

  There is no limit to the number of elements in an award, provided these total less than £300.

  Personal Advisers can already make more than one award to a lone parent from the Adviser Discretion Fund. Each time a lone parent requests assistance from the ADF their Personal Adviser will check that they are eligible for help and that using the fund is removing a barrier to employment.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average payment from the Adviser's Discretionary Fund was in each of the last five years; how many people have been given payments from the fund in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [171589]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is in the table.

  Advisor Discretion Fund1

  Number of award

  Average value of award

  July 2001 to March 2002

  104,388

  60

  April 2002 to March 2003

  138,370

  76

  April 2003 to March 20042

  345,189

  97

  1The Adviser Discretion Fund was introduced in July 2001.

  2Latest available figures.

  Source:

  Department for Work and Pensions Provision and Adviser Division.

  Benefit Claimants (Over-50s)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of incapacity benefit claimants between the age of 50 and state pension age are in each decile of overall income distribution; and if he will make a statement. [172536]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the tables. It is presented both before housing costs (BHC) and after housing costs (AHC) have been taken into account.

  The number of incapacity benefit claimants between the age of 50 and state pension age in each decile of the equivalised income distribution

  Decile

  BHC

  AHC

  1

  130,000

  120,000

  2

  130,000

  150,000

  3

  130,000

  110,000

  4

  110,000

  130,000

  5

  120,000

  100,000

  6

  100,000

  90,000

  7

  70,000

  70,000

  8

  40,000

  50,000

  9 and 10

  50,000

  60,000

  731W

  The proportion of incapacity benefit claimants between the age of 50 and state pension age in each decile of the equivalised income distribution

  Percentage

  Decile

  BHC

  AHC

  1

  15

  13

  2

  15

  17

  3

  15

  12

  4

  13

  15

  5

  13

  12

  6

  11

  10

  7

  8

  8

  8

  4

  6

  9 and 10

  6

  6

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for the financial year 2002–03, the latest date for which data are available.

  2. Estimates are for Great Britain.

  3. Estimates relate to the status of individuals at the time they were interviewed for the FRS.

  4. The estimates are based on sample counts, which have been adjusted for non-response using multipurpose grossing factors that control for tenure, council tax band and a number of other variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error, and to remaining variability in non-response which is not corrected by the grossing regime.

  5. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

  6. The Households Below Average Income series presents analysis of income of two bases: Before Housing Costs (BHC) and After Housing Costs (AHC). This is principally to take into account variations in housing costs that themselves do not correspond to comparable variations in the quality of housing.

  7. Proportions are presented to the nearest per cent, and numbers to the nearest 10,000. Rounding numbers in this way means that compared to other rounding conventions, the distribution is smoother at this level of rounding for the small subset of the population.

  8. Deciles nine and 10 have been combined as individually, these deciles contained too few households to provide robust estimates.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS).

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a breakdown by local authority of the(a) financial rewards received under the Security Against Fraud and Error Scheme, (b) benefit expenditure and (c) financial rewards received under the Security Against Fraud and Error Scheme as a percentage benefit expenditure for the most recent year available. [172980]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: The information has been placed in the Library.

  Child Support
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether those in receipt of incapacity benefit are registered by ethnic background; and if he will make a statement. [172856]

  Maria Eagle
  Those in receipt of incapacity benefit are not registered by ethnic background. However, Jobcentre Plus has started to collect information, on a voluntary basis, in areas where customers are required to have a work-focused interview in connection with claims for working-age benefits. This will be extended to 732W
  other areas as Jobcentre Plus offices, and the necessary information management systems, are rolled out nationally over the next few years.

  Departmental Expenditure (Entertainment)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the amount spent by his Department on official entertainment in each year from 1996–97 to 2004–05. [169001]

  Jane Kennedy
  All expenditure on official hospitality is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting. It is typically incurred by the various DWP Businesses to mark the launch of significant initiatives—for example: the introduction of New Deal 50 +; the national introduction of New Deal for Partners; launching call centres for jobseekers; implementation of Employment Zones; and launch of ONE pilots in conjunction with local authorities and the private and voluntary sectors.

  The information is not available in the format requested. It is not possible to provide expenditure information back to 1996–97 for the Department for Work and Pensions, which has existed only since 1 April 2001. The figures for 2001–02 onwards, therefore, are the only expenditure figures relating to the Department for Work and Pensions. Figures for 2004–05 will not be available until the spring of 2005.

  In order to provide figures which are reasonably comparable, information for the earlier years has been provided by combining expenditure on "official hospitality" by the former Department of Social Security (DSS), and on "official entertainment" by the former Employment Service (ES) which, together with relatively small numbers of staff from the Employment Policy Divisions of the former Department for Education and Employment (DFEE), combined to form the new Department for Work and Pensions. However, the expenditure incurred by the Employment Policy Divisions of DFEE is not separately identifiable.

  Estimated expenditure1 on official hospitality on this basis is as follows:

  1Figures rounded to the nearest £000.

  £

  1996–97

  147,000

  DSS+ES

  1997–98

  46,000

  DSS+ES

  1998–99

  86,000

  DSS+ES

  1999–2000

  327,000

  DSS+ES

  2000–01

  127,000

  DSS+ES

  2001–02

  155,000

  DWP

  2002–03

  250,000

  DWP

  2003–041

  400,000

  DWP

  1Expenditure figures for 2003–04 are provisional and may be subject to adjustment.

  Disability Benefits
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of women were claiming disability benefits in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) benefit and (b) age; how long the average claim was in each case; and if he will make a statement. [171588]
  733W
  Maria Eagle
  The information, which is available for all years other than for industrial injuries disablement benefit in 2003, has been placed in the Library.

  Health and Safety Inspectors
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Health and Safety Executive health and safety inspectors were working in the field at(a) 1 June 2000 and (b) 1 March 2004. [167498]

  Jane Kennedy
  We do not have precise figures for the dates requested due to the way HSE collects data on this subject.

  Inspectors in the field

  Total

  1 April 2000

  1,306

  1 April 2004

  1,501

  Notes:

  The figures for 1 April 2000 are actual. Those for 1 April 2004 are estimated or subject to confirmation.

  As far as possible inspector staff undertaking more generalised HQ functions have been eliminated from these figures.

  All figures are for full-time equivalent staff.

  Inspectors at senior grades, or working in other parts of HSE are not included.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many inspectors were employed by the Health and Safety Executive(a) in the Factory Inspectorate, (b) in the Nuclear Inspectorate and (c) on other duties in each of the last 10 years, broken down by grade; and if he will make a statement. [170669]

  Jane Kennedy
  The following table contains the information on the number of inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on 1 April for the years 1995 to 2004.

  The information requested for the period between 1995–96 and 2003–04 is not maintained within HSE in the format requested by this question, i.e. by grade. This information is only held from the period 2000–01 and is not linked to discipline, and can only be extracted at a disproportionate cost to HSE. The Health and Safety Executive's policy is to retain personnel data for six years in line with the requirements of Treasury. However, we have been able to extract the figures from our Annual Reports and from available archived data within the Directorates in question.

  The available information is in the table.

  Number of inspectors employed by HSE

  As at 1 April

  FOD

  NSD

  Other

  Total

  1995

  —

  —

  —

  11,478

  1996

  —

  —

  —

  11,466

  1997

  2780

  153

  509

  1,442

  1998

  783

  147

  507

  1,437

  1999

  853

  144

  500

  1,497

  2000

  3898

  156

  453

  1,507

  2001

  4954

  152

  428

  1,534

  2002

  5955

  156

  514

  1,625

  2003

  962

  167

  522

  1,651

  2004

  6901

  167

  537

  1,605

  1Analysis by Directorate for the years 1995–96 and 1996–97 is not readily available within the timescale for this parliamentary question.

  734W

  2During 1996–97 there were transfers of posts between Safety Policy Directorate, Chemical and Hazardous Installations Divisions, Field Operations Directorate, Nuclear Safety Directorate and Offshore Safety Division following the Review of Senior Management.

  3Reorganisation of HSE 1 April 2000

  4Field Operations Directorate and HM Railway Inspectorate brigaded May 2000.

  5Field Operations Directorate and HM Railway Inspectorate de-brigaded April 2002.

  6During 2003–04 there were transfers of posts between Field Operations Directorate, Hazardous Installations Division and Technology Division due to re-organisation.

  Incapacity Benefit
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans there are to review the success of work focused interviews for partners of incapacity benefit recipients in finding them employment. [170195]

  Jane Kennedy
  Work Focused Interviews for Partners (WFIP) were implemented on 12 April 2004. They will be fully evaluated along with the enhanced New Deal for Partners (NDP). WFIP and NDP are separate but complementary policy initiatives aimed at broadly the same client group (partners of those receiving jobseeker's allowance, incapacity benefit, income support, severe disablement allowance or carer's allowance). The evaluation will look at the effect of WFIP and NDP on individuals and households.

  It will provide us with information to improve the delivery of these initiatives, where necessary, and also to inform future policy decision—including partners of incapacity benefit recipients.

  The first phase of the evaluation findings is expected to be published in summer 2005.

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have found(a) full-time and (b) part-time work as a result of attendance at work focused interviews for partners of incapacity benefit recipients since the scheme was introduced. [170196]

  Jane Kennedy
  Work Focused Interviews for Partners (WFIP) were introduced in Jobcentre Plus areas on 12 April 2004. It is too soon to provide information about job placings.

  The Work Focused Interview provides an important platform for us to talk to partners about opportunities to work and about sources of help and advice. We expect most job outcomes will be achieved as a result of participation in New Deal for Partners, following the Work Focused Interview.

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many incapacity benefits claimants there are in(a) each region and (b) each of the 30 areas with the poorest labour market position; and if he will make a statement. [172533]

  Maria Eagle
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  New Deal (Lone Parents)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many lone parents in South Ribble have gained work through the New Deal programme. [172140]
  735W
  Jane Kennedy
  320 lone parents in South Ribble have gained work through the New Deal for Lone Parents since the start of the programme in October 1998. Figures for lone parents who have gained work through other New Deal Programmes are not available.

  Pensioner Benefits
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what the total Government expenditure on pensioner benefits(a) in pounds, (b) in real terms and (c) as a percentage of gross domestic product was in each year since 1992; [172490]

  (2) what the predicted total Government expenditure on pensioner benefits (a) in pounds, (b) in real terms and (c) as a percentage of gross domestic product is over the next three years. [172491]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Expenditure on pensioner benefits 1992–93 to 2006–07

  Cash terms (£ million)

  Real terms (£ million, 2004–05 prices)

  Percentage of Gross Domestic Product

  1992–93

  Outturn

  35,387

  47,810

  5.8

  1993–94

  Outturn

  37,811

  49,731

  5.8

  1994–95

  Outturn

  38,723

  50,189

  5.6

  1995–96

  Outturn

  39,919

  50,276

  5.5

  1996–97

  Outturn

  41,829

  50,923

  5.4

  1997–98

  Outturn

  43,426

  51,560

  5.3

  1998–99

  Outturn

  45,165

  52,122

  5.2

  1999–2000

  Outturn

  47,934

  54,120

  5.2

  2000–01

  Outturn

  50,580

  56,377

  5.2

  2001–02

  Outturn

  54,493

  59,192

  5.4

  The mean and median income of pensioners since 1996–97

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Growth 1996–97 to 2002–03 (Percentage)

  Pensioner units

  Median net BHC income

  156

  159

  161

  169

  173

  183

  189

  21

  Mean net BHC income

  199

  202

  208

  216

  225

  233

  237

  19

  Pensioner couples

  Median net BHC income

  226

  227

  231

  237

  248

  253

  262

  16

  Mean net BHC income

  287

  289

  294

  301

  316

  329

  327

  14

  Single pensioners

  Median net BHC income

  125

  126

  128

  135

  140

  148

  153

  23

  Mean net BHC income

  145

  147

  153

  160

  167

  170

  177

  22

  Pensioner units, pensioner couples and single pensioners have seen significant real terms growth in both mean and median net weekly incomes (before housing costs) between 1996–97 and 2002–03. Annual estimates are based on survey data and are subject to sampling error—strong conclusions should not therefore be drawn about year-on-year changes in pensioner incomes.

  Pensions (Compensation)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated cost is of compensating, on the same formula that the Pension Protection Fund will use, all those pensioners who will 736W

  Expenditure on pensioner benefits 1992–93 to 2006–07

  Cash terms (£ million)

  Real terms (£ million, 2004–05 prices)

  Percentage of Gross Domestic Product

  2002–03

  Outturn

  57,404

  60,367

  5.4

  2003–04

  Estimated outturn

  60,347

  61,739

  5.4

  2004–05

  Forecast

  64,728

  64,728

  5.5

  2005–06

  Forecast

  67,735

  66,070

  5.4

  2006–07

  Forecast

  71,352

  67,735

  5.5

  Notes:

  1. Figures include basic State Pension (contributory and non-contributory), severe disablement allowance, widow's-bereavement benefits and invalidity-incapacity benefit paid to pensioners, additional State Pension (State Second Pension-SERPS), Graduated retirement benefit, Christmas bonus, winter fuel payment, 80 plus payment, one-off 70 plus payment (for 2004–05), free TV licences for over 75s, pensions compensation board, income support for people over 60-minimum income guarantee-pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  2. Forecast figures for 2003–04 to 2005–06 are consistent with Budget 2004 medium-term forecasts; forecast figures for 2006–07 are consistent with Budget 2004 long-term projections.

  Source:

  (Benefit expenditure Tables consistent with the Budget 2004, and long term projections for 2006–07.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the(a) median and (b) average income of pensioners was in each year since 1997. [171580]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The following table gives the median and mean average weekly incomes of pensioners between 1996–97 and 2002–03. Information is given in 2002–03 prices and rounded to the nearest pound.

  have lost all or part of their occupational pension prior to the commencement of the Pension Protection Fund. [173486]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We do not have the information available to answer this question. This would require detailed information on individual schemes including breakdowns of membership distribution and annual accrual rates.

  We are currently working with trustees to gather data about defined benefit schemes that are winding up under funded. Using this data we will establish firm estimates of the extent of the problem
  737W

  Poverty
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the level of persistent poverty. [169971]

  Mr. Pond
  Indicators of persistent low income for children, working age adults and older people are included in the fifth annual Opportunity for all report (Cm 5956), which is available in the Library.

  We are determined to tackle poverty, from childhood through to old age. The nature of measuring persistent low income means that it will take longer for the impact of tax credits, increases in employment and pension credit for example to be reflected in the data. The progress we have made, for instance, in reducing the number of children with low incomes in a given year have yet to show up in these figures. However, there are now over half a million fewer children in low-income households (below 60 per cent. median income) than in 1997.

  Trade Mark Schemes
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of whether trade mark schemes can help to reduce the cost of employers' liability compulsory insurance. [172468]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department is aware of a range of trade mark schemes that are designed to help to reduce the cost of employers' liability compulsory insurance. These include the Association of British Insurers'738W
  (ABI's) initiative 'Making the Market Work'. I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 23 March 2004, Official Report, column 740W.

  The National Federation of Roofing Contractors (NFRC) has set up with the Electrical Contractors' Insurance Company their own insurance via a captive cell fund exclusively for NFRC members to offer insurance roughly 10 per cent. below current market rates and with longer notice periods and more certainty of gaining cover.

  As with the evaluation of the 'Making the Market Work' initiative by the ABI, if the NFRC undertakes an evaluation of the scheme the Government will take a close interest in the outcome.

  Weekly Benefit Savings Scheme
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will place in the Library a breakdown by local authority of(a) savings achieved under the Weekly Benefit Savings scheme, (b) benefit expenditure and (c) weekly benefit savings as a percentage of benefit expenditure for (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [172979]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: The information has been placed in the Library.

  For local authorities, the Weekly Benefit Saving (WBS) scheme was replaced by the Security Against Fraud and Error (SAFE) scheme on 1 April 2002. The WBS scheme was specifically for fraud and was a measurement of prevention whereas the SAFE scheme is for fraud and claimant error and rewards detection.

  Ammonium Nitrate
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tonnes of ammonium nitrate fertiliser were discovered by Customs and Excise being imported into the United Kingdom in each year since 2000. [172748]

  John Healey
  The number of tonnes of ammonium nitrate fertilizer imported into the UK between 2000 and 2002 is shown in the following table. There were no import control restrictions in place between 2000 and 2003. However, regulations were introduced on 1 May 2003 requiring ammonium nitrate fertilizer with high nitrogen content to have satisfied a Detonation Resistance Test (DRT). Import figures for 2003 are not yet available.

  Imports into the UK ammonium nitrate fertilizer

  Tonnes

  2000

  1,242,471.9

  2001

  1,143,713.6

  2002

  813,923.3

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics, HM Customs and Excise

  Carers
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the number of carers in the United Kingdom, broken down by the number of hours of care provided per week. [172752]

  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. Gordon Marsden, dated 17 May 2004:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the estimate of the number of carers in the United Kingdom, broken down by the number of hours of care provided per week. (172752)
  Figures from the "Census 2001 Key Statistics for local authorities in England and Wales" indicate that there were 5,884,450 people in the United Kingdom providing unpaid care.
  The information below has been extracted from the CD supplement to the "Census 2001 Key Statistics for local authorities in England and Wales", which is available in the House of Commons Library. The table shows the distribution of these carers according to the number of hours of care provided per week.

  Number of people providing unpaid care in the United Kingdom

  United Kingdom

  All Carers

  Provision of unpaid care

  Area

  All Carers

  Provides care: 1 to 19 hours

  Provides: care 20 to 49 hours

  Provides: care 50 or more hours

  United Kingdom

  5,884,450

  3,971,829

  661,952

  1,250,669

  Source:

  Table KS08 Census 2001 Key Statistics for local authorities in England and Wales

  Child Tax Credits
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Liverpool, West Derby have received child tax credits. [173671]

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

  Council Tax
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average council tax was as a percentage of gross income for(a) pensioner and (b) non-pensioner households in all quintile groups in each financial year since 1997–98. [172877]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Edward Davey, dated 17 May 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking what the average council tax was as a percentage of gross income for (a) pensioner and (b) non-pensioner households in all quintile groups in each financial year since 1997–98.1 am replying in his absence. (172877)
  Estimates have been produced from the Office for National Statistics' analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income" published on the National Statistics website on 6 May 2004 at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/taxesbenefits. The analysis includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey.
  The current analysis presents data for the category 'Council tax and Northern Ireland rates', as opposed to the category 'Local taxes' used in previous analyses. This is because, from this year, charges made by water authorities for water, environmental and sewerage services have been excluded. This treatment conforms to the National Accounts classification and definition of taxes where water rates and related charges are considered a charge for services rather than a tax. They have therefore been excluded from the calculation of disposable income. This reply is based on the new methodology.
  Pensioner households have been defined as those where the Household Reference Person is retired or unoccupied and aged 65 or more and male, or 60 years of age or more and female, and economically inactive. All other households are defined as non-pensioner households. The Household Reference Person is identified during the interview and is defined as the member of the household who:

  a. owns the household accommodation, or

  b. is legally responsible for the rent of the accommodation, or

  c. has the household accommodation as an emolument or perquisite, or

  d. has the household accommodation by virtue of some relationship to the owner who is not a member of the household.

  If there are joint householders, the Household Reference Person will be the householder with the highest income. If the income is the same, then the eldest householder is taken.
  The following table shows the estimated gross and net council tax for pensioner households, non-pensioner households and all households in Great Britain for each income quintile where households are ranked by equivalised disposable income. The net council tax figures are gross council tax less benefits and discounts. The table also shows the equivalised disposable income quintile point boundaries, which have been calculated separately for each group of households.
  741W 742W

  Council tax as a percentage of gross income for pensioner1 and non-pensioner households

  Quintile groups of all households ranked by equivalised disposable income

  Great Britain2

  Households

  Bottom

  2nd

  3rd

  4th

  Top

  All households

  Quintile points3 (equivalised disposable income, per year)

  1997–98

  Pensioner

  7,701

  9,503

  11,707

  15,393

  Non-pensioner

  9,177

  13,623

  18,449

  25,508

  All households

  8,564

  11,936

  16,442

  23,588

  1998–99

  Pensioner

  8,031

  9,765

  12,298

  16,742

  Non-Pensioner

  9,509

  14,328

  19,400

  26,804

  All households

  8,832

  12,582

  17,281

  24,384

  1999–00

  Pensioner

  8,475

  10,316

  13,008

  17,213

  Non-Pensioner

  9,909

  15,215

  20,401

  28,596

  All households

  9,193

  13,221

  18,324

  26,295

  2000–01

  Pensioner

  8,492

  10,621

  13,259

  17,951

  Non-Pensioner

  10,807

  15,832

  21,349

  29,712

  All households

  9,821

  13,893

  19,134

  27,296

  2001–02

  Pensioner

  9,459

  11,742

  14,244

  18,703

  Non-Pensioner

  11,647

  17,133

  22,784

  31,396

  All households

  10,647

  14,943

  20,231

  28,840

  2002–03

  Pensioner

  10,096

  12,524

  15,285

  20,203

  Non-Pensioner

  11,910

  17,591

  23,526

  32,707

  All households

  11,242

  15,541

  20,977

  29,745

  Gross council tax as a percentage of gross income

  1997–98

  Pensioner

  8.5

  6.4

  5.2

  3.9

  2.8

  4.4

  Non-Pensioner

  5.4

  3.1

  2.3

  1.8

  1.3

  2.1

  All households

  6.3

  4.1

  2.8

  2.1

  1.4

  2.4

  1998–99

  Pensioner

  8.8

  6.5

  5.4

  4.2

  2.8

  4.5

  Non-Pensioner

  5.5

  3.2

  2.4

  1.9

  1.3

  2.1

  All households

  6.5

  4.3

  2.9

  2.2

  1.4

  2.4

  1999–00

  Pensioner

  9.9

  7.2

  5.6

  4,3

  2.9

  4.8

  Non-Pensioner

  6.2

  3.4

  2.5

  2.0

  1.3

  2.2

  All households

  7.3

  4.5

  3.0

  2.3

  1.4

  2.6

  2000–01

  Pensioner

  10.4

  7.1

  5.6

  4.6

  2.9

  4.9

  Non-Pensioner

  5.6

  3.2

  2.5

  2.0

  1.4

  2.2

  All households

  7.0

  4.3

  2.9

  2.2

  1.5

  2.6

  2001–02

  Pensioner

  9.8

  7.0

  5.9

  4.6

  3.0

  5.0

  Non-Pensioner

  6.0

  3.3

  2.5

  2.0

  1.3

  2.2

  All households

  7.2

  4.4

  3.1

  2.3

  1.4

  2.6

  2002–03

  Pensioner

  9.8

  7.0

  5.7

  4.6

  3.1

  5.0

  Non-Pensioner

  6.0

  3.5

  2.7

  2.1

  1.4

  2.4

  All households

  7.1

  4.6

  3.2

  2.4

  1.6

  2.7

  Net council tax4 as a percentage of gross income

  1997–98

  Pensioner

  5.2

  4.0

  3.8

  3.0

  2.6

  3.3

  Non-Pensioner

  2.6

  2.5

  2.2

  1.8

  1.3

  1.8

  All households

  3.3

  2.9

  2.5

  2.0

  1.4

  2.0

  1998–99

  Pensioner

  6.3

  4.4

  3.8

  3.3

  2.5

  3.5

  Non-Pensioner

  3.0

  2.6

  2.3

  1.9

  1.3

  1.9

  All households

  3.9

  3.1

  2.6

  2.1

  1.4

  2.1

  1999–00

  Pensioner

  6.9

  4.8

  4.1

  3.4

  2.7

  3.7

  Non-Pensioner

  3.2

  2.9

  2.4

  2.0

  1.3

  2.0

  All households

  4.2

  3.4

  2.7

  2.2

  1.4

  2.2

  2000–01

  Pensioner

  7.1

  4.9

  4.3

  3.7

  2.7

  3.9

  Non-Pensioner

  3.1

  2.8

  2.4

  2.0

  1.4

  2.0

  All households

  4.2

  3.3

  2.7

  2.2

  1.5

  2.2

  2001–02

  Pensioner

  7.0

  5.0

  4.2

  3.8

  2.8

  4.0

  Non-Pensioner

  3.7

  2.9

  2.4

  2.0

  1.3

  2.0

  All households

  4.7

  3.3

  2.8

  2.3

  1.4

  2.2

  2002–03

  Pensioner

  7.1

  4.6

  3.9

  3.6

  3.0

  3.9

  Non-Pensioner

  3.7

  3.0

  2.6

  2.1

  1.4

  2.1

  All households

  4.6

  3.4

  2.9

  2.4

  1.6

  2.4

  1Household reference person is economically inactive and over minimum state pension age.

  2Council tax is not paid in Northern Ireland.

  3Equivalised disposable income at the boundary point between two quintile groups.

  4Net council taxes after deducting benefits and discounts.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, based on the analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income", published on the National Statistics website.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [171143]

  Ruth Kelly
  Publication of HM Treasury's Departmental Report (Cm 6222) was handled by the Stationery Office Ltd. (TSO). Printing and other production costs were paid for by TSO as the publisher and the document was designed in house by members of the Treasury's publishing unit. TSO have printed 740 copies of the report with 200 copies purchased by the Treasury for internal purposes, 203 copies supplied to Parliament and, to date, an additional 131 copies have been sold by TSO.

  Financial Services Authority
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many regulatory impact assessments have been(a) conducted and (b) published by the Financial Services Authority in each of the last five years; and what percentage of new regulatory measures this represents. [172903]

  Ruth Kelly
  The matters raised in this question are the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority (FSA), whose day-to-day operations are independent from government control and influence. The following figures have been provided by the FSA. They are for the number of cost-benefit analyses (CBAs) conducted and published by the FSA over the past five years. The proportion of new measures these represent is given in brackets. In 2003, 42 (93 per cent.); 2002, 41 (93 per cent.); 2001, 27 (71 per cent.); 2000, 29 (71); and in 1999, 8 (42 per cent.).

  Fuel Tax
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will abandon the implementation of fuel tax increases in September; and if he will make a statement. [173060]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget Statement of 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 329.

  Gershon Review
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with Sir Peter Gershon regarding the total savings in public sector employment within the Department for Trade and Industry as a result of his efficiency review. [173375]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury Ministers meet frequently with Department for Trade and Industry Ministers who are working closely with Sir Peter Gershon to identify efficiencies within the Department. These will release further resources for frontline public services.

  Gold Reserves
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the value of the gold held in UK reserves was at the afternoon fix on 11 May. [173350]
  744W
  Ruth Kelly
  At the afternoon fix on 11 May 2004 the value of the gold held in the UK reserves was approximately $3,775 million.

  Housing
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average build cost of a new home in the(a) social housing sector and (b) private housing sector in the last year for which figures are available. [172875]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  The average cost of a new build dwelling for social rent in England, in 2003/04, is £116,000. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not keep comparable information for the private sector.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many senior citizens in Liverpool, West Derby constituency qualified for the 10 pence rate of income tax in each year since its introduction. [173674]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A reliable answer cannot be given. This is because the sample size of pensioners living in the Liverpool West Derby constituency is relatively small compared to other constituencies in the Survey of Personal Incomes.

  Inheritance Tax
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates was lost to the public purse as a result of the exemption from inheritance tax of the estate of the late Queen Mother. [171538]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: Further to my answer of 13 May 2002, Official Report, column 437W, the amounts involved in the estate of any taxpayer are subject to the Inland Revenue's normal rules of confidentiality.

  International Aid
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the effects of providing resources for the world's poorest countries(a) through the International Finance Facility and (b) through direct aid. [173059]

  John Healey
  Since this Government came to power, UK official development assistance has increased by 97 per cent. in real terms, and our aid ratio as a proportion of national income is set to reach 0.4 per cent. in 2005–06. But it has been estimated that the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals will require an extra US$50 billion more in aid every year until 2015. That is why the UK has proposed the IFF to deliver the funds that are needed now, when they will have the most impact on reducing poverty. The IFF would raise the significant additional resources necessary to make progress on meeting the Millennium Development Goals.
  745W
  The IFF would not be a new disbursement agency but a facility designed to deliver additional funds for development that would then be delivered through existing mechanisms, both through bilateral assistance and multilateral organisations.

  Job Vacancies
  Mr.Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies there were in Liverpool, West Derby constituency in(a) 1989, (b) 1997 and (c) 2003. [173673]

  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. Wareing dated 17 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about job vacancies in Liverpool, West Derby. (173673)

  According to Jobcentre Plus administrative records the numbers of unfilled vacancies in the Liverpool travel-to-work area on average for the year 1989 was 2,967 and in 1997 it was 4,330. These figures represent only a proportion of all the vacancies available, as not all vacancies are notified to Jobcentres.

  Figures are not available for Liverpool, West Derby 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.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many new jobs have been created in Bootle since 1997; [173146]

  (2) what the (a) change and (b) percentage change was in full-time permanent jobs in Bootle from 1997 to 31 December 2003. [173147]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Benton dated 17 May 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about full-time jobs and jobs created in Bootle. I am replying in his absence. (173146, 173147)
  While statistics of jobs created are not available explicitly, statistics from surveys enable comparisons to be made of net changes in numbers of jobs from year to year.
  The attached table shows the information requested, relating to all jobs and full-time jobs in Bootle for 1997 and 2002, which is the latest year for which figures are available.
  Information is not available about whether the jobs were permanent.
  746W

  Number of full-time employees and total number of employees1 in Bootle Parliamentary Constituency: 1997 and 2002

  Percentage

  Full-Time

  Total

  Number of employees

  1997

  22,200

  29,666

  2002

  28,196

  39,017

  Change from 1997 to 2002

  Absolute

  5,996

  9,351

  Percentage

  27.0

  31.5

  1Employee jobs only, not self-employed jobs

  Source:

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

  Public Sector Employment
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact of job growth in the private sector over the past seven years upon employment figures in the public service. [171242]

  Mr. Boateng
  As a result of the macroeconomic stability and labour market reforms delivered by this Government, employment in the public and private sectors has grown by 1.9 million since 1997, of which over 70 per cent. was in the private sector, and the total number of people in work in the UK is now the highest since records began. While jobs have risen and fallen in a number of areas, jobs in construction are up by 335,000; jobs in finance and business services up by 856,000; transport and communications up by 170,000; and distribution and hotels up by 424,000.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many girls aged 18 years and under, broken down by age, have(a) become pregnant and (b) had an abortion in each of the last three years. [172866]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Simon Burns, dated 17 May 2004:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many girls aged 18 years and under, broken down by age, have (a) become pregnant, and (b) had an abortion, in each of the last 3 years. (172866)
  Numbers of conceptions are estimated from registrations of births and notifications of abortions. Miscarriages before the 24th week of gestation are not included.
  Numbers of conceptions, and those leading to an abortion, at ages 18 years and under are given in the attached table, broken down by age.

  Number of conceptions to women aged 18 years and under, by outcome and age of woman (single years) at conception—England and Wales, 1999 to 2002

  Total conceptions

  Number terminated by abortion

  Under 14

  19991

  406

  232

  20001

  397

  236

  20012

  398

  219

  20023

  359

  —

  747W

  Number of conceptions to women aged 18 years and under, by outcome and age of woman (single years) at conception—England and Wales, 1999 to 2002

  Total conceptions

  Number terminated by abortion

  Age 14

  19991

  1,866

  1,081

  20001

  1,890

  1,100

  20012

  1,883

  1,154

  20023

  1,652

  —

  Age 15

  19991

  5,673

  2,870

  20001

  5,827

  3,048

  20012

  5,610

  3,025

  20023

  5,111

  —

  Age 16

  19991

  13,334

  5,845

  20001

  13,153

  5,854

  20012

  13,103

  5,993

  20023

  12,876

  —

  Age 17

  19991

  20,749

  8,063

  20001

  20,081

  8,020

  20012

  19,972

  8,323

  20023

  19,117

  —

  Age 18

  19991

  26,627

  9,637

  20001

  26,180

  9,651

  20012

  25,731

  9,666

  20023

  24,239

  —

  1Source:

  Table 12.2, Birth Statistics, Series FM1, No. 30, Office for National Statistics.

  2Provisional figures.

  3Provisional estimates are based on incomplete abortion data, therefore the number terminated by abortion is not provided.

  Tonnage Tax
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of the tonnage tax. [173675]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The tonnage tax review is currently considering a number of representations from professional advisors, industry bodies, companies and Unions. These cover diverse areas of the regime, including the range of vessels covered by the regime, the training link, and numerous technical points. The impact of the regime on British shipping is being assessed. Certainly there has been a very positive effect on the registration of ships under the UK flag.

  In particular, the review is also addressing the impact of revisions to the EU State Aid guidelines for maritime transport that were issued in January 2004. Discussions, primarily on the changes that will be necessary as a result of the changes to the guidelines continue between officials at the Inland Revenue and Department for Transport with industry bodies.

  I expect that a number of proposals for revision of the scheme will be put forward in due course, but at this stage it is not possible to give a firm date by which the review will be completed.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Buildings
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to the answer of 28 April,Official Report, column 1087W, on Government buildings (party use), for what reasons he has not identified the amount of income received. [173484]

  The Prime Minister
  As I made clear in my earlier answer, the costs of such events are met directly by the Labour Party.

  Honours List
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a consolidated list of recipients of honours since 1997. [173174]

  The Prime Minister
  Details of all honours are published in the London Gazette, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Iraq
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will call upon the Coalition Provisional Authority urgently to review the present policy on Iraqi prisons and prisoners. [172315]

  The Prime Minister
  The Iraqi Corrections Service and the Coalition Provisional Authority are currently working on a comprehensive set of policies and procedures for the entire Iraqi Corrections Service. These will be approved by the CPA Senior Adviser for Prisons and the Director of the Iraqi Corrections Service headed by an Iraqi national. The office of the UK Special Representative for Iraq stays in close touch with CPA prisons advisers, and policy and progress is kept under regular review.

  The CPA has a senior adviser for prisons and there are currently 60 CPA trainers and advisers working with the Iraqis. There are currently three senior UK prison advisers working in the UK area of operations.

  The UK will be sending additional UK prison officers to assist the Iraqis in administering prisons and to monitor progress in the current UK area of operations following the transition of sovereignty on 30 June.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library details of the policy agreed by the Coalition Provisional Authority on the(a) administration of Iraqi prisons and (b) the oversight and maintenance of prisoners and their welfare. [172316]

  The Prime Minister
  In June 2003, Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Orders 7 and 10 and "Implementing Memorandum number 2 (Management of Detention and Prison Facilities)" set in place detailed guidance for the administration and maintenance of Iraqi prisons and prisoners which are already publicly available on the CPA website. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  All Iraqi corrections officers and Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) advisers are required to follow a code of conduct that requires the humane treatment of prisoners. Coalition soldiers involved in

  749W
  looking after the administration and maintenance of Iraqi prisons and prisoners are governed by the Geneva Convention.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister who, within the Coalition Provisional Authority, has responsibility for prisons policy in Iraq, in relation to(a) administration of personnel and (b) the welfare of prisoners. [172317]

  The Prime Minister
  The Senior Adviser for Prisons and his staff have primary responsibility within the Coalition Provisional Authority for prison policies in Iraq. They work closely with the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and the Iraqi Corrections Service on administration of personnel and welfare of prisoners. The Ministry of Human Rights already have access to criminal detainees whenever they wish.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when he received a copy of the International Committee of the Red Cross report of February 2004 into allegations of abuse by Coalition forces of Iraqi detainees; [173200]

  (2) on what date he was first informed of the existence of the Report by the International Committee of the Red Cross on the treatment by the Coalition forces of prisoners of war and other persons protected by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq during arrest, internment and interrogation, dated February 2004; and on what date he read it; [173341]

  (3) when the International Committee of the Red Cross Report on the treatment by coalition forces of prisoners of war in Iraq was received in Number 10 Downing Street; and what action was taken. [173425]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) at Prime Ministers Questions on 12 May 2004,Official Report, columns 347 to 349.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has undertaken a(a) comparison and (b) reconciliation with the results of the Iraq Survey Team of information supplied by Iraq in response to UNSC Resolution 1441. [173837]

  The Prime Minister
  The work of the Iraq Survey Group is continuing and a final report has yet to be produced.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date the International Committee of the Red Cross report on the treatment by Coalition forces of prisoners of war and other persons protected by the Geneva conventions during arrest, internment and interrogation in Iraq was received by his Office. [173902]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) at Prime Ministers Questions on 12 May,Official Report, columns 347 to 349.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has read the Amnesty International report, Iraq—Killings of Civilians in Basra and al-Amaia, published on 11 May; and what response he has made to it. [174332]
  750W
  The Prime Minister
  As I said at Prime Minister's Questions on 12 May, Official Report, column 348, 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.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters regarding nuclear non-proliferation were discussed with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao on 10 May. [173859]

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed a wide range of issues with the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during his recent visit to the UK, including nuclear non-proliferation. I refer my hon. Friend to the joint statement released by the United Kingdom and China on 10 May 2004, which is available on the No. 10 website.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister how many complaints have been made by civil servants to the Civil Service Commissioners regarding the conduct of(a) special advisers and (b) unpaid advisers in each year since 1996–97. [174190]

  The Prime Minister
  Information relating to complaints made by civil servants to the Civil Service Commissioners is set out in the Civil Service Commissioners' annual report.

  Copies of the reports since 1996–97 are available in the Library of the House and can also be found on the Civil Service Commissioners website. The report for 2003–04 will be published shortly.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum and Immigration
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which air and sea ports in the United Kingdom have previously had routine staffing by the Immigration Service but currently do not; when such staffing ceased; what checks are made on persons arriving at such ports; and how many illegal immigrants were refused entry at such ports in each year from 1996 to 2003. [169249]

  Mr. Browne
  Port staffing levels in the United Kingdom are determined by a number of Factors:Current and projected numbers of passenger arrivals;
  For seaports the number of freight vehicles that will require searching;
  An assessment of the casework generated from the arriving passenger traffic;
  Projected numbers of asylum seekers that will require interview on arrival.

  It is only at ports where passenger services have ceased that immigration coverage has been withdrawn. At smaller ports resources are deployed to meet arriving traffic and in addition powers under the Immigration & Asylum Act 1999 are used flexibly to clear passengers where appropriate. Passengers subject to control will be examined to ascertain whether they qualify for entry to the UK. This examination will include checks against the Immigration Service database.
  751W
  A breakdown of persons refused entry and removed by port is not currently published and would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the discretionary amnesty to asylum seekers with children will be extended to asylum seekers from EU accession countries who are in the UK on 1 May. [168695]

  Mr. Browne
  Applicants from EU accession countries who come within the terms of this exercise will continue to qualify for indefinite leave to remain after 1 May. We have no plans to extend the exercise to cover all asylum seekers from these countries.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures his Department plans to improve the initial asylum decision-making process. [170523]

  Mr. Browne
  We have put a strategy in place to deliver further improvements in the quality of initial asylum decisions. It is comprehensive and builds on mechanisms already in place as well as including additional measures recently identified to help drive up decision quality.

  In broad terms our aim is to:
  invest in recruitment, learning and development so that caseworkers are even better equipped to take high quality decisions;
  enhance our quality assurance systems is by better targeting of checks on problem areas;
  improve country information, instructions and processes so that caseworkers always have the right tools to support high quality decision-making;
  increase the contribution by external organisations to the delivery and accreditation of our quality mechanisms.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new measures his Department plans to improve the asylum removal system, to ensure that a failed claim leads to a swift removal. [170524]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) on 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 338W.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 6 January 2004,Official Report, column 242W, on overseas posts (performance targets), for what reason there are no targets set by his Department for the processing of entry clearance appeals once they are received by the Appeals Processing Centre; how many appeals papers are deemed to require further action from the overseas post; and what plans the Government have for setting such targets. [157004]

  Mr. Browne
  The Immigration Appellate Authority's capacity to receive no more than 7,100 appeals per month, when taken together with the priority given to asylum, has influenced the speed at which entry clearance and other non-asylum appeals can be processed through the Appeals Processing Centre (APC). As a result, specific timescale targets have not yet been set for APC's entry clearance team. Targets will 752W
  be set during the next financial year. Up to 20 per cent. of entry clearance appeals received by APC per month require further contact with posts overseas.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) immigrants and (b) asylum seekers were living in each county in England and Wales in each year since 1997. [168014]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is not available in the form requested. Data on how many immigrants live in each county in England and Wales is not available and could only be produced at a disproportionate cost.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by The National Asylum Support Services is published quarterly. The next publication covering the first quarterly of 2004 (January to March) will be available on 25 May on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html. Data for earlier quarters is published in earlier editions of the publication and is also available on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website.

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refused asylum seekers have been repatriated. [166983]

  Mr. Browne
  We have taken repatriation here to mean removal. The number of persons who had claimed asylum at some stage and have been removed from the United Kingdom in each year between 1993 and 2003 is given in the table.

  Information on the number of asylum applicants removed from the United Kingdom is published quarterly on the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Removals and voluntary1 departures of asylum applicants 1993 to 20032

  Principal applicants

  Dependants

  Total

  1993

  1,820

  n/a

  n/a

  1994

  2,220

  n/a

  n/a

  1995

  3,170

  n/a

  n/a

  1996

  4,820

  n/a

  n/a

  1997

  7,165

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  6,990

  n/a

  n/a

  1999

  7,665

  n/a

  n/a

  2000

  8,980

  n/a

  n/a

  2001

  9,285

  1,495

  10,780

  20023

  10,740

  3,170

  13,910

  20033

  2003

  4,550

  17,040

  n/a = not available.

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

  2Data on dependants of asylum seekers removed have only been collected since April 2001.

  3Provisional figures.

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps were taken to inform hon. Members of changes to support provision for asylum seekers from EU accession countries after 1 May; [167326]
  753W
  (2) what provision will be available to support asylum seekers from EU accession countries whose applications are outstanding after 1 May. [167328]

  Mr. Browne
  From 1 May 2004 nationals of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta, will no longer be eligible for National Asylum Support Service (NASS) support or for support from a local authority under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999. This is because of the effect of paragraph 5 schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Schedule 3 also prohibits local authorities from providing support to European Economic Area (EEA) nationals under other provisions including section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948 and section 17 of the Children Act 1989. However, schedule 3 does not prevent the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty if, and to the extent that, its exercise or performance is necessary for the purpose of avoiding a breach of a person's convention rights or a person's rights under the Community Treaties.

  Unaccompanied asylum seeking children from these accession countries will continue to be eligible for support under the existing mechanisms and provisions until their 18th birthday.

  Asylum seekers from the accession states will, from 1 May 2004, have the same rights to travel as other nationals of EU and EEA member states. Asylum seekers from the eight eastern European accession countries, namely the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia ("the A8 countries"), will generally be able to take up employment in the UK, providing they register under the Worker Registration Scheme, which will become operational from 1 May 2004. Once they have secured employment and registered under the scheme asylum seekers from the A8 countries may become eligible for family tax credit and child benefit. If they are on low incomes they can also access housing benefit and council tax benefit.

  Part time workers may also be eligible for income based Job Seekers Allowance or Income Support, provided they meet the usual conditions for those benefits.

  Maltese and Cypriot nationals will have the same rights as existing EEA nationals. If they are seeking work they have the right to reside and look for work for six months. If they satisfy the Habitual Residence Test they will be eligible to apply for income related benefits and for social housing and homelessness assistance. Maltese and Cypriot nationals who are not economically active will only have a right to reside if they are self sufficient and are not placing an unreasonable burden on UK social assistance funds.

  Our position is clear, as EU citizens these people are able to work and cannot be maintained at public expense. They gain from being a part of the EU but must become self supporting or return home.

  NASS wrote to people in early April to explain their options and then visited many of them at home giving a further opportunity to explain why they would not be
  754W
  able to make alternative arrangements. If people cannot take up one of the options for good reason they need to contact us to explain why.

  Since 5 April 180 people have in fact made representations to us, and around 10 per cent. of those have been granted transitional support. Each is dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate has also been working with local authorities, their associations and voluntary sector organisations to keep them informed of the position.

  No specific steps have been taken to inform hon. Members of the provision available to these accession state nationals.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been given leave to remain in the UK as a result of the exercise announced by him in October 2003; how many dependants have also benefited from this exercise; how many failed asylum seekers who have exhausted their appeal rights have benefited; and how many cases have been refused. [168914]

  Mr. Browne
  An announcement detailing the results of the exercise including the available statistical information will be made when the exercise is completed. We would not wish to release figures until all those potentially qualifying applicants have had an opportunity to respond to our queries.

  We have made good progress in considering the cases originally identified. The bulk of cases has been processed with the majority, where the applicants have responded to our queries having been decided. We are reliant on the applicants we contact replying to our queries promptly. Those not doing so are being reminded.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 2 March 2004,Official Report, column 898W, on asylum and immigration, if he will break down the numbers of asylum seekers refused support under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 by country of origin. [169411]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is unavailable and could be produced only at a disproportionate cost.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by the National Asylum Support Services is published quarterly. The next publication covering the first quarter of 2004 (January to March) will be available on 25 May on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www. homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors influenced his decision to exclude Northern Ireland as a destination for asylum seeker dispersal; and what plans he has to review his policy. [170112]

  Mr. Browne
  The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) undertook research to identify the most suitable areas for the dispersal of asylum seekers. The aim was to establish cluster areas where there was already an ethnic minority community or where it was believed the
  755W
  area was capable of sustaining a new community. Other factors taken into consideration included the availability of support services able to assist newly arrived asylum seekers. It was always acknowledged that not all areas would be suitable for dispersal and, with regard to Northern Ireland, the research identified both a low population of ethnic minorities and a lack of available support services. While the area was not designated as a dispersal area it was agreed that those making their application for asylum in Northern Ireland could remain there if they requested it. Others making their application elsewhere can opt to live with family and friends in Northern Ireland and receive subsistence only support from NASS.

  Most of the contracts NASS has with private and public sector providers are due to expire next year and NASS is now looking at where and how to procure accommodation.

  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the compatibility of Clause 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Bill with the(a) Human Rights Act 1998, (b) Children Act 1989 and (c) Children Bill. [169394]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]: Clause 8 does not prevent the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty where this is necessary to avoid a breach of a person's Convention Rights.

  The Government do not believe clause 8 is incompatible with the Children Act or the Children Bill. Provisions to safeguard and promote children's welfare must take account of the fact that failed asylum seeking families do not have the right to remain in the UK.

  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the announcement on 30 January of the new agreement on returning Indian immigration offenders, if he will set out the mechanism that will apply to such return; and how many Indian nationals have been returned under this agreement. [170037]

  Mr. Browne
  The agreement reached with the Indians—the first such agreement they have signed—will accelerate the redocumentation of Indian immigration offenders which the UK seeks to return to India. The Indians have agreed to a more streamlined system of referral and consideration which will be a significant improvement on previous arrangements whereby documents could take up to 18 months to obtain. They have also agreed improved arrangements to deal with immigration offenders who are clearly Indian citizens, but who refuse to co-operate with the documentation process and who refuse to sign a visa application form.

  Following the signing of the agreement the Indian Government have had to put in place revised administrative arrangements. This has taken some time, but the new arrangements were in place with effect from 21 April. Consequently there has, so far, been no opportunity to deliver return under the new arrangements. It is intended to begin referring cases under the new arrangements immediately.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with reference to the concession announced by the Home Secretary on 24 October 2003 to allow 756W
  families who have been in the United Kingdom for three or more years to stay, how many families he expects to be affected; how many persons in total will be affected; how many of those families have been contacted by the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND) to date and given leave to remain; whether he expects IND will have contacted all the relevant families and completed the bulk of the cases by July; what the timescale is for contacting and processing remaining families; and when he expects to allow immigration practitioners to send in a list of cases they believe are covered by the family concession for confirmation that they will receive a questionnaire. [170089]

  Mr. Browne
  An announcement detailing the results of the exercise including the available statistical information will be made when the exercise is completed and all those potentially qualifying applicants have had an opportunity to respond to our queries.

  Good progress has been made in considering the cases originally identified. The bulk of these cases have been processed with the majority, where the applicants have responded to our queries, having been decided. We rely on the applicants we contact replying to our queries promptly and those not doing so are being reminded. We expect the bulk of the cases eligible for ILR to have been processed by July when we will consider how best to sweep up those who believe they are eligible but have not yet been contacted.

  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many weeks' training Immigration and Nationality Directorate caseworkers receive; how many other organisations are involved in such training; and what the starting salary of caseworkers is. [170111]

  Mr. Browne
  Training, consisting of classroom based and formal coaching, will normally last up to six weeks. The amount will depend on the type of casework; the specific roles of the caseworker; and the individual's previous experience.

  After formal training and coaching, caseworkers will continue to receive support from their managers and from senior caseworkers.

  The United Kingdom High Commission for Refugees and Social Services have been involved in training design and quality assurance. Casework training is being reviewed, including the use of other organisations in training delivery.

  The national starting salary for caseworkers in the main caseworking grade (Executive Officer) is £16,606 (£17,294 plus £1,300 London Location Allowance in Croydon).

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) pursuant to his statement of 30 March 2004,Official Report, column 1439, on immigration entry clearance standards, which Home Office official met the UK consul in Romania; what was discussed at the meeting; whether minutes were taken of the meeting; what actions were taken as a result of the meeting; and if he will make a statement; [166548]

  (2) pursuant to the statement of the Minister for Immigration and Nationality of 30 March 2004, Official Report, column 1476, if he will place in the Library a

  757W
  copy of the report of the meeting between a senior Immigration and Nationality Directorate official and the British embassy in Bucharest. [166547]

  Mr. Browne
  A senior Home Office official in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate was in Bucharest on 1 and 2 March for talks with the Romanian Government on our on-going co-operation on illegal immigration.

  As part of the visit he held briefing meetings in the embassy. The UK Consul in Romania was present at these.

  The visit produced proposals on a number of aspects of immigration to the UK. These are being taken forward and, where relevant, have been fed into the Sutton enquiry. The report on the visit is internal advice to Ministers, which is not for publication.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which air and seaports do not have routine staffing by the Immigration Service. [169248]

  Mr. Browne
  All the major ports in the United Kingdom (including seaports, hover ports, airports and Waterloo) have a permanent Immigration Service presence. In 1992, following the withdrawal of routine Customs and Excise attendance from ports where they had traditionally operated an immigration control on behalf of the Immigration Service, then Ministers introduced a new policy for immigration coverage of small ports and airports. This policy was later developed with the introduction of new powers in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 enabling a more flexible approach to the operation of the immigration control. Under the Act carriers are obliged to notify the UK Immigration Service in advance of all passengers subject to control. The passengers will then be cleared by the Immigration Service either by attending the port or remotely; the decision being based on all the available intelligence.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish(a) the most recent annual figures of the number of persons refused permission to travel to the United Kingdom by British immigration officers operating from French departure points, broken down by (i) month and (ii) departure points and (b) the most recent estimates of his Department of the annual number of persons prevented from travelling to the United Kingdom by foreign immigration officers at departure points at which British immigration officers are present in an advisory capacity. [169250]

  Mr. Browne
  A breakdown of persons refused and removed by port is not currently published and would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Locally collated management information indicates that during 2003 more than 9,000 passengers have been prevented from travelling from France to the UK as a result of a range of measures including: enhanced juxtaposed controls, deployment of new detection technology and close co-operation with our EU counterparts, carriers and port operators.
  758W
  The Airline Liaison Officer (ALO) network as well as working closely with airlines to provide training and advice has meant that more than 6,000 people travelling to the UK have been denied boarding by airlines after reference to an ALO during 2003.

  In addition airlines advise the Immigration Service that other passengers are also denied boarding at ALO locations as an indirect result of the training and guidance provided to carriers by ALOs.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what routine measures are practised by United Kingdom authorities to detect attempted illegal entrants to the United Kingdom other than those in force at embarkation and arrival points. [169251]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government have recognised for some time that preventing the arrival in the UK of those who would not qualify to enter or remain must be a key element of its immigration control strategy.

  The increasing involvement of organised crime in illegal immigration led to the creation in 2000 of Reflex, the multi-agency forum which brings together key law enforcement players including the Immigration Service, as well as relevant Government Departments and the Security Services, under the chair of the National Crime Squad.

  Reflex has successfully brought focus to the issue and has also provided funding and structures to tackle the problem both in the UK and overseas.

  UK funding for two successful infrastructure-building projects in the Western Balkans was provided by Reflex, as was funding for other projects in Romania and Turkey aimed at upstream disruption of illegal migration.

  As part of a longer-term strategy, the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) manages an expanding network of Immigration Liaison Officers (currently 12) in key overseas posts who work closely with local law enforcement agencies to combat illegal migratory flows.

  We have also had in place for some time a network of Airline Liaison Officers (currently 25) working closely with airline staff at key locations worldwide, who offer advice to carriers on the admissibility of passengers seeking to travel to the UK.

  We are working closely with UK Visas to put in place visa fraud officers at a number of our missions overseas to enhance further the quality of visa issues.

  I should also point out that the introduction of juxtaposed immigration controls in France, and the deployment of New Detection Technology (x-ray machines and scanners) in France and Belgium have been very successful in identifying and stopping unqualified passengers from travelling on to the UK. Further development of this strategy is in hand.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that enforcement of immigration controls in(a) Cherbourg and (b) Dorset operates to the same standard seven days per week. [170600]
  759W
  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: The UK Immigration Service does not presently operate in Cherbourg. A pilot project was recently operated at Cherbourg whereby Immigration officers acted in an advisory capacity to the ferry operators to reduce the number of illegal entrants and inadmissible passengers at the point of departure. There are current proposals under way to deploy new detection technology to Cherbourg in partnership with the port authority.

  In Dorset the UK Immigration Service operates full immigration border controls at Poole seven day a week. UK Immigration Officers attend the control and check all arriving passengers and will continue to do so.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many illegal immigrants were removed from lorries in Cherbourg bound for Poole in 2003. [170602]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: The Home Office does not collate statistics of how many illegal immigrants were removed from lorries in Cherbourg bound for Poole in 2003. The Immigration Service tracks incidents of illegal clandestine entry into the United Kingdom and reviews the pressures at ports of departure in co-operation with the French authorities. Assessments, through the Cross-Channel Commission, have resulted in proposals to deploy new technology in partnership with the port authority in accordance with the convention on new technology signed by the two governments on 24 November 2003.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of staffing of UK immigration officers in Cherbourg was provided in 2003. [170604]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: The exercise involved one Immigration Officer travelling daily to Cherbourg to provide advice and support to the carrier in respect of travel status of passengers prior to boarding in Cherbourg. The officer then returned with the inbound ferry to control passengers seeking leave to enter the United Kingdom during the crossing.

  Afghan Refugees
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on the return of refugee women and children to Afghanistan from the UK. [170305]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government's preferred option for repatriating Afghan asylum applicants whose asylum claims have been rejected and appeal rights exhausted is assisted voluntary return, in line with the Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding on Voluntary Return between the UK, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Afghan Transitional Administration. When the Memorandum of Understanding was signed we agreed that we would not return family groups to Afghanistan before the summer of 2003. Although this general policy bar on enforcing the removal of families no longer applies, we are still not enforcing the departure of vulnerable groups, such as families with young children, or female heads of household.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his Answer of 23 February 2004,Official Report, columns 228–29W, on Centre for the 3Rs, whether he has now received the final report of the Inter-Departmental Group for the 3Rs; and if he will make a statement on how he intends to proceed with the Select Committee's recommendation. [169587]

  Caroline Flint
  I have recently received the Inter-Departmental Group's final report on the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures that a centre for research into the 3Rs—the replacement of animal use, reduction of the number of animals used and the refinement of the procedures involved to minimise suffering—should be set up and have discussed its findings with Ministerial colleagues. We expect to announce our conclusions in the next few weeks.

  Asylum Detainees (Children)
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children are being held in detention solely under Immigration Act powers; and how many of these have been held for more than 28 days, broken down by removal centre. [169243]

  Mr. Browne
  Management information indicates that on the 26 January 2004 35 children were detained solely under Immigration Act powers. Three quarters of those had been in detention for 14 days or less and the remainder had been detained for less than four months. These individuals were all detained as part of families whose detention as a group was considered necessary.

  Information on the number of people detained solely under Immigration Act powers as at 27 March 2004 will be published on the Home Office website on 25 May: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many children have been held in detention solely under Immigration Act powers since his announcement that children will not be detained for more than 28 days without ministerial consent; and how many of these have been held for more than 28 days, broken down by removal centre. [169244]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the total number of children detained under Immigration Act powers since the announcement in October 2003 that children will not be detained for more than 28 days without ministerial consent is not available.

  Management information indicates that on the 26 January 2004 35 children were detained solely under Immigration Act powers. Three quarters of those had been in detention for 14 days or less and the remainder had been detained for less than four months. This includes children and infants who were detained as part of family group for very short periods pending removal.

  Information on the number of people detained solely under Immigration Act powers as at 27 March 2004 will be published on the Home Office website on 25 May: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to re-examine the law on the(a) sale and (b) cultivation of cannabis seeds. [170146]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 5 May 2004]: None. The seeds are not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as they do not contain tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis.

  The cultivation of cannabis seeds, other than for purposes licensed by the Home Office, will remain illegal.

  Clandestine Entrants
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clandestine entrants into the United Kingdom have been detected(a) on entry and (b) in the country in each month since December 2001. [171253]

  Mr. Browne
  Illegal entry action is initiated against those people who are detected having entered or attempting to enter the country clandestinely or by means of deception, either verbal or documentary.

  The available figures include those people who were identified as having entered the country clandestinely, they are not separately identifiable as such information would only be available by examination of individual case-files at disproportionate cost. A monthly breakdown of this figure is not available.

  48,050 people had illegal entry action initiated against them in 2002.

  Information on the number of people against whom illegal entry action was initiated in 2003 will be published later this year in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 2002" which can be found on the Home Office website: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 18 March, with regard to Miss Z. Patel. [170700]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I replied to my right hon. Friend on 29 April 2004.

  Crime Statistics
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what the percentage change in(a) domestic burglary, (b) juvenile anti-social behaviour, (c) arrests for violent crime, (d) incidents of violent crime, (e) road traffic collision involving fatality or serious injury, (f) domestic burglary per 1,000 households, (g) robberies per 1,000 population and (h) vehicle crimes per 1,000 population was between 2001–02 and 2002–03 for (i) division of the North Wales police and (ii) each local authority in North Wales. [154295]
  762W
  Ms Blears
  The available statistics recorded by North Wales Police, are given as follows. Those figures derived from recorded crime statistics will have been affected by North Wales police adopting the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard in October 2001.

  Percentage changes between 2001–02 and 2002–03:
  Domestic burglary1 increased by 34 per cent.
  Juvenile anti-social behaviour2 remained level. Two Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were issued in both 2001–02 and 2002–03.
  Arrests for violent crime3 increased by 28 per cent.
  Violent crime1, 4 increased by 53 per cent.
  Details on road traffic collisions involving fatality or serious injury, are not collected by the Home Office.
  Domestic burglaries pet 1,000 households1 increased by 31 per cent.
  Robberies per 1,000 population1 increased by 15 per cent.
  Vehicle crimes per 1,000 population1 increased by 5 per cent.

  1The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) had the effect of increasing the number of crimes recorded by the police. Therefore, following the introduction of the Standard, numbers of recorded crimes, and figures derived from them, are not directly comparable with previous years.

  2Figure based on number of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, as reported to the Home Office, issued to juveniles (persons aged 10–17 years), within North Wales.

  3Figure based on numbers of notifiable arrests made by North Wales Police.

  4Violent crime comprises the offences of Violence against the person, Sexual offences and Robbery.

  Crime statistics are recorded at Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP) level. CDRPs were set up under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and are broadly local authority areas They include representatives from police, health, probation and other local agencies and provide strategies for reducing crime in the area. The available figures are given in the table.

  Percentage change between 2001–02 and 2002–03, by CDRPs in North Wales

  CDRP

  Domestic burglary

  Violent crime

  Conwy

  -3

  74

  Denbighshire

  45

  78

  Flintshire

  37

  29

  Gwynedd

  47

  41

  Isle of Anglesey

  104

  55

  Wrexham

  42

  53

  See footnote I above.

  The number of ASBOs1 which were issued to juveniles, by local authority area, for 2001–02 and 2002–03:

  Local authority area

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Conwy

  0

  1

  Wrexham

  2

  1

  1ASBOs are issued by the courts but can be applied for, among other authorities, the police.

  Figures on arrests are not collected by local authority area.

  More generally, the British Crime Survey (BCS), which asks members of the public about their experiences of crime, gives a more complete estimate of crime in England and Wales since it covers both unreported and unrecorded crime. It also gives a more

  763W
  reliable indication of trends in crime as BCS estimates are unaffected by changes in levels of reporting, or in police recording. Between 2001–02 and 2002–03 there was a decrease of 2 per cent. in crime as measured by the BCS.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public funds were spent on tackling drugs misuse in Preston in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2003–04. [1696961]

  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 and both in amount and origin as a result it is not possible to provide robust financial information.

  2003–04

  Amount (£)

  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

  1Contains non-drug elements.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers preventing racial harassment have been introduced since 1997; and how many times these powers have been used in Wigan. [169336]

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

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

  Prior to 1997 the Race Relations Act (RRA) 1976 already prohibited discrimination on racial grounds. The RRA did not specifically refer to harassment, but it was clear from case law that racia1 harassment was a type of detriment capable of amounting to the kind of less favourable treatment prohibited by the Act.

  As part of its fulfilment of its obligations under the EC Race Directive the UK amended the Race Relations Act 1976 (by virtue of the Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003) so as to make it
  764W
  unlawful to harass a person, on grounds of race or ethnic or national origins, in the areas of activity covered by the 1976 Act.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public funds were spent on tackling drug misuse in Wigan in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2003–04. [169338]

  Caroline Flint
  The period 1997–98 pre-dates National Drug Strategy, during this time the local council and primary care trust allocated funding for tackling drug misuse. Accounting procedures mean that the 1997 figures are no longer available and that 1998 figures are not accessible by the DAT.

  In 2003–04 the total drugs allocation was £2,187,607. 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

  72,429

  Treatment Pooled Budget

  1,455,000

  Through Care After Care Pump Priming

  35,000

  Building Safer Communities1

  410,404

  Young people

  214,774

  Total

  2,187,607

  1Contains non-drug elements.

  Criminal Justice Act
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 will be brought into force. [169161]

  Mr. Blunkett
  We are working towards implementation of the retrial provisions contained in part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and will bring this part of the Act into force as soon as practicable.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when section 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 will be brought into force. [169162]

  Paul Goggins
  No final decision has yet been made but the current aim is to bring the hearsay provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 into force as soon as possible.

  Custodial Sentences (Wolverhampton)
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those convicted in 2003 by courts in Wolverhampton for offences of failing to have valid(a) vehicle excise discs, (b) vehicle insurance and (c) MOT certificates received custodial sentences. [168400]

  Caroline Flint
  None: these offences are not imprisonable.

  Departmental Communications
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent on(a) internal communications and (b) advertising internal initiatives in each of the last five years. [163577]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Home Office is a large organisation with inter-related aims so it is important that the 73,000 staff throughout the department and its agencies understand how the work that they do fits together to deliver the departmental outcomes. The department achieves this through the production of a range of services and publications. Examples are Home Office Today—a daily on-line news service for staff, and Inside Track the corporate staff magazine. In addition each agency keeps its own staff informed of internal activities through agency publications. Together the Department and its agencies spent the following sums on internal communications staffing and products:

  £

  2001–02

  3,670,000

  2002–03

  4,080,000

  2003–04

  4,180,000

  Note:

  Figures for previous years can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) The figures in (a) above include the cost of advertising internal initiatives to Home Office staff and cannot be separately identified.

  Documentation (Arrivals)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that inadequately documented passengers arriving in the UK are intercepted. [170521]

  Mr. Browne
  Measures to intercept passengers with inadequate documents on their arrival in the UK include risk-assessing all incoming flights, conducting intelligence-led document checks, observing passengers as they disembark from aircraft and planned special exercises sometimes involving other agencies and at certain locations using CCTV.

  At the main arrivals control, passengers are interviewed and their documents examined to detect impostors and to identify forged or counterfeit passports or passengers without the requisite entry clearance.

  In addition we have strategies in place to prevent passengers with inadequate documents arriving in the UK. These include the use of pre-entry controls in France (Juxtaposed controls), new detection technology screening equipment to detect clandestine entrants and Airline Liaison Officers (ALOs) who offer advice to airlines on the validity of travel documents held by passengers.

  The Government are currently legislating to make disposing of travel documents without reasonable excuse a criminal offence. In addition a pilot is planned for airlines to scan travel documents at points abroad
  766W
  and supply copies to the UK Immigration Service. This will deter those who might otherwise destroy their documents en route.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether surveillance techniques have been extended to airports other than Heathrow, to ensure that inadequately documented passengers are intercepted. [170522]

  Mr. Browne
  Surveillance techniques to ensure that inadequately documented passengers are identified and intercepted are already in use at major airports other than Heathrow. The UK Immigration Service has the ability to employ CCTV and/or overt surveillance in order to identify and intercept such passengers.

  Smaller airports where these methods are not routinely employed are subject to regular risk assessment, monitoring and special exercises with Customs and other agencies. Resources are deployed to identify and intercept inadequately documented passengers on an intelligence led basis.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were sentenced in England and Wales for driving with excess alcohol, excluding those causing death or serious injury, in each of the last 10 years; how many of those received a custodial sentence; and what the average custodial sentence length was. [169087]

  Paul Goggins
  The available information is contained in the table and relates to persons sentenced for offences of driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs.

  It is not possible in the statistics collected centrally to exclude those offences where serious injury is caused, but the figures exclude persons sentenced for the specific offence of 'causing death by careless driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs'.

  Number of persons1 sentenced at all courts for offences relating to driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs, those sentenced to custody and the average custodial sentence length, England and Wales 1993–2002 Driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  Driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  1993

  Total sentenced

  80,926

  Custodial sentence

  2.575

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.1

  1994

  Total sentenced

  78.038

  Custodial sentence

  3.243

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.2

  1995

  Total sentenced

  81.474

  Custodial sentence

  3,443

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.1

  1996

  Total sentenced

  85.010

  Custodial sentence

  3,529

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.1

  767W

  Number of persons1 sentenced at all courts for offences relating to driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs, those sentenced to custody and the average a custodial sentence length, England and Wales 1993–2002 Driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  Driving etc after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  1997

  Total sentenced

  89.271

  Custodial sentence

  4,065

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.0

  1998

  Total sentenced

  83.092

  Custodial sentence

  3.754

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.0

  1999

  Total sentenced

  79.524

  Custodial sentence

  3.653

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.0

  2000

  Total sentenced

  76.779

  Custodial sentence

  3.465

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.1

  2001

  Total sentenced

  76.113

  Custodial sentence

  3.475

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.0

  2002

  Total sentenced

  81.444

  Custodial sentence

  3,290

  Average sentence length (months)

  3.2

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

  Drugs
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what collaborative endeavours there are with other Governments to stifle the synthetic supply of drugs. [168727]

  Caroline Flint
  The United Kingdom Government have signed and ratified the United Nations 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, which establishes an international control system for such substances, including a number of synthetic drugs. It has also signed and ratified the United Nations 1988 Convention against the Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which provides comprehensive measures against drug trafficking and the diversion of precursor chemicals of synthetic drugs.

  UK law enforcement agencies have well-established bi-lateral links with their opposite numbers overseas, and share both strategic and tactical intelligence on synthetic drugs and their precursor chemicals on a regular basis.

  They also participate in a range of multi-lateral, operationally focused intelligence work, including, for example:
  participation in and follow-up to Europol initiatives on amphetamine profiling, illicit laboratory comparison, and pill logo comparison;
  768W
  training, through the European Union PHARE Project to aid the EU accession states in combating the illicit trade in precursor chemicals and synthetic drugs;
  leading a European Joint Unit on Precursors which co-ordinates EU member state activity in relation to illicit precursor chemicals trade;
  acting as joint chair to a major UN initiative to stifle the supply of precursor chemicals used in the production of amphetamine type stimulants.

  Employment Agencies
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the employment agencies which his Department has used to supply temporary staff in each financial year since 1996–97 to the most recent date for which figures are available. [163822]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The requirements for temporary staff are at Directorate level in the Core Home Office and the relevant supplier then used in each financial year are in the table.

  Accountancy Personnel

  Adecco

  Allegis Group

  Anderson Sign Language

  Ann Pettengell Gold Helm Ltd.

  Badenoch & Clark

  Brook Street (UK) Ltd.

  Cameron Kennedy Resources Ltd.

  Capita Business Services Ltd.

  Carlisle Facilities Servs Ltd.

  Carlisle Group Staffing Service

  Catherine Johnstone Recruitment

  Centre for Dispute Resolution

  Cgms Consulting

  Chubb Security Personnel Ltd.

  Computer People Ltd.

  Crown Personnel Plc

  Crown Protection Services UK

  Dbi Consulting

  Employment Plus Ltd.

  Excel Recruitment Ltd.

  First Recruitment Services Ltd

  Grafton Recruitment

  Hays Accountancy Personnel

  Headstart Employment Ltd.

  Hto Consulting

  Hudson Global Resources Ltd

  Huntress Recruitment Specialist

  Ibnix Ltd.

  Icts (UK) Ltd.

  Impact Executives Ltd.

  Josephine Sammons Ltd.

  K International Plc

  Kpmg Fees Account

  Logicacmg

  Lorien Consulting

  Mailsource UK Ltd.

  Manpower Plc

  Method Application Ltd.

  Michael Canham & Associates Lt

  769W

  Michael Page International

  New Appointments Group

  Nicholas Andrews & Temps Finance

  Office Angels Ltd.

  Pa Consulting Services Ltd.

  Pel Security Ltd

  Pegasus Security Group Ltd

  Pertemps

  Prc Employment

  Purcon Consultants Ltd.

  Reed Information Services Ltd.

  Reed Personnel Services

  770W

  Reed Solutions Plc

  Sabrewatch Ltd.

  Securicor Security Ltd.

  Select Appointments Plc

  Symbia

  Tangent International Ltd.

  The Synergy Group Ltd.

  Tmp Worldwide Ltd.

  Trowers & Hamlins

  Turner & Townsend

  Wackenhut UK Ltd.

  Watts & Partners

  Wt Partnership

  Suppliers used

  Customer name

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Accountancy Personnel

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Hays Accountancy Personnel

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Adecco

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Adecco UK Limited

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Adecco UK Ltd.

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Allegis Group

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Anderson Sign Language

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Anderson Sign Language Consult

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  Ann Pettengell Gold Helm Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Badenoch & Clark

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Brook Street (UK) Ltd.

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Cameron Kennedy Resources Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Capita Business Services Ltd.

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Carlisle Facilities Servs Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  Carlisle Group Staffing Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Carlisle Group Staffing Service

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Catherine Johnstone Recruitment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Centre For Dispute Resolution

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  Cgms Consulting

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Chubb Security Personnel Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Computer People Ltd.

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Crown Personnel Pic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Crown Protection Services UK

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Dbi Consulting

  Yss

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Employment Plus Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Excel Recruitment Ltd.

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  First Recruitment Services Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Grafton Recruitment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Headstart Employment Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Hto Consulting

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Hudson Global Resources Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Huntress Recruitment Specialist

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Ibnix Ltd.

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Icts (UK) Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Impact Executives Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Josephine Sammons Ltd.

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  K International Plc

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  Kpmg Consulting

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Kpmg Fees Account

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Logicacmg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Lorien Consulting

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Mailsource UK Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Manpower Plc

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Method Application Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Michael Canham & Associates Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Michael Page International

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  New Appointments Group

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Nicholas Andrews & Temps Finance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Office Angels Ltd.

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Pa Consulting Services Ltd.

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Pcl Security Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Pegasus Security Group Ltd.

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  Yes

  —

  Yes

  Pertemps

  —

  Yes

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Prc Employment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Purcon Consultants Ltd.

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Reed Information Services Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Reed Personnel Services Plc

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Reed Solutions Plc

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Sabrewatch Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  771W

  Suppliers used

  Customer name

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Securicor Security Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Select Appointments Plc

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Symbia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Tangent International Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  The Synergy Group Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Tmp Worldwide

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Tmp Worldwide Ltd.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Trowers & Hamlins

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Turner & Townsend

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Wackenhut UK Ltd.

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  Watts & Partners

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Wt Partnership

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yes

  Yes

  EU Accession States
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he is making to release, without prejudice to any outstanding application to be allowed to remain in the country, documents held by the UK authorities which are required by individuals from EU accession countries to facilitate their search for work in this country; what the timescale is for the release of such documents; whether such individuals will be able to register on the Workers Registration Scheme while they are seeking work; whether they can utilise the services of Jobcentres; what implications the arrangements for those from new EU member states seeking work in the UK have for(a) their right to remain in the UK and (b) National Asylum Support Service or local authority support, with particular reference to their accommodation and its cost; and if he will make a statement. [170049]

  Mr. Browne
  Documents held by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will be returned to EU accession state nationals as soon as is practicable.

  Individuals from the eight Accession States will only be able to register under the Worker Registration Scheme when they are in employment. They should apply to register as soon as they start work and within one month at the latest. They will be able to utilise Jobcentres to enable them to find employment.

  Nationals of Cyprus and Malta will have a right of residence in the UK for up to six months on the basis that they are job seekers. Nationals of the remaining eight accession states will be able to remain in the UK while they seek work, provided that they are self-sufficient.

  Nationals of the European Economic Area are not eligible for support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) or from local authorities under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 2000. Those who were supported by NASS or their local authority can find work and register, seek support from friends or relatives or leave the UK. Individuals have had advance warning of the fact that they are no longer eligible for support but if they cannot avail themselves of these options without a violation of their Convention rights, they can approach NASS or their local authority to explain why. NASS will consider such representations from such individuals and will consider offering temporary support until that assessment is concluded. NASS have asked local authorities to consider matters relating to Interim Provisions cases in a similar manner
  772W
  and will consider reimbursing costs of continuing support for the short period of time it will take to make an assessment.

  European Communities Association Agreement
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the statement by the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration of 8 March 2004,Official Report, columns 1245–52W, on the European Communities Association Agreement, if he will issue amended immigration statistics for the relevant period and categories. [161434]

  Mr. Browne
  Statistics on European Communities Association Agreement (ECAA) are management information collected by The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND).

  Statistics on the Control of Immigration produced by the Research and Statistics Directorate of the Home Office are part of the National Statistics, and are covered by the National Statistics Code of Practice. This means they are free from political interference and are produced to high professional principles and standards.

  There are no plans to issue any corrections to these statistics arising from the statement on the European Communities Association Agreement, as management information on the ECAA are not included in the Control of Immigration Statistics.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Ministers in his Department were informed of the letter from John Ramsden to Chris Mace, of 5 November 2002, regarding the operation of the European Communities Association Agreement scheme. [166559]

  Mr. Browne
  This matter is covered by the investigation which Mr. Ken Sutton is undertaking of the operation of the European Community Association Agreement scheme for Bulgaria and Romania. I do not wish to pre-empt the investigation by commenting on the issues before it is completed.

  Female Prisons
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average female prison population was; and how many female prisons or prison units there were, in each of the last 10 years. [169086]
  773W
  Paul Goggins
  The average female prison population and the number of prisons with female units in each of the last 10 years is given in the table.

  Average female prison population and number of England and Wales

  Average female prisons

  Prisons with female units

  1994

  1,810

  12

  1995

  1,979

  14

  1996

  2,262

  17

  1997

  2,675

  16

  1998

  3,105

  17

  1999

  3,247

  17

  2000

  3,350

  16

  2001

  3,741

  18

  2002

  4,298

  19

  2003

  4,425

  19

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution identity cards are intended to make to combating terrorism. [169442]

  Mr. Browne
  We know that about 35 per cent. of terrorists use false or multiple identities. An identity cards scheme which made it far more difficult to establish multiple identities would help to disrupt terrorist support networks.

  As the Home Secretary has always made clear—going back to 2001—an identity card scheme would not guarantee to protect the UK against a terrorist attack. However, the Government have a duty to take all reasonable measures which will contribute to preventing and disrupting terrorist activity.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete the Gateway Review Stage for the National Identity Cards Programme; and if he will publish the outcome of that review. [169814]

  Mr. Browne
  Legislation on Identity Cards—A Consultation (CM 6178) explains that the Identity Cards Programme will be subject to continuing external review by the Office of Government Commerce Gateway process. A Gateway 0 review of the Programme took place in January 2004 which concluded that it was ready to proceed to the next stage. Subsequent Gateway reviews of the Programme will take place throughout its development and implementation. In line with the usual practice, the reports from these Gateway Reviews are not published.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what occasion and how frequently identity cards under the Draft Identity Cards Bill would need to be renewed. [169913]

  Mr. Browne
  ID cards will have a limited validity, this power is provided for in the draft Identity Cards Bill. At present passports and driving licences are valid for 10 years and the cost estimates for the identity cards scheme are based on fees for cards covering a 10 year period.
  774W
  However, in advance of it being a requirement to register, there will be no compulsion to renew an identity card. Only when it is a requirement to register will there be a requirement on individuals, whose card will expire in a prescribed period or whose card is not valid, to apply for an ID card within a prescribed period. Different validity periods will apply in different cases, for example the validity of cards issued to foreign nationals will be linked to the length of their entitlement to stay in the country. Validity periods will require the approval of Parliament.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the draft regulations under the Draft Identity Cards Bill that will be published in time for pre-legislative scrutiny at the same time as the Bill. [169914]

  Mr. Browne
  The Legislation on Identity Cards Consultation paper (Cm 61708) makes clear that the draft Identity Cards Bill is an enabling measure and that detailed provisions will be set out later in regulations, relating for example to the level of fees or the application process. Regulations will not, therefore, be published during the consultation period on the draft Bill but will be determined as the identity cards programme proceeds.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Government databases that will be linked to the National Identity Register under proposals in the Draft Identity Cards Bill. [169916]

  Mr. Browne
  There are no provisions in the draft Identity Cards Bill, which establish a direct link between the National Identity Register and any other Government database.

  However, applications for one of the family of identity cards will require checks to be made against other databases, including those of public sector bodies. The data-sharing gateways established for this purpose will be used only when processing applications for cards or related purposes to ensure that the person, who applies to register and to be issued with an identity card, is the person he or she claims to be. Under the draft Bill, Parliament would have to approve each such "gateway" via an affirmative order where no powers already exist for the sharing of data in this way.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he will issue on police use of finger-print information held on the National Identity Register proposed in the draft Identity Card Bill. [170257]

  Mr. Browne
  Disclosure of information from the National Identity Register without the individual's consent may be made to the police only in the specified circumstances set out in Clause 20(3) of the draft Bill. This is subject to certain rules, including that information will only be disclosed if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the police to have obtained the information by another means. For example, if fingerprint information
  775W
  is recorded on the register, the police would first have to search their own fingerprint records before resorting to the register. I will consider the need for further guidance on this subject nearer to the time of the introduction of the identity cards scheme.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which bodies will have access to all the data stored on the National Identity Register. [170262]

  Mr. Browne
  Proposals to permit information held on the National Identity Register to be disclosed without an individual's consent are set out in "Legislation on Identity Cards: A Consultation" (CM6178) published on 26 April.

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

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

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

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

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how individuals will gain access to relevant services if their identity card is lost or stolen. [170263]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on 9 February 2004,Official Report, column 1261W. My right hon. Friend said that an identity card, although very helpful to public services as a reliable means of proving identity, would not become mandatory for free public services and benefits until a specific further parliamentary decision on a move to compulsion. Where the identity card is used to access public services we will want to ensure that procedures are in place to help those whose card has been lost or stolen, especially in cases of emergency.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what communication strategy has been developed to ensure, engagement with the public on the subject of identity cards. [170264]
  776W
  Mr. Browne
  The communication strategy on identity cards includes the following elements to ensure engagement with the public:Quantitative and qualitative research was undertaken with the general public during the first consultation period. The findings are set out in "Identity Cards: A summary of Findings from the Consultation Exercise on Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud" (CM6019). Further quantitative and qualitative research among the general will be undertaken during the current consultation period.
  It is important that members of the public are able easily and quickly to obtain information about identity cards from a dedicated UK Government website. Therefore a new website domain has been registered (www.identitycards.gov.uk) and a new website created that contains official publications about identity cards. This will be updated with additional information as the national identity cards scheme progresses. Currently, there is a section about the consultation which invites individuals to comment on the draft legislation through a dedicated e-mail address.
  Media handling strategies have been developed to make the best use of press and broadcast opportunities for engaging with the general public about identity cards.
  The 'essential information' leaflet which is sent out with all new passports has been updated by the UK Passport Service to confirm that, subject to legislation, the passport will become part of a future family of national identity cards.
  A public awareness campaign will be developed to support the roll out of the first identity cards from 2007–08.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to pilot data sharing powers in advance of the introduction of identity cards. [170324]

  Mr. Browne
  "Identity Cards: The Next Steps" (CM 6020) published in November 2003 made it clear that applications for one of the family of identity cards will require checks to be made against other databases, held by the public or private sector, in order to help establish that an application for a card is genuine. This followed recommendations on identity verification included in the Cabinet Office study on Identity Fraud, published in July 2002.

  The data-sharing gateways which may be approved by Parliament in clause 11 of the draft Identity Cards Bill will only be used when processing applications for an identity card or for related purposes (for example, issuing a replacement) to ensure that the person who applies to register is the person he or she claims to be. These powers do not confer any general right to share data for wider purposes.

  In order to allow for testing of the identity cards scheme in advance of the first cards being issued, these data sharing powers could be piloted but it is not possible to give further detail at this stage as detailed work on implementation of an identity cards scheme is not at the stage where we can be definitive about these timings. Use of the powers on a pilot basis would require Parliament's consent.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to procure(a) ID cards and (b) ID card technology from firms within the UK. [170408]

  Mr. Browne
  Government policy requires that all procurement must be transparent and non-discriminatory, and that contracts must be awarded on a value-for-money
  777W
  basis. Any requirement for services or goods above certain value thresholds, which will include those in support of the identity cards programme, must be advertised across the European Union.

  We have been discussing technical options with Intellect, the UK information technology, telecommunications and electronics industry trade body, for the past two years. We hope that UK industry will rise to the challenge and opportunity that the identity cards programme brings.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what biometric information he intends to store on(a) passports and (b) driving licences; and what databases will be established to store such information centrally. [170816]

  Mr. Browne
  The United Kingdom Passport Service is planning to implement the facial recognition image biometric in the British Passport book from 2005. This facial biometric will be stored on the passport database. There are as yet no firm plans for driving licences to include biometric information although the driving licence database already stores digital photographs.

  The passport and driving licence may be designated as ID cards under the draft Identity Cards Bill. In which case these documents may include additional biometrics, which would be stored on the new National Identity Register. However, no final decisions have yet been taken on which biometric or biometrics the identity cards scheme will use. The draft Identity Cards Bill allows for fingerprints and other forms of biometric information such as iris images to be recorded.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an individual will have the right to see all the information contained on his or her entry in the National Identity Register under proposals in the draft Identity Cards Bill. [170817]

  Mr. Browne
  Clause 3 (1) of the draft Identity Cards Bill published on 26 April sets clear limits for the information that could be held on the National Identity Register. Schedule 1 lists the categories of information that may be held on the Register.

  Individuals registered on the identity cards scheme would have subject access rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. In addition the Government will investigate whether it would be possible for a cardholder to use his card securely to access his own record to avoid the usual authorisation process and cost involved in applying for subject access. The Government will have to be satisfied that this could be achieved without compromising personal information, for example that another person could not use a stolen card to view another person's record on the National Identity Register.

  Clause 14 (4) excludes information held in Schedule 1, paragraph 9 (records relating to disclosure of an entry) from being disclosed unless the Secretary of State deems it appropriate.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time equivalent staff 778W
  were employed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each year since 1997; and what the total payroll costs were. [170374]

  Mr. Browne
  The table shows the full-time equivalent of staff employed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in each year since 1997 and pay costs for the same period.

  Staffing numbers

  Total pay costs

  1997–98

  5,372

  136,784,988

  1998–99

  14,705

  134,391,253

  1999–2000

  15,976

  145,498,131

  2000–01

  7,523

  193,600,000

  2001–02

  9,640

  272,484,211

  2002–03

  11,186

  337,121,813

  2003–04

  13,716

  2—

  1Year end figure.

  2Pay costs for 2003–04 have not yet been finalised.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons applications under the European Communities Association Agreements are now sent directly to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate rather than via local embassies. [166554]

  Mr. Browne
  This matter is covered by the investigation which Mr. Ken Sutton is undertaking of the operation of the European Communities Association Agreements (ECAA) scheme for Bulgaria and Romania. I do not wish to pre-empt the investigation by commenting on the issues before it is completed.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the legal costs, to date, of representing the Government(a) before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in connection with (i) proceedings under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 and (ii) in respect of removal of nationality under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and (b) in any subsequent appeals; and if he will make a statement. [168223]

  Mr. Browne
  A total of £1,287,414.42 has been spent on representing the Government in proceedings under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and £35,038.71 in proceedings relating to the deprivation of nationality under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. These costs include both Counsels' and the Treasury Solicitor's fees.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the right of appeal by the Home Secretary against decisions by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in cases involving national security. [169810]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]: This is a matter which is kept under review. We introduced an amendment to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Bill during Lords' Committee Stage, which creates a right of appeal on a point of law in respect of bail decisions by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) in cases involving a person detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. This mirrors the existing right of appeal in

  779W
  respect of SIAC determinations where a person has appealed against the decision to certify them as a suspected international terrorist.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend his powers to remove nationality and indefinite leave to remain to ensure that action can be taken without undue delay caused by the appeal process. [169812]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]: Experience so far does not suggest that it is the appeals process itself which causes delay. I am reviewing the situation to see what lessons we can learn and how we might speed up the holding of appeals. I have no current plans to amend the legislation.

  Immigration Minister
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he was first informed of the issues raised in the letter of 4 March 2003 from the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. [166560]

  Mr. Browne
  This matter is covered by the investigation which Mr. Ken Sutton is undertaking of the operation of the European Communities Association Agreements (ECAA) scheme for Bulgaria and Romania. I do not wish to pre-empt the investigation by commenting on the issues before it is completed.

  Immigration Summit
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the persons and organisations invited to his Immigration Summit. [169889]

  Mr. Browne
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 29 April 2004,Official Report, columns 1224–25W.

  Iraqi Asylum Seekers
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has had from(a) the United Nations and (b) other international organisations over the consequences of returning Iraqi asylum seekers in the UK to Iraq; what his response has been; and if he will make a statement. [169146]

  Mr. Browne
  We keep in close contact with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other relevant organisations. We agree with UNHCR's view that voluntary return is preferable to enforced return, but believe that enforced return to stable areas of Iraq is justifiable.

  We are currently facilitating the return of those who wish to go home through the International Organisation for Migration. We have also reached an agreement with the Coalition Provisional Authority to begin enforced returns to Iraq. We are working to finalise the practicalities of the enforced returns programme, which we will implement as soon as the necessary arrangements are in place.

  There is clearly a difficult position in those parts of Iraq most affected by insurgencies, but we do not accept
  780W
  this is the case in all areas. Returns will be taken forward on a case by case basis and we will only return to particular areas assessed as sufficiently stable, where we are satisfied that the individual concerned will not be at risk. The situation is kept under constant review and we are still working with the coalition authorities, to return those who are not at risk of persecution and do not need humanitarian protection.

  New Workers Registration Scheme
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who will operate the New Workers Registration Scheme; [161408]

  (2) what (a) budgetary and (b) staffing resources are to be allocated to the New Workers Registration Scheme; [161409]

  (3) when the New Workers Registration Scheme will commence operations; [161410]

  (4) what target is to be set concerning the average time for the processing of work registration applications; [161411]

  (5) whether specific arrangements are to be made for Scotland under the New Workers Registration Scheme. [161412]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 15 March 2004]: The Worker Registration Scheme, announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his statement to the House on 23 February 2004, Official Report, columns 23–25, will be administered by the Home Office through its Work Permits (UK) operation in Sheffield. A dedicated team of 42 staff is being deployed initially to administer the scheme, the resources for which will form part of the WP (UK) budget for 2004–05.

  The Worker Registration Scheme has been operational since 1 May and applications have been accepted from this date onwards. Further guidance for applicants, including the application form and guidance, are available on the "Working in the UK" website (www.workingintheuk.gov.uk).

  My hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) indicated to the House on 2 March 2004, Official Report, columns 877–80, that the Worker Registration Team will aim to process 80 per cent. of applications within 24 hours of receipt, following payment clearance. Incomplete applications will take longer to process.

  Citizens of the new member states (with the exception of Malta and Cyprus) who take up employment in Scotland will need to apply to register with the Home Office when they start a job, in the same way as those taking up employment in the rest of the UK. Employers in Scotland will be required to satisfy themselves that accession country nationals in their employment have received registration under the scheme.

  North London Mosque
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support the Charity Commissioners propose to offer to the trustees of the
  781W
  North London Mosque to ensure that it operates within the law on its re-opening; and if he will make a statement. [169793]

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

  Offender Management
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the post of(a) Head of Human Relations and (b) Head of Standards in the National Offender Management Service will be advertised. [168461]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office uses external recruitment when there is a shortage of the necessary skills and knowledge to fill the vacancy. These posts will not be advertised. They are being filled by existing Home Office staff on level transfer and on their existing salaries.

  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he will ensure that the National Offender Management Service reduces the prison population. [167516]

  Paul Goggins
  The National Offender Management Service will ensure the more effective management of offenders as well as better targeting and co-ordination of custodial and community sentences. As a result we intend to maintain the prison population at a stable level of around 80,000 by 2009. Without these reforms, the latest estimates indicate that the prison population may otherwise increase to 93,000 by that date.

  Population under sentence of open prisons—England and wales

  As at 30 June

  Less than 12 months

  Percentage

  12 months to less than or equal to four years

  Percentage

  4 years and over

  Percentage

  1994

  2,017

  48.4

  1,261

  30.3

  887

  21.3

  1995

  1,489

  36.2

  1,697

  413

  922

  22.4

  1996

  1,244

  28.3

  2,150

  48.9

  1,000

  22.8

  1997

  1,279

  26.9

  2,388

  50.2

  1,086

  22.8

  1998

  1,125

  24.2

  2,263

  48.7

  1,256

  27.0

  1999

  732

  77.7

  1,884

  45.4

  1,530

  36.9

  2000

  635

  16.0

  1,755

  44.3

  1,569

  39.6

  2001

  586

  15.0

  1,730

  44.4

  1,583

  40.6

  2002

  625

  15.0

  1,728

  41.4

  1,823

  43.7

  2003

  624

  13.0

  1,790

  37.3

  2,382

  49.7

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Woking on 10 March 2004, refs(a) 161619 and (b) 161620. [164270]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 29 March 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 28 April 2004, Official Report, columns 1097W and 1102W respectively.

  Open Prisons
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the occupancy rate was for open prisons in each of the last 10 years. [169085]

  Paul Goggins
  The average population, average certified normal accommodation and occupancy rate of open prisons in each of the last 10 years is given in the table.

  Average population of open prisons and average C.N.A. England and Wales, 30 June

  Average population

  Average C.A.N.

  Occupancy rate (percentage)

  1994

  4,205

  4,829

  87.1

  1995

  3,948

  4,666

  84.6

  1996

  4,408

  4,884

  90.3

  1997

  4,765

  5,112

  93.2

  1998

  4,650

  5,082

  91.5

  1999

  4,155

  5,089

  81.6

  2000

  3,969

  4,813

  82.5

  2001

  3,910

  4,592

  85.1

  2002

  4,431

  4,852

  91.3

  2003

  4,812

  5,302

  90.8

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of prisoners serving(a) under 12 months, (b) 12 months to under four years and (c) four years or over completed part or all of their sentence in an open prison in each of the last 10 years. [169090]

  Paul Goggins
  Information on the number of prisoners serving(a) under 12 months, (b) 12 months to under four years and (c) four years or over who completed part or all of their sentence in an open prison is not available.

  The number of prisoners serving sentences in the relevant bands in an open prison on 30 June in each of the last 10 years is given in the table.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will provide an answer to the questions reference(a) 161078 and (b) 161079 on steps to control websites encouraging or promoting suicide. [169012]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 27 April 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 26 April 2004, Official Report, column 765W.

  Parole
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who had been sentenced to more than 10 years have been recalled during each of the last 48 months; and what the reasons for recall were. [168023]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of prisoners who had been sentenced to determinate sentences of 10 years or more who have been recalled is given in the table.

  Prisoners with sentences of 10 years or more recalled by month of recall and reason for recall

  All

  Not known

  Further offences

  Being out of touch

  Hostel—failure to reside

  Other

  2000

  April

  6

  0

  0

  3

  0

  3

  May

  8

  0

  4

  1

  1

  2

  June

  3

  0

  1

  1

  0

  1

  July

  5

  0

  2

  0

  1

  2

  August

  6

  0

  2

  2

  0

  2

  September

  6

  0

  3

  2

  I

  0

  October

  9

  0

  5

  0

  1

  3

  November

  4

  0

  1

  0

  1

  2

  December

  2

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2001

  January

  6

  1

  4

  0

  1

  0

  February

  8

  0

  2

  2

  2

  2

  March

  5

  0

  2

  0

  1

  2

  April

  5

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  May

  4

  0

  0

  3

  0

  1

  June

  2

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  July

  6

  0

  2

  3

  0

  1

  August

  5

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  September

  5

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  October

  5

  0

  1

  1

  0

  3

  November

  5

  0

  4

  0

  0

  1

  December

  4

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  2002

  January

  5

  0

  1

  0

  1

  3

  February

  6

  0

  3

  1

  0

  2

  March

  6

  0

  2

  1

  2

  1

  April

  8

  0

  1

  1

  0

  6

  May

  4

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  June

  7

  0

  1

  2

  0

  4

  July

  8

  1

  2

  2

  1

  2

  August

  8

  0

  6

  1

  1

  0

  September

  4

  0

  3

  0

  0

  1

  October

  5

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  November

  7

  1

  3

  0

  1

  2

  December

  6

  0

  5

  0

  0

  1

  2003

  January

  10

  1

  7

  2

  0

  0

  February

  5

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

  March

  13

  0

  5

  3

  2

  3

  April

  7

  0

  2

  2

  2

  1

  May

  7

  2

  2

  0

  2

  1

  June

  7

  0

  1

  3

  0

  3

  July

  11

  1

  3

  5

  0

  2

  August

  6

  0

  2

  1

  0

  3

  September

  12

  2

  5

  2

  1

  2

  October

  7

  1

  3

  0

  0

  3

  November

  7

  0

  2

  2

  0

  3

  December

  11

  0

  7

  3

  1

  0

  2004

  January

  14

  0

  4

  4

  4

  2

  February

  13

  1

  6

  3

  0

  3

  March

  14

  0

  7

  5

  0

  2

  Passport Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place 784W
  to ensure the trustworthiness of staff operating database systems, with particular reference to the UK Passport Service. [170527]

  Mr. Browne
  There are a number of mechanisms available to minimise the risk to databases operated by Government Departments and Agencies from staff who might not be trustworthy.

  In the case of the UK Passport Service (UKPS), all prospective staff are subject to a number of pre-employment checks to confirm identity and entitlement to take employment. UKPS staff are also subject to security clearance checks in accordance with the Prime Minister's statement on security vetting of 15 December 1994. These checks provide UKPS with an appropriate degree of assurance as to the integrity and trustworthiness of staff. The same arrangements apply to the employees of UKPS' private sector partners.

  In addition to pre-employment checks and security clearance for staff, all UKPS systems undergo formal risk assessment and are accredited in line with Government standards and Information Security Standard BS7799. This ensures that UKPS has in place management and technical systems to provide comprehensive auditing and accounting facilities to monitor all access to, and activity on, its databases.

  Piracy
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests were made on charges of piracy in the UK in 2003. [170058]

  Ms Blears
  Information collected centrally is based on persons arrested for 'notifiable' offences within main offence groups only, and as such it does not separately identify piracy offences in the "Other" offence group within which they fall.

  Prison Officers
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent consideration he has given to the awarding of a long-service medal to prison officers employed in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [162647]

  Paul Goggins
  There are no plans to introduce a Long Service Medal specifically for prison officers employed in prisons in England and Wales. Prison Officers, along with all other staff employed by the Prison Service, receive a 25 Year Long Service Award.

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners who had been sentenced for more than 10 years were(a) in Category C conditions and (b) in open conditions on (i) 31 March and (ii) 31 March in each of the last five years. [168027]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of prisoners sentenced to 10 years or more, including life sentence prisoners, that were in(a) Category C conditions and (b) open conditions on 31 March 2004 and 31 March in each of the previous four years is given in the table. Information for 31 March 1999 is not available and hence data has instead been provided for 30 June 1999.
  785W

  Prisoners sentenced to 10 years or more

  Category C conditions

  Open conditions

  2004

  2,879

  747

  2003

  1,660

  668

  2002

  1,890

  641

  2001

  1,748

  574

  2000

  1,472

  565

  1999

  1,515

  511

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are projected to be given a custodial sentence in each of the next 12 months. [168030]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of offenders sentenced to custody each month is not one of the totals contained within the prison population projections. Projections of the prison population under various sentencing scenarios, and the details of these scenarios, are published in the monthly Prison Population Brief.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of prisoners were reconvicted of subsequent offences having served a sentence(a) under 12 months, (b) 12 months to under four years and (c) four years or over in each of the last 10 years. [169091]

  Paul Goggins
  Figures for the number and percentage of prisoners reconvicted within two years of discharge from prison are given in Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 1997–2002. Table 9.3 shows reconviction rates for samples of discharged prisoners in that year. To make a full comparison of reconviction rates over time it is necessary to control for changes in the characteristics of discharged prisoners, such as age and previous criminal history, which are strongly associated with reconviction rates.

  Prisons
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the judgment in the case of Mr. David McGee; and what plans he has to amend prison regulations. [170403]

  Paul Goggins
  The Prison Service is considering the decision of the court in this case and whether any change to the Prison Act might be appropriate.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales Government about the use of Private Finance Initiative by North Wales police(a) for refurbishment and replacement of police stations and (b) generally. [170319]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: I met Welsh Assembly Minister Edwina Hart AM last year to discuss funding of Welsh police forces generally. My officials have also had discussions with their counterparts in the Assembly regarding Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes and more generally on Welsh police funding. North Wales police currently have one PFI scheme approved for the divisional HQ at St. Asaph,
  786W
  which is under construction. Another scheme put forward by the force is under consideration, jointly by the Welsh Assembly Government and the Home Office.

  Welsh PFI schemes need the approval of the Welsh Assembly Government, as they are responsible for providing the annual revenue grant on the service charge.

  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of Private Finance Initiative in relation to capital investment for use of modernising police stations in North Wales. [170320]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: The Government support the use of Private Finance to help deliver modern police facilities in England and Wales. One Private Finance Initiative (PFI) scheme has been approved for the divisional HQ at St. Asaph in North Wales and is under construction. A second scheme put forward by the North Wales Police is currently under consideration.

  All Welsh PFI schemes also need approval by the Welsh Assembly Government, which provides revenue grant on the annual service charges for approved schemes.

  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much each police force in England and Wales has spent through Private Finance Initiative(a) on refurbishment and replacement of police stations and (b) in total. [170322]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: The cost incurred by each police force in England and Wales on refurbishment and replacement of police stations through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is not held centrally.

  As a guide to the volume of PFI schemes, I list in the following table schemes for which grant support has been approved as at 1 April 2004:

  £ million

  Police authority

  PFI credits1

  Cleveland/Durham

  11.000

  Cumbria2

  7.500

  Derbyshire2

  3.774

  Derbyshire2

  23.917

  Dorset2

  24.300

  Dyfed-Powys2

  5.300

  Gloucestershire2

  26.200

  Kent2

  23.600

  Norfolk2

  36.300

  Northumbria

  1.881

  Nottinghamshire

  21.460

  Thames Valley2

  10.406

  Wiltshire

  3.053

  North Wales2

  19.623

  Cheshire2

  45.000

  Sussex

  39.250

  Greater Manchester2

  63.000

  Wiltshire

  23.979

  Total

  389.543

  1 PFI credits represent the capital element within the overall project. They form the basis of annual revenue grant support towards the unitary service charge payable by the police authority to the service operator.

  2Denotes schemes that include police stations.

  Public Sector Workers (Assaults)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on introducing an offence of assaulting a public sector worker in the course of their duty; and if he will make a statement. [169451]

  Paul Goggins
  Assaulting a public sector worker in the course of his or her duty is an extremely serious matter. Magistrates courts' guidelines emphasise that assault against "a victim serving the public" should be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. The Sentencing Guidelines Council will draft a new set of consolidated sentencing guidelines for use in all criminal courts. We anticipate this would similarly include references to whether the victim was at the time of the offence working with the public. We believe this is the right way to deal with such offences.

  The most recent representations we have received on introducing an offence of assaulting a public sector worker in the course of their duty was from the British Parking Association, who wanted a specific offence of assaulting a parking attendant.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people lost their driving licence as a consequence of speeding in each year since 1990. [169445]

  Caroline Flint
  Available information from 1990 to 2002, which has been taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, is given in the table.

  Number of persons disqualified1 from driving at all courts for speed limit offences2 England and Wales, 1990 to 2002

  Persons disqualified

  1990

  14,690

  1991

  14,858

  1992

  13,053

  1993

  9,658

  1994

  8,899

  1995

  9,223

  1996

  9,587

  1997

  10,061

  1998

  12,215

  1999

  12,050

  2000

  11,283

  2001

  11,510

  2002

  9,557

  1Excludes persons disqualified under s 35 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (penalty points system).

  2Offences under the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 and The Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

  Seasonal Agriculture Workers
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the suspension of the Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme in respect of students from Romania and Bulgaria; and when he expects to review the suspension. [170107]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]: On 30 March 2004, we announced a suspension on the processing of visa applications in Bulgaria and Romania while allegations of abuse of the immigration arrangements were investigated. On 13 April, the
  788W
  suspensions were partially lifted, except for applications under the managed migration entry routes, including the Seasonal Agricultural Workers' Scheme (SAWS).

  The investigation into the allegations is being conducted as quickly as possible.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on his Department's Sustainable Development Strategy. [172305]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Department's Sustainable Development Framework Project has been commissioned to develop, implement and manage a series of individual activities across the Home Office Group including the Prison Service. This project has been established to ensure the Department meets the environmental targets set out in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate. A review of existing initiatives and policies has been undertaken and a gap analysis produced to enable the development of individual work streams to address sustainable development targets. Progress against these individual work streams is being made and is monitored and reviewed regularly.

  We have also made significant progress towards sustainable development targets on reducing crime and the fear of crime, and increasing voluntary and community activity. The British Crime Survey (BCS) data shows that vehicle thefts fell by 38 per cent. and burglary by 29 per cent. between 1991 and 2002–03. Recorded crime fell by 23 per cent. and burglary in dwellings by 17 per cent. between 1990 and 2002–03 and that the fear of crime is now lower than the levels in the 2001 British Crime Survey. The number of people engaged in community participation has increased by more than 6 per cent. to 1.6 million since 2001.

  Sutton Inquiry
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will ensure that the inquiry and visit to Sofia by Mr. Ken Sutton of his Department into the Managed Migration scheme and related issues will take account of the impact that suspension of the issuing of visas will have on teachers appointed to schools in Essex and Thurrock; and if he will make a statement; [170027]

  (2) when he expects to receive the report by Mr. Ken Sutton into the Managed Migration scheme as it operates in Sofia; when teachers appointed to posts in Essex and Thurrock schools can expect consideration of their visa applications; and if he will make a statement. [170028]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 30 Apri12004]: We hope to receive Ken Sutton's report shortly. The length of the temporary suspension of the arrangements for those, in Sofia, seeking visas for managed migration schemes will be as short as possible. The impact on those wishing to seek entry to the UK legitimately under managed migration routes is a matter of regret. However, we consider that this temporary suspension was the right action in the circumstances and crucial to public confidence in the integrity of our immigration system.

  Workplace Crime
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to bring the victims of workplace crimes and their families into the remit of the Victims' Charter. [167497]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 28 April 2004]: A review of the Victim's Charter was completed in 2003. The Charter will be replaced by a statutory Code of Practice for victims, which is enabled by, and one of the key measures in, the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill currently before Parliament. The Code will place obligations on criminal justice agencies to provide specific services, within prescribed time scales, to victims of crime, irrespective of where the crime takes place.

  As part of the review, my officials had discussions with the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). HSE is further developing the existing arrangements for liaison with victims, and bereaved families, of work-related incidents so as to mirror, as far as resources and remit allow, the kinds of services the Code will deliver. However, as the Code's primary purpose is to set out the obligations of criminal justice agencies to victims of crime, the HSE, along with other organisations which have interactions with victims in a broader sense, was considered outside of its scope. My officials will remain in close touch with their counterparts in the HSE to ensure that best practice continues to be shared.

HEALTH

  Air Gun Injuries
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated for injuries involving air guns in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [172443]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no central data on the total number of patients treated each year in the national health service for injuries involving air guns.

  Alzheimer's
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the research projects into Alzheimer's disease and related conditions funded by the Government, with the amounts of money provided in each case. [169890]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Details of research projects relating to Alzheimer's disease and related conditions, funded by, or of interest to, the national health service are recorded on the National Research Register (NRR) at www.update-software.com/national. The NRR currently contains details of over 200 on-going projects in this area, as well as a larger number of completed projects. These include projects commissioned by the Department.

  In 2002–03, the Medical Research Council (MRC) spent £6.6 million on research relevant to Alzheimer's and related conditions, such as general dementia, AIDS-related dementia, Pick's disease and Huntington's. Details of the research may be found on the MRC website at www.mrc.ac.uk.
  790W
  The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) also funds research relating to Alzheimer's and related conditions. Details of projects can be found on the EPSRC website at www.epsrc.ac.uk.

  Ambulances
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued to the ambulance service regarding the introduction of the Localizer or White Noise siren systems. [172645]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department for Health and the Department for Transport have not issued guidance to the ambulance service regarding the introduction of White Noise siren systems.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whose responsibility it is to take decisions on the specifications of ambulance sirens; and whether there is a published list of contact details of the persons responsible. [172646]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The decision of which ambulance siren to use is normally made by the fleet manager or transport manager at each national health service trust, in conjunction with the operations director.

  There is no published list of all the personnel responsible for making this decision.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what level the decision on the specifications of ambulance sirens was taken. [172647]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Decisions on the specifications of ambulance sirens are made by the local ambulance trusts.

  Anti-psychotic Drugs
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adverse reaction reports were received through the Yellow Card reporting system regarding(a) anti-psychotic drugs excluding atypicals and (b) atypical anti-psychotic drugs in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 200–02, (iii) 2002–03 and (iv) 2003–04; and how many prescriptions there were for each of these types of drugs in these years. [172419]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows the number of suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports received via the United Kingdom yellow card scheme regarding antipsychotic drugs (atypical and other antipsychotics) each year since 2000 together with the number of prescriptions dispensed in the community in England.

  Number of suspected ADR reports UK and number of prescriptions dispensed in the community (England)

  Antipsychotics (excluding atypicals)

  Atypical antipsychotics

  ADRs

  Prescriptions

  ADRs

  Prescriptions

  2000

  110

  3,790,273

  917

  1,149,450

  2001

  118

  2,875,980

  1100

  1,842,005

  2002

  100

  2,507,203

  1322

  2,471,345

  2003

  131

  2,251,279

  1689

  3,083,712

  It is important to note that a report of an adverse reaction does not necessarily mean that it was caused by

  791W
  the drug. Many factors have to be taken into account in assessing causal relationships including temporal association, the possible contribution of concomitant medication and the underlying disease. Other factors such as the time since a drug was first marketed, media interest or regulatory action can also influence the frequency of reporting. This means that reporting rates based on numbers of spontaneous reports and numbers of prescriptions are not true measures of the frequency of reactions or a firm basis for comparisons between drug substances or classes.

  Ashford Hospital
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what costs were incurred by his Department in changing the preferred bidder for the proposed diagnostic treatment centre at Ashford hospital; [171112]

  (2) what date it was decided to remove preferred bidder status from Mercury Healthcare for the provision of a diagnostic treatment centre at Ashford (Middlesex) hospital; and on what date this decision was communicated to the company. [171113]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department made a payment of approximately £1.1 million to Mercury Healthcare as a contribution towards their bid costs when they were deselected as the preferred bidder for the provision of the independent sector treatment centre 'spine' chain. Capio UK was subsequently appointed as preferred bidder for the chain. This switch has enabled the Department to secure a multi-million pound saving in the price of the contact. This significant saving is shared across the entire chain, including the proposed treatment centre at the Ashford hospital.

  The decision to remove the preferred bidder status from Mercury Healthcare was formally endorsed by the chain's board of national health service sponsors at its meeting on 27 January 2004. Following a period of negotiation with Mercury Healthcare, the national implementation team formally communicated this decision on 17 February 2004.

  Body Piercing/Tattooing
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the regulation of body piercing and tattooing establishments. [172030]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Local authorities have powers to regulate body piercing and tattooing businesses by requiring registration and observance of bylaws relating to the hygiene and cleanliness of premises, practitioners and equipment. In London, local authorities have powers under private legislation to require such businesses to be licensed and observe licensing conditions relating to a range of matters including the hygiene and cleanliness of the premises and equipment.

  It is an offence for a body piercing or tattooing business to operate without being registered or licensed or to breach bylaws or licensing conditions.

  The following statutory provisions are relevant to the regulation of body piercing and tattooing businesses:

  Local Government Act 2003

  London Local Authorities Act 2000

  London Local Authorities Act 1995

  792W

  London Local Authorities Act 1991

  Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982

  Greater London Council (General Powers Act) Act 1981

  Local authorities also have general enforcement powers under health and safety at work legislation.

  Caesarean Sections
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the health risks for(a) mother and (b) baby in delivery by Caesarean section. [172387]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued clinical guidelines on the use of caesarean section on 29 April. The guideline will be a useful tool to advise clinicians of best evidence on when to perform a caesarean section and when not to perform one. It also emphasises the appropriate care women and their babies need before, during and after the procedure. The guideline will also ensure that when considering a caesarean section, there should be a discussion on the benefits and risk of caesarean section compared with vaginal birth. We support the need for women to be offered evidence-based information and support to enable them to make informed choices about their care during birth.

  The National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) has been established to focus our efforts to improve patient safety in the national health service to promote an open and fair culture and to run a new national reporting and learning system for patient safety incidents including those involving mothers and their babies. The NPSA has begun a programme to roll out this system, launched at NPSA's conference on 25 February 2004, across NHS organisations during 2004.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many births were by Caesarean section in each maternity unit within Northumbria NHS Trust in 2003; and how many of these were(a) emergency and (b) planned procedures. [170421]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Estimated1 numbers of emergency and planned caesarean deliveries at North Tyneside General Hospital for 2002–03 are shown in the table.

  1Available data on delivery method from 1,552 records are grossed to known number of deliveries.

  Type of delivery

  Number

  Planned caesareans

  130

  Emergency caesareans

  193

  Total deliveries by caesarean

  323

  Total deliveries

  1,604

  Source:

  Hospital Episodes Statistics.

  Further information can be found at www.publications.doh.gov.uk/public.sb0410.htm.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms in Cumbria are still affected by the radioactive fall out from the 1986 Chernobyl accident. [170662]
  793W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) on 11 May 2004,Official Report, column 208W.

  Chest Pain Clinics
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rapid access chest pain clinics there are in the constituency of Huntingdon. [172633]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There is one rapid access chest pain clinic in the constituency of Huntingdon, at Hinchingbrooke Healthcare National Health Service Trust.

  Continence
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the number of children with continence problems assessed and managed by(a) school nurses, (b) general practitioners and (c) specialist nurses; [1171130]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of treatment and care received by children with continence conditions. [171132]

  Dr. Ladyman
  National health service primary care trusts (PCTs) are responsible for assessing and providing continence services. An assessment of service levels and of the numbers of children accessing services provided by school nurses, general practitioners and specialist nurses is not undertaken centrally. Guidance issued in 2000, "Good Practice in Continence Services", advises that each PCT should have specialist continence services in place, which provide an individual assessment of needs. PCTs are also encouraged to use the Modernisation Agency's publication, "Good practice in paediatric continence services—benchmarking in action", when ensuring quality provision.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) why the appropriation aid provision in the Estimates attributable to dental charges is reduced in 2004–05 to £229,550,000 from £491,000,000 in 2003–04; [168945]

  (2) why the provision in the Estimates for general dental services in 2004–05 is £245 million less than the provision in 2003–04. [168947]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 27 April 20041: The Government are committed to rebuilding and restoring national health service dentistry to improve the oral health of the nation. Overall expenditure on dental services, covering both general dental services (CDS) and personal dental services (PDS) and the associated income from dental charges, is expected to rise in 2004–05. However, in drawing up the estimate for this early stage in the year, provision for primary dental services has been split initially between section D (GDS) of the estimate and section A (aggregate provision for strategic health authority and primary care trust budgets and central allocations). This is because an
  794W
  increasing number of dental practices are converting from general dental practice contracts to PDS contracts. PDS contracts are funded from discretionary allocations delegates to PCTs, whereas GDS are funded from a national, non-discretionary budget.

  The balance of provision between the two sections of the estimate, and the associated charge income, will be adjusted at a supplementary estimate stage when the level of conversion from the GDS to the PDS over the coming 12 months is known. As a non-discretionary service, provision for the GDS will be adjusted to reflect the volume of dentistry delivered by general dental practitioners.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls to NHS Direct about access to an NHS dentists there were in each month since November 2001, broken down by(a) emergency, (b) urgent, (c) routine and (d) other calls for (i) England and (ii) each strategic health authority. [166118]

  Mr. Hutton
  Calls to NHS Direct about access to a National Health Service dentist in each month since November 2001 by emergency, urgent, routine and other are shown in the table.

  This information is not collated centrally for each strategic health authority.

  Number

  Total

  Emergency

  Urgent

  Routine

  Not known

  November 2001

  10,922

  1,143

  2,542

  6,546

  691

  December 2001

  10,023

  1,456

  3,274

  4,482

  811

  January 2002

  13,064

  1,605

  3,078

  7,124

  1,257

  February 2002

  10,316

  1,073

  2,902

  5,535

  806

  March 2002

  13,336

  1,061

  3,849

  6,742

  1,684

  April 2002

  15,472

  1,666

  4,241

  8,322

  1,243

  May 2002

  15,693

  1,506

  4,287

  8,361

  1,539

  June 2002

  14,726

  1,551

  4,598

  7,145

  1,432

  July 2002

  16,032

  1,539

  4,164

  8,827

  1,502

  August 2002

  15,797

  1,584

  4,646

  8,303

  1,264

  September 2002

  14,862

  1,387

  3,886

  8,229

  1,360

  October 2002

  15,912

  1,409

  3,457

  9,671

  1,375

  November 2002

  15,770

  1,456

  3,381

  9,505

  1,428

  December 2002

  14,629

  1,729

  4,308

  7,149

  1,443

  January 2003

  17,860

  1,614

  3,648

  10,952

  1,646

  February 2003

  13,576

  1,220

  3,075

  7,968

  1,313

  March 2003

  15,325

  1,416

  3,407

  9,093

  1,409

  April 2003

  15,863

  1,399

  3,510

  9,446

  1,508

  May 2003

  16,257

  1,471

  3,977

  9,307

  1,502

  June 2003

  17,404

  1,563

  3,823

  10,485

  1,533

  July 2003

  19,012

  1,581

  4,192

  10,723

  2,516

  August 2003

  18,016

  1,806

  4,201

  10,471

  1,538

  September 2003

  19,472

  1,708

  4,117

  11,350

  2,297

  October 2003

  19,829

  1,529

  3,733

  10,905

  3,662

  January 2004

  19,702

  1,462

  3,613

  12,726

  1,901

  February 2004

  18,258

  1,575

  3,653

  11,312

  1,718

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) dental practices and (b) dentists in Hampshire provide NHS treatment; how many hours of NHS dentistry they offer each (i) week and (ii) month; and if he will make a statement on the availability of NHS dental treatment in Hampshire. [168096]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The latest available information for Hampshire shows that there were 288 dental practices and 635 dentists providing national health service dental services in the general dental services or personal dental services.
  795W
  In the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic Health Authority there were 62 dentists working full or part-time in the Community Dental Service area (a whole time equivalent of 42) and, in the hospital dental service, there were 57 dentists (48 whole-time equivalent). Information on the number of practices is not available.

  Information is not available on the number of hours worked as general dental practitioners are independent contractors who are able to vary the amount of NHS dentistry they do and to vary then working week.

  We are currently taking forward major reforms of NHS dentistry through proposals in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. Under these proposals, primary care trusts (PCT) will have a duty to secure the provision of primary dental services. With these new responsibilities will go the £1.3 billion financial resources (2003–04) currently held centrally. The reforms will give a better deal for patients, for dentists and for the NHS.

  In the run up to the changes, we have provided new investment totalling £90 million to improve NHS dentistry. £59 million will support access, and 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.

  The PCTs in Hampshire are working closely with their strategic health authority (Hampshire and Isle of Wight) supported by the shadow special health authority (dentistry) to improve local dental access using their share of the access funds: some £1.64 million in 2004–05.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have left the NHS, in whole or in part, to work in the private sector in each year since 1997 in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough. [168940]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the total number of dentists leaving the general dental service (GDS) or personal dental service (PDS) is given in the table for primary care trust (PCT) areas in London; information is not collected by borough. Information is not available on the reason for leaving.

  Dentists can leave the national health service for a variety of reasons. These include retirements, short-term absence, leaving for other employment as well as dentists leaving the NHS dental services to practise wholly privately. Those working in the GDS can increase or reduce their NHS commitment, and this is not reflected in the figures.

  Few dentists leave the NHS altogether to practise privately. The Office of Fair Trading report, "The private dentistry market in the UK", stated that only 210 practices are totally private in the United Kingdom out of 11,000 practices in total.

  The number of NHS dentists in the Greater London area increased from 3,107 in September 1997 to 3,444 in September 2003.
  796W

  Table 1: Number of leavers from GDS and PDS

  Year ending 30 September

  Primary Care Trust

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Barking and Dagenham

  2

  1

  3

  3

  6

  1

  Barnet

  12

  13

  6

  13

  10

  11

  Bexley Care Trust

  2

  6

  6

  6

  7

  5

  Brent

  7

  10

  4

  7

  11

  11

  Bromley

  13

  2

  9

  7

  8

  9

  Camden

  17

  14

  13

  12

  23

  11

  City and Hackney

  9

  5

  9

  6

  9

  4

  Croydon

  17

  13

  9

  13

  20

  5

  Ealing

  10

  13

  32

  7

  21

  1

  Enfield

  10

  10

  8

  8

  4

  10

  Greenwich

  4

  6

  7

  7

  5

  4

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4

  3

  10

  9

  19

  2

  Haringey

  8

  3

  11

  13

  9

  8

  Harrow

  2

  6

  7

  4

  7

  2

  Havering

  3

  5

  5

  5

  7

  7

  Hillingdon

  6

  9

  5

  9

  11

  8

  Hounslow

  6

  3

  14

  13

  14

  2

  Islington

  7

  7

  12

  9

  12

  14

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10

  2

  6

  5

  7

  11

  Kingston

  1

  4

  7

  8

  7

  2

  Lambeth

  12

  21

  8

  14

  14

  5

  Lewisham

  3

  13

  9

  9

  16

  5

  Newham

  5

  5

  5

  9

  6

  6

  Redbridge

  5

  5

  7

  9

  13

  9

  Richmond and Twickenham

  3

  6

  9

  10

  6

  6

  Southwark

  4

  10

  6

  13

  6

  6

  Sutton and Merton

  9

  8

  12

  9

  17

  11

  Tower Hamlets

  4

  6

  5

  4

  7

  5

  Waltham Forest

  7

  2

  2

  5

  5

  6

  Wandsworth

  19

  10

  16

  17

  19

  25

  Westminster

  13

  26

  12

  24

  21

  19

  Greater London PCTs

  234

  247

  274

  287

  347

  231

  Note:

  Information is not available on the number of dentists who have partially left the NHS. Dentists in the GDS and PDS are mainly self-employed and are free to vary the amount of NHS work that they do.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the availability of NHS dentists in(a) Plympton, (b) Plymstock and (c) South West Devon; and if he will make a statement; [169397]

  (2) what steps he intends to take to increase the number of NHS dentists in South West Devon. [169398]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]: The number of dental undergraduates is increasing and we are seeking to attract new graduates into national health service dentistry, to bring back returners to practice and to recruit overseas dentists. At a local level, the whole of the South West Peninsula Strategic Health Authority area has been identified as an "Options for Change" field site and dentists are increasingly opting for the new ways of working that personal dental services allows. A total of 18 practices across the South West Peninsula, including two in Plymouth, have now adopted local contracts with their primary care trusts under "Options for Change".

  Mr. Challen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the trend has been in the number of NHS dentistry patients in each year since 1997 in Morley and Rothwell. [169410]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested for Leeds Health Authority (HA) and South Leeds Primary Care Trust (PCT), which covers Morley and Rothwell, is shown in the tables.
  797W

  General Dental Service: children and adult registration list sizes and registration rates at 30 September 1977 to 2001—Leeds HA

  Number of registrations

  Registration rate (percentage)

  Adult

  Child

  Total

  Adult

  Child

  Total

  1997

  304,406

  111,899

  416,305

  55

  68

  58

  1998

  273,722

  104,724

  378,446

  50

  64

  53

  1999

  269,879

  104,494

  374,373

  49

  64

  52

  2000

  269,905

  104,420

  374,325

  49

  65

  53

  2001

  266,807

  101,479

  368,286

  48

  63

  52

  General Dental Service: children and adult registration list sizes and registration rates at 30 September 2002 to 20031—South Leeds PCT

  Number of registrations

  Registration rule (percentage)

  Adult

  Child

  Total

  Adult

  Child

  Total

  2002

  56,298

  21,626

  77,924

  51

  61

  53

  2003

  55,172

  21,067

  76,239

  50

  59

  52

  1Following transfer from HAs to PCTs in 2002, results were published for PCTs rather than HAs.

  Notes:

  1. Based on the number of registrations at 30 September each year.

  2. Registration rates are based on a 15 month registration period. Following the change of registration rate from 24 months to 15 months September 1997 rates are affected.

  3. Population data are ONS mid year census estimates.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 255W, on dentists, if he will estimate the impact of the recent National Institute for Clinical Excellence draft guidance on the patient charge revenue from dental examinations. [169720]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence's (NICE) consultation document on dental recall intervals does not constitute its formal guidance: the recommendations are preliminary and may change after the consultation. Dentists will be expected to follow the final advice, which NICE is expected to publish later this year. This may mean that patients with low risk of disease are seen less frequently than now.

  We have also set up a working group under the chairmanship of Harry Cayton, the Department's director for patients and the public, to recommend a new patient charge system. This group has now reported and we are considering its recommendations. We hope to publish the report in due course.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people failed to attend NHS dentist appointments in(a) 2003–04 and (b) each of the preceding five years in (i) Worthing and (ii) England. [170630]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No information is available on the number of people failing to attend national health service dental appointments. Details of missed appointments are held only by the dentists and are not collected centrally.

  Early Retirement
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff in his Department took early retirement and at what total cost, in the last financial year. [171864]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  65 staff took early retirement in the Department in the financial year 2003–04 at a cost of £6,311,042, including annual compensation payments until staff reach normal retirement age.

  Eating Disorders
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local health authorities provide a specialist eating disorders service; where these services are located; and how many in-patient beds each facility had in each of the last five years. [172470]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested is not centrally available.

  Details of services available locally can be obtained from strategic health authorities.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact the Eating Disorders Association (Registered Charity No. 801343), which provides information on the services available across the country, at the following address.

  Eating Disorders Association

  103 Prince of Wales Road

  Norwich

  NR1 1DW

  Direct Line 0870 7703221

  Fax 01603 664915

  Email media@edauk.com

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department has made available for the specific treatment of eating disorders in each of the last five years. [172474]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In his 2002 Budget announcement, my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the largest sustained increase in funding of any five-year period in the history of the national health service. Over the years 2003–04 to 2007–08, these plans mean that expenditure on the NHS will increase on average by 7.4 per cent., a year over and above inflation. However in keeping with the philosophy of "Shifting the Balance of Power", primary care trusts are free to decide the allocation of resources locally.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he expects to(a) receive and (b) publish the results of the Newcastle university research study on the bioavailability of artificial and natural fluoride in drinking water; [172110]

  (2) when he expects to receive the Chief Medical and Chief Dental Officers' report (a) on the relevance and priority of the Medical Research Council report on water fluoridation and (b) setting out the alternatives available to residents of fluoridated areas who do not wish to drink fluoridated water; and if he will make a statement. [172112]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The report of the research study into the bioavailability of fluoride in naturally and artificially fluoridated drinking water will be placed in the Library when available. The results of the research will enable the Chief Medical and Chief Dental Officer to complete their advice which will cover both research requirements and the conduct of consultations on fluoridating local water supplies. All drinking water contains some fluoride. Strategic health authorities undertaking consultations on proposals to increase the
  799W
  fluoride content will need to take into account the views of any people who do not wish to drink fluoridated water.

  Foreign Health Professionals
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses trained abroad in each of the last three years. [172017]

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine, Community Health Services (HCHS) and General Medical Practitioners—All NHS Doctors by country of primary medical qualification: England, as at 30 September

  Number (Headcount)

  2001

  2002

  2003

  All Doctors

  100,289

  104,448

  109,964

  of which:

  Qualified within United Kingdom

  69,833

  71,284

  74,037

  Qualified within the rest of the European Economic Area

  4,829

  5,097

  5,379

  Qualified Elsewhere

  22,095

  24,413

  26,785

  Unknown1

  3,532

  3,654

  3,763

  HCHS medical and dental staff2

  68,484

  72,168

  76,400

  Of which:

  Qualified within United Kingdom

  43,831

  45,017

  46,890

  Qualified within the rest of the European Economic Area

  3,574

  3,741

  3,932

  Qualified Elsewhere

  17,547

  19,756

  21,815

  Unknown1

  3,532

  3,654

  3,763

  General Medical Practitioner3

  31,805

  32,280

  33,564

  Of which:

  Qualified within United Kingdom

  26,002

  26,267

  27,147

  Qualified within the rest of the European Economic Area

  1,255

  1,356

  1,447

  Qualified Elsewhere

  4,548

  4,657

  4,970

  1Information about country of qualification is derived from the General Medical Council. For staff in dental specialties, with a General Dental Council registration, the country of qualification is therefore unknown

  2Excludes Hospital Medical Hospital Practitioners and Hospital Medical Clinical Assistants, most of whom are GPs working part-time in hospitals

  3All practitioners include GMS Unrestricted Principals, PMS Contracted GPs, PMS Salaried GPs, Restricted Principals, Assistants, GP Registrars, Salaried Doctors (Para 52 SPA), PMS Other and GP Retainers.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Department of Health General and Personal Medical Services Statistics

  Foundation Trusts
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of the regulator of NHS foundation trusts will be for each of the next three years. [171262]

  Mr. Hutton
  The provisional amount in parliamentary estimates that has been allocated to the office of the independent regulator for 2004–05 is £5 million. Negotiations on the actual amount of the budget for 2004–05 are nearing completion. The office of the independent regulator is currently classified by the Cabinet Office as an executive non-departmental public body of the Department, and therefore for future financial years the Department will allocate funds based on costed business plans provided by the chairman of the independent regulator each year for inclusion in the departmental vote.

  The chairman of the independent regulator is the accounting officer and is responsible for ensuring that the public funds for which he is responsible are properly managed and safeguarded, and are used in line with the regulator's statutory functions and responsibilities. This includes a duty to exercise functions effectively, efficiently and economically.
  800W
  Mr. Hutton
  The number of doctors employed in the national health service by country of qualification for each of the last three years is shown in the table.

  The Department does not collect information on the number of nurses employed in the NHS who trained abroad. The Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) holds information on the number of overseas nurses entering the register each year. This information can be found on the NMC website at www.nmc-uk.org.

  General Practitioners
  Ms. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into the most common reasons for people visiting their general practitioner; what the results were; and if he will make a statement. [168717]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not commission such research but studies of this kind are made by the Office of Health Economics.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner premises have been(a) replaced and (b) modernised in each year since 1997. [171592]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of general practitioner premises replaced and modernised in each year from 2000–01. This information was not collected prior to that date.

  GP premises

  Replaced

  Modernised

  2000–01

  163

  403

  2001–02

  174

  358

  2002–03

  132

  402

  2003–041

  105

  213

  Totals

  574

  1,376

  1Up to December 2003.

  Health Services
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on health in Bootle in each of the last seven years. [171482]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure per weighted head in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority (SHA) area, which includes the constituency of Bootle, has increased from £596.24 in 1997–98 to £1,103.34 in 2002–03 (the latest year available). This does not represent the total expenditure per head as an element of health expenditure cannot be identified by SHA area.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes he expects in the number of patients requiring health services in the constituency of Huntingdon over the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [172634]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Following the "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative, it is for primary care trusts (PCTs) in partnership with health authorities and other local stakeholders to plan and commission local services for their local populations.

  I understand that Huntingdonshire district council anticipates an increase in population from 158,000 in 2002 to 163,800 by 2011.
  802W
  Huntingdonshire PCT is working with its local partners to ensure that services meet the future needs of an increased population.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the benefits for residents of the constituency of Huntingdon of the Health Development Agency. [172638]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department has not required the Health Development Agency (HDA) to assess its effect separately at constituency level.

  Much of the East of England regional work of the HDA, which includes Huntingdon, is focussed on service delivery that supports the whole of the region's public health development, particularly around cancer, coronary heart disease and respiratory diseases, national healthy schools standards and the ageing population.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS staff working in Greater London hospitals, broken down by national health service trust, receive financial assistance with regard to(a) housing and (b) transportation. [170508]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Information on the number of healthcare workers who have benefited from Government assistance in purchasing their own homes under the Starter Home Initiative scheme by the end of March 2004 broken down by London national health service trust is collected and is contained in the following table.

  SHI Completions 2001–02 to 2003–04

  Number of Units

  Employer name

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Total completions by end March 2004

  Barking and Dagenham Primary Care Trust

  —

  1

  4

  5

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS trust

  —

  5

  21

  26

  Barts and the London NHS trust

  —

  7

  58

  65

  Chingford, Wanstead and Woodford Primary Care Trust City and

  Hackney Primary Care Trust

  —

  6

  14

  110

  East London and the City Mental Health NHS Trust

  —

  13

  17

  30

  Havering Primary Care Trust

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Homerton Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  7

  28

  35

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  5

  15

  20

  Newham Primary Care Trust

  —

  5

  13

  18

  North East London Mental Health NHS Trust

  —

  3

  10

  13

  Redbridge Primary Care Trust

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Tower Hamlets Primary Care Trust

  —

  4

  11

  15

  Walthamstow, Leyton and Leytonstone Primary Care Trust

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  7

  12

  19

  Total NE London

  0

  63

  201

  264

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  4

  33

  37

  Barnet Primary Care Trust

  —

  2

  12

  14

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health NHS Trust

  —

  3

  7

  10

  Camden and Islington Community Health Services NHS Trust

  —

  8

  10

  18

  Camden and Islington Mental Health NHS Trust

  —

  7

  29

  36

  Enfield Primary Care Trust

  1

  8

  9

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

  —

  28

  42

  70

  Haringev Primary Care Trust

  —

  5

  10

  15

  Moorfieids Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  —

  11

  11

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  —

  16

  16

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  —

  14

  39

  53

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  1

  13

  14

  Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust

  —

  —

  2

  2

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  35

  56

  91

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  4

  12

  16

  Total NC London

  0

  112

  300

  412

  803W

  SHI Completions 2001–02 to 2003–04

  Number of Units

  Employer name

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Total completions by end March 2004

  Brent

  4

  4

  Kensington Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust

  —

  24

  29

  53

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  33

  46

  80

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  10

  16

  26

  Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  2

  2

  4

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  9

  16

  25

  Hillingdon Primary Care Trust

  —

  1

  4

  5

  Hounslow Primary Care NHS Trust

  —

  1

  13

  14

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  16

  28

  44

  Parkside Health NHS Trust (Hammersmith and Fulham PCT)

  1

  2

  15

  18

  Riverside Community Healthcare NHS Trust (H and F PCT)

  —

  3

  3

  6

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

  —

  10

  17

  27

  St. Mary's Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  17

  25

  42

  The Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  1

  49

  57

  107

  West London Mental Health NHS Trust

  —

  —

  19

  19

  West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  7

  10

  17

  Total NW London

  3

  184

  304

  491

  Bexley Primary Care Trust

  1

  3

  4

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  —

  7

  12

  19

  Bromley Primary Care Trust

  —

  2

  2

  4

  Community Health South London NHS Trust

  —

  6

  14

  20

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  3

  11

  14

  Greenwich Primary Care Trust

  —

  2

  2

  4

  Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  30

  54

  84

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  21

  47

  68

  London Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  —

  34

  43

  77

  Oxleas NHS Trust

  —

  1

  13

  14

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust

  —

  2

  5

  7

  South London and Maudsley NHS Trust

  1

  37

  45

  83

  The Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  12

  13

  25

  Total SE London

  1

  158

  264

  423

  Croydon and Surrey Downs Community Health NHS Trust Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  —

  11

  212

  313

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  4

  11

  15

  Kingston PCT

  —

  1

  1

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  7

  16

  23

  South West London and St. George's Mental Health NHS Trust

  —

  15

  23

  38

  South West London Community NHS Trust

  —

  4

  17

  21

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  26

  37

  63

  Teddington, Twickenham and Hamptons Primary Care Trust

  —

  2

  2

  4

  The Royal Marsden NHS Trust

  2

  10

  14

  26

  Total SW London

  2

  71

  134

  207

  Total

  6

  588

  1,203

  1,797

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of MRSA have been identified in hospitals within Greater London, broken down by national health service trust, in each year since 1997; [170509]

  (2) what percentage of patients within hospitals in Greater London, broken down by national health service trust, are infected with MRSA; [170510]

  (3) what percentage of NHS staff within hospitals in Greater London, broken down by national health service trust, are infected with MRSA. [170511]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on cases by individual Trust from 1997 is not available. The tables show data available from the mandatory methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) blood stream (bacteraemia) infections surveillance system that started 804W
  in April 2001. Information on National Health Service staff is not available, but MRSA rarely infects healthy people such as healthcare staff.

  Reported MRSA bacteraemias and rates by acute NHS Trust (April 2001 Mar 2002)

  London region

  Total MRSA

  MRSA Rate per 1,000 bed days

  Trust Name

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust

  92

  0.19

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  62

  0.18

  Barts and the London NHS Trust

  62

  0.17

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  37

  0.19

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  36

  0.21

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  40

  0.29

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  84

  0.31

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

  7

  0.09

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  114

  0.31

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  89

  0.27

  805W

  Reported MRSA bacteraemias and rates by acute NHS Trust (April 2001 Mar 2002)

  London region

  Total MRSA

  MRSA Rate per 1,000 bed days

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  33

  0.15

  Homerton Hospital NHS Trust

  14

  0.09

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  92

  0.30

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  23

  0.12

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  54

  0.29

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  39

  0.16

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0.00

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

  25

  0.17

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  45

  0.28

  North West London Hospitals NHS Trust

  59

  0.21

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust

  18

  0.12

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust

  30

  0.23

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

  9

  0.07

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  122

  0.43

  Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust

  6

  0.09

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  2

  0.04

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  115

  0.38

  St. Mary's NHS Trust

  64

  0.30

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  94

  0.36

  West Middlesex University NHS Trust

  32

  0.23

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  45

  0.18

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  27

  0.18

  MRSA reported bacteraemias and rates by acute NHS Trust (April 2002 to March 2003)

  London region

  Total MRSA

  MRSA rate per 1,000 bed days

  Trust Name

  Barking, Havering and Redbridge Hospitals NHS Trust

  77

  0.16

  Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust

  94

  0.27

  Barts and the London NHS Trust

  74

  0.21

  Bromley Hospitals NHS Trust

  32

  0.17

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust

  32

  0.19

  Ealing Hospital NHS Trust

  38

  0.28

  Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust

  72

  0.26

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

  13

  0.17

  Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust

  154

  0.42

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  115

  0.34

  Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust

  36

  0.17

  Homerton Hospital NHS Trust

  19

  0.13

  King's College Hospital NHS Trust

  108

  0.35

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  42

  0.23

  Lewisham Hospital NHS Trust

  45

  0.24

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  48

  0.20

  Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust

  0

  0.00

  Newham Healthcare NHS Trust

  33

  0.23

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  48

  0.30

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital

  35

  0.23

  Queen Mary's Sidcup NHS Trust

  32

  0.24

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

  9

  0.07

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  101

  0.35

  Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Trust

  7

  0.10

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS Trust

  6

  0.13

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  75

  0.25

  St. Mary's NHS Trust

  72

  0.33

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  84

  0.32

  West Middlesex University NHS Trust

  41

  0.30

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  43

  0.18

  Whittington Hospital NHS Trust

  30

  0.20

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in South Ribble are receiving drug treatment. [171657]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 2000–01, there were a total of 2,874 people receiving drug treatment in the area covered by the drug action team for Lancashire. This is 806W
  the latest available data. Data broken down by drug action team for 2001–02 and 2002–03 has not yet been finalised and published.
  Source:
  DH Statistics.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in South Ribble in each of the last seven years. [171273]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on(a) heart disease and (b) cancer care in South Ribble in each of the last five years. [171669]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected centrally. Allocations of funding for particular treatments are matters for local primary care trusts.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on health in South Ribble in each of the last five years. [171674]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure per weighted head in the Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority (SHA) area, which includes the constituency of South Ribble, has increased from £600.03 in 1997–98 to £1,173.57 in 2002–03 (the latest year available). This does not represent the total expenditure per head, as an element of health expenditure cannot be identified by SHA area.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of elective admission to Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust in the past three years. [172014]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Data on the levels of elective admission to Taunton and Somerset National Health Service Trust in the past three years is shown in the table.

  In year elective admission episodes for Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  Number

  2000–01

  31,329

  2001–02

  31,385

  2002–03

  31,907

  Notes:

  In-year admissions

  An in-year admission is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider, excluding admissions beginning before 1 April at the start of the data year. Periods of care ongoing at the end of the data year (unfinished admission episodes) are included. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  Ungrossed Data

  Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  807W
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) therapists and (b) scientists were located in Taunton in each of the last three years. [172016]

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Taunton Deane PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  13

  14

  Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust

  418

  421

  432

  454

  384

  377

  410

  n/a = not applicable.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rapid access chest pain clinics there are in Taunton. [172019]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There is one rapid access chest pain clinic in Taunton, based at the Musgrove Park Hospital, part of the Taunton and Somerset national health service trust.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public funding has been spent on health in West Lancashire in each of the last seven years. [171550]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: The information is not available in the format requested. Expenditure per weighted head in the Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority (SHA) area, which includes the constituency of West

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff in each specified organisation as at 30 September each specified year

  Headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  488

  506

  516

  528

  619

  587

  624

  Ashton, Leigh and Wigan PCT

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  311

  335

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust

  488

  506

  516

  528

  —

  —

  —

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  —

  615

  276

  289

  Wrightington Hospitals NHS Trust

  40

  44

  45

  47

  —

  —

  —

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the numbers of NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses in Workington constituency in each of the last seven years; [170706]

  (2) what changes there have been to NHS waiting list time in the last seven years for the residents of Workington constituency. [170708]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS waiting times for heart surgery in Workington constituency. [170710]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  808W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Requested information on the number of national health service therapists and scientists located in Taunton in each of the last three years is shown in the table.

  Lancashire, has increased from £600.03 in 1997–98 to £1,173.57 in 2002–03 (the latest year available). This does not represent the total expenditure per head as an element of health expenditure cannot be identified by SHA area.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in Wigan in each of the last seven years; and if he will make a statement. [169345]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) therapists and (b) scientists were located in Wigan in each of the last seven years. [169346]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Coronary heart disease waiting time: West Cumbria Primary Care Trust

  Year/quarter

  Patients waiting over nine months

  2002–03

  1

  5

  2

  12

  3

  2

  4

  0

  2003–04

  1

  0

  2

  0

  3

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health form QF01.

  Hospices
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much of the £12 million announced on 26 December 2003 for palliative care will be available to hospices. [167052]
  809W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The additional £12 million investment over three years announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 26 December 2003 follows on from the commitment in the recent Command Paper "Building on the Best".

  This additional money is not intended for hospices. It is to be used to ensure that, by widening the pool of generalist staff, in primary care, in care homes and in hospitals, who are trained in meeting the needs of people nearing the end of their lives, patients—regardless of their diagnosis—will have access to high quality palliative care so that they will be able to be cared for and to die in a place of their choice.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many licensed fertility clinics have had their licences(a) suspended and (b) revoked by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in each year since 1991. [166910]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The number of licence suspensions and revocations for failure to comply with the provisions of either the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's code of practice or the conditions of the establishment's licence, since 1997, are shown in the table.

  Licences suspended or revoked by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority since 19971

  Year2

  Suspension

  Revocation

  1999

  —

  1

  2003

  31

  —

  2004

  1

  —

  1Figures do not include licences voluntarily given up by licensed establishments.

  2No licences were suspended or revoked in the years 1997, 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2002.

  3Suspension applied only to specified licensed activities, not the whole licence.

  Source:

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  Information for 1991 to 1996 is held on microfilmed records, by licensed establishment, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Intermediate Care
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of National Service Framework local implementation teams have reported that an intermediate care co-ordinator is in place; and if he will make a statement. [171021]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-regional Strategy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on proposals for increased funding to growth areas in South-east 810W
  England, as mentioned in paragraph 97 of the Cross-Government Statement (matters 1, 2, 3, 4) on the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy. [172171]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has given its backing to providing health service infrastructure to support the development of sustainable growth areas.

  As announced to Parliament, on 15 March 2004 the Department has agreed to provide an extra £20 million, per annum, of revenue funding in 2004–05 and 2005–06 to be allocated to primary care trusts (PCTs) and £20 million of capital resources in 2005–06 to be allocated to strategic health authorities.

  PCTs within the growth areas were notified of their additional 2004–05 at d 2005–06 revenue allocations on 25 March 2004.

  The Department has also agreed to give priority to Office of the Deputy Prime Minister growth areas for future local improvement finance trust schemes and to include a growth area adjustment for ODPM growth areas in the next round of PCT allocations.

  Morphine Sulphate
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the target date is for the availability of morphine sulphate by NHS prescription in each primary care trust area; in what areas it is already available; and when guidelines will be published on the prescription of morphine sulphate. [171928]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Morphine sulphate is available on national health service prescription and was prescribed in all primary care trust areas in 2003.

  Guidance on the prescribing of morphine sulphate is given in the British National Formulary, a copy of which is supplied to all NHS doctors and pharmacists. Advice on the use of morphine sulphate in specific medical conditions has also been published in the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletins, the MeReC Bulletins and in PRODIGY guidance for primary care, which are widely distributed free of charge to NHS professional staff.

  Mumps
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of teenagers in England who(a) are not inoculated against mumps and (b) have had only one of the two necessary doses. [167428]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not have data on the number of teenagers who either received only one dose of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine or no doses. Most older children and adolescents will naturally be immune from mumps infection. Seroprevalance data, this is data where antibody levels are measures in blood samples, suggests that around 20 per cent., may be unprotected against mumps.

  National Service Frameworks
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on progress towards the National Service Framework milestone for
  811W
  general practitioner practices diagnosing, treating and caring for older people with depression and dementia; [170615]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress towards the National Service Framework milestone for protocols across health and social care systems for the care and management of older people with mental health problems; [170616]

  (3) if he will make a statement on progress towards the National Service Framework milestone for strategic and operational plans to include the development of an integrated mental health service for older people. [170629]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department is monitoring progress towards the development of protocol driven, joined-up mental health services for older people. This is a "must do" target in the 2003–06 priorities and planning framework.

  All of the milestones relating to standard 7 of the national service framework are the responsibility of strategic health authorities to plan for and monitor progress towards, but we would expect the type of service mentioned to be part of an integrated service.

  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 integrated continence services across health and social care systems. [170620]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The responsibility for implementing this milestone and monitoring progress is the responsibility of strategic health authorities. Monitoring information on progress with this milestone is not collected centrally.

  NHS Beds
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS beds were available in Birkenhead in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [167646]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the average daily number of beds in acute wards in each national health service trust and England from 1996–97 to 2002–03 is available from the Department's website at www. performance.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/index.htm.

  Mr. Hendrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS beds were available in Preston in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [168104]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on beds is collected on a provider basis from national health service organisations and the latest data available is for the year 2002–03. Beds data for 2003–04 will be published later this year.

  Information about the relevant trusts has been placed in the Library.

  NHS Information Technology
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the end-user groups being consulted in the National Programme for Information Technology in the NHS. [R] [171823]
  812W
  Mr. Hutton
  Consultation has taken place with clinical representative groups, including the professional Royal Colleges, the General Medical Council, the British Medical Council and the NHS Confederation, all of whom have provided valuable input. As well as the national professional bodies and groups, the national programme for information technology (NPfIT) team has engaged closely with expert primary care practitioners, including practising general practitioners, who are there to represent and feedback issues with their professional colleagues.

  The national clinical advisory board (NCAB) has ensured that the wide-ranging clinical needs and requirements are reflected in the design of the NPfIT solutions and integrated into the ongoing plans of the programme. Their work covered a variety of care settings, from cancer care to out of hours care. Since the appointment of Aidan Halligan, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, as joint senior responsible owner and director general for NPfIT, plans are in hand to improve and review the formal arrangements for engaging with key stakeholders across the national health service. This will include a frontline support academy and wider patient groups and an announcement will be made later in summer.

  The NPfIT has to date hosted around 400 local events, engaging managers, clinicians, allied health professionals and IT staff. Over 21,000 individuals have been involved. A series of national and regional joint events with the NHS Confederation began on 10 May, aimed at speaking directly to the chief executives and board members who need to lead local implementation.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the dates of(a) past and (b) planned future meetings of the clinical consultation group to the National Programme for Information Technology in the NHS are. [R] [171824]

  Mr. Hutton
  Previous meetings of the national clinical advisory board were held on:2 October 2003.
  27 November 2003.
  15 January 2004.
  16 March 2004.
  13 May 2004.

  The Department issued a press notice on 30 April 2004 to outline the plans to continue and improve engagement with patient and national health service stakeholders in order to support the implementation of the national programme for information technology (NPfIT). This follows on from the appointment of Aidan Halligan, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, as joint senior responsible owner and director general for NpfIT, who now has responsibility for leading on the preparations and planning for implementation across the NHS.

  The first step has been to set up a new frontline support academy for clinicians. The formal arrangements for engaging with key groups are also being reviewed and an announcement will be made later in the summer.
  813W
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the estimated cost is of training(a) clinical staff and (b) non-clinical staff to use the information systems developed by the National Programme for Information Technology in the NHS. [R] [171826]

  Mr. Hutton
  Training plans are still evolving as is to be expected when approaching a phased programme of implementation and roll out of new applications, systems and services. The training requirements are not solely related to the national programme for information technology in the national health service in England (NPfIT) as general IT skills are now an everyday element for any public service and service based organisation. The European computer driving licence is helping to improve general skills across the NHS. The move to e-learning and development and the NHS University will both create more demand for computer and online skills and provide more channels and solutions to bring training to people.

  As we complete the more detailed plans for each geographical cluster and local service provider contract, we can map out the extent of IT support for clinical practice and patient care over the phased implementation of NPfIT. This will generate clearer training requirements and will enable us to consider the most appropriate ways of providing training and development and produce firmer costs.

  NHS Staff
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS whole-time equivalent(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in East Worthing and Shoreham in each of the last seven years. [169028]

  Ratio of applicants to pre-registration nursing and midwifery training courses to nursing and midwifery training commissions in England each year

  Diploma1

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Applicants

  18,732

  32,405

  34,953

  40,908

  33,864

  29,689

  Commissions

  16,120

  16,586

  17,383

  18,666

  19,704

  n/a

  n/a = Not available.

  1Applicant and commissions data are not directly comparable as the NMAS applications cycle runs for longer than the commissioning cycle, 1997–98 applicants data is therefore compared with 1998–99 commissions data and a direct ratio is not applicable

  Source:

  Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service Department of Health Quarterly Monitoring Reports its Degree.

  Degree

  1997–98

  1998–89

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Applicants to commissions ratio

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  Applicants

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5,357

  6,126

  6,541

  Commissions

  521

  1,569

  2,121

  2,638

  3,104

  3,252

  n/a = Not available.

  Source:

  University and Colleges Admission Service Department of Health Quarterly Monitoring Reports

  Osteoporosis
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of primary care trusts have a fully integrated falls and osteoporosis service as set out in the National Service Framework for Older People. [172548]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean
  814W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is not available for the area requested. However, the number of whole time equivalent doctors and nurses within Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authority area, broken down by trust, has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in Wirral, South in each of the last seven years. [172685]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which years since 1997 applications for nurse training places from suitably qualified applicants have exceeded the number of places available; and if he will make a statement. [171822]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available. Information on the number of applicants to pre-registration nursing and midwifery training commissions and the number of training commissions available each year is shown in the tables.

  The national health service recruitment campaign was launched on 1 March to raise the profile of careers in the NHS and encourage new entrants into training and the Government is increasing the number of training places for nurses and midwives. Between 1997–98 and 2002–03, the number of pre-registration nursing and midwifery training commissions has increased by 6,417, or 39 per cent., with a further increase forecast in 2003–04.

  (Diana Organ), on 11 May 2004, Official Report, column 319W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the question from the hon. Member for Westbury, reference 159700, tabled on 5 March, concerning Government information on dentist training numbers. [172174]
  815W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 178W.

  Patients Forums
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken by the Commission for Public Patient Involvement to ensure that(a) residents and (b) patients can find the names of members of local patients' forums. [172522]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Any member of the public can contact their local patients' forum through the forum support organisations (FSO); their details are on the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health website at www.cppih.org.

  Names of individual members are made available to the primary care trust and national health service trust that the patients' forum is working with, in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998 requirements.

  Individual members' names are not currently widely available to the public for technical reasons linked to the Data Protection Act. The Commission is, however, working with all forums to enable wide availability of members' names.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pharmacy and general practitioner prescribing projects are operating; how many people they cover; and what assessment he has made of their(a) influence on the numbers of people seeking treatment and (b) impact on the level of crime. [168722]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not centrally collect numbers of general practitioner prescribing projects.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the numbers of patients who fail to get prescriptions dispensed because of the charges. [165410]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of prescription items dispensed in the community is recorded centrally but no information is held centrally about the number of items prescribed. We have not, therefore, made any

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): dental staff within the Orthodontics and Prosthodontics—England1

  Orthodontics

  December

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2003

  All staff

  509

  501

  504

  513

  506

  508

  522

  n/a

  Of which:

  Consultant

  153

  153

  157

  161

  154

  161

  178

  176

  Doctors in training

  110

  120

  117

  101

  115

  130

  118

  n/a

  n/a = Not applicable.

  1Data at 30 September 1997 to 2003 and 31 December 2003.

  Note:

  December 2003 data has been taken from the mini census which collected consultants only.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  816W
  assessment of the number of items which might be prescribed but not dispensed. However, in 2002 only 14 per cent. of prescriptions dispensed in the community attracted a charge.

  Prisoners
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what alternative therapeutic environments are available to treat women who are sent to prison who are mentally ill. [172610]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Specialist services for people with mental health problems who come into contact with the criminal justice system are provided by multidisciplinary teams working in in-patient settings and in the community. The Department supports a range of police and court diversion and liaison schemes that enable the early diversion of such people to specialist mental health services. The courts have a number of psychiatric disposals available to them, ranging from a hospital order requiring detention in a psychiatric hospital to probation order with a condition requiring an offender to have psychiatric treatment. In addition, women prisoners assessed as needing in-patient treatment for mental disorder may be transferred to hospital.

  Prosthetics/Orthodontics
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to train more people in(a) prosthetics and (b) orthodontics. [172396]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of training places in prosthetics and orthodontics has increased from 28 to 30 between 1996–97 and 2002–03 and the workforce review team annually reviews the need for increases in training for all the allied health professions.

  Information on the number of consultants and doctors in training in orthodontics is shown in the table. The Department has centrally funded two more training posts in orthodontics in 2004–05, bringing the total training posts in place to 31. The number of dentists electing to train in specialties like orthodontics is related to the number of undergraduates training as dentists relative to the demand for dental care. We have recently completed the first review of the dental workforce since 1987 and will shortly be announcing the results including the implications for the intake of undergraduates to dental schools in England.

  Provigil (Modafinil)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions of provigil (modafinil) have been made for children in each of the last five years. [172586]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: In each of the last five years, it is estimated that under 1,000 prescription items of modafinil were dispensed in the community to children.

  Rheumatological/Musculoskeletal Conditions
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice and guidance is provided as part of the expert patients programme to patients with musculoskeletal conditions. [171932]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The expert patients programme (EPP) provides generic, lay-led, group based training for people in the self management of their long term condition. The programme is aimed at a wide range of people from different long term conditions and age groups, geographical location and ethnicity. The EPP is delivered locally by a network of trainers and volunteer tutors with long term conditions.

  The EPP is a generic course and teaches five core self-management skills: problem solving; decision making; resource utilisation; developing effective partnerships with healthcare providers and taking action. The programme offers a tool-kit of fundamental techniques that patients can undertake to improve the quality of their life living with a long-term condition.

  The course enables patients to develop their communication skills, manage their emotions, manage daily activities, interact with the healthcare system, find health resources, plan for the future, understand exercising and healthy eating, and manage fatigue, sleep, pain, anger and depression.

  No specific medical advice is given to people with musculoskeletal conditions, the course aims to develop confidence and self control and does not concentrate on the physiological symptoms of the disease.

  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many extended scope physiotherapists are working in the NHS; and what steps are being taken to increase this number. [171934]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not collected separately on the number of extended scope physiotherapists employed in the national health service. As at September 2003, there were 17,922 physiotherapists employed in the NHS, an increase of 3,679 or 26 per cent., since 1997.

  The Government have implemented a range of measures to recruit more health care professionals, including physiotherapists. These include improving pay and conditions, encouraging the NHS to become a better, more flexible and diverse employer, increasing training, investing in child care and continuing professional development, attracting back returners and running national and international recruitment campaigns.

  School Nurses
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to increase the number of school nurses. [170370]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available on the number of school nurses employed in the national health service. The Government collected information on the school nursing workforce in the September 2003 non-medical workforce census but this information was incomplete. Reliable information will be available from the September 2004 workforce census.

  School nurses are largely employed by primary care trusts (PCTs), and it is for PCTs and care trusts to continue to assess the level of need for school nurses in the context of wider initiatives which impact on the delivery of health services to school age children. These include a review of the nursing, midwifery and health visiting contribution to vulnerable children and young people by the Chief Nursing Officer, the development of the national service framework for children and the work arising from the green paper on children including the development of a workforce strategy covering a range of staff working with children and young people.

  Sexually-transmitted Infections
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the percentage changes were, broken down by(a) age and (b) sex for rates of (i) conception and (ii) sexually transmitted infections in teenagers for each of the last five years in the North West London Health Authority. [167997]

  Mr. Hutton
  Conception data, numbers, rates and percentage changes, for the years 1997–2001 (latest data available) for North West London Strategic Health Authority is as shows in the table.

  Conceptions (numbers, rates, percentage change)—North West London Strategic Health Authority, 1997 to 2001

  Under 16

  16 to 19

  Number

  Rate1

  Percentage change

  Number

  Rate2

  Percentage change

  1997

  205

  7.9

  —

  2,861

  72.1

  —

  1998

  213

  7.9

  0.0

  2,969

  79.0

  +9.5

  1999

  222

  8.0

  +1.3

  2,933

  78.3

  −0.9

  2000

  237

  8.4

  +5.0

  2,950

  81.5

  +4.1

  2001

  238

  8.4

  0.0

  2,854

  75.1

  −7.9

  1Rate per 1,000 females aged 13 to 16.

  2Rate per 1,000 females aged 16 to 19.

  The following table shows the percentage change in the rate of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) shown for the four principal infections (gonorrhoea, chlamydia, herpes—first attack—and genital warts—first attack) for the combined age group 13 to 19-years-old by sex in North West London Health Authority for the last six years of complete data (1998–2002).

  Too few and sporadic cases of syphilis among teenagers 13 to 19 years were reported from GUM clinics in the North West London Health Authority over the last five years, making calculation of rates unreliable; thus these data are not provided.
  819W
  Note that these diagnoses represent only persons attending genito urinary medicine (GUM) clinics in the North West London Health Authority and not necessarily residents within that area Data on diagnoses

  Diagnoses, rates (per 100,000 of population) and rates change of selected STIs in teenagers age 13 to 19 years attending GUM Clinics in North West London STHA

  Males

  Females

  Diagnoses

  Rate

  Rate change (Percentage)

  Diagnoses

  Rate

  Rate change (Percentage)

  Uncomplicated genital chlamydia

  1997

  66

  88.9

  —

  296

  423.9

  —

  1998

  72

  96.9

  9.0

  342

  492.7

  16.2

  1999

  98

  133.7

  38.0

  387

  580.3

  17.8

  2000

  225

  303.0

  126.6

  709

  1,088.2

  87.5

  2001

  257

  363.1

  19.8

  675

  1,014.1

  −6.8

  2002

  252

  356.0

  −1.9

  630

  946.5

  −6.7

  Uncomplicated gonorrhoea

  1997

  105

  141.5

  —

  105

  150.4

  —

  1998

  80

  107.7

  −23.9

  105

  151.3

  0.6

  1999

  106

  144.6

  34.3

  147

  220.4

  45.7

  2000

  200

  269.3

  86.2

  230

  353.0

  60.2

  2001

  180

  254.3

  −5.6

  235

  353.0

  0.0

  2002

  189

  267.0

  5.0

  233

  350.0

  −0.9

  Genital herpes

  1997

  13

  17.5

  —

  97

  138.9

  —

  1998

  17

  22.9

  30.6

  109

  157.0

  13.0

  1999

  23

  31.4

  37.2

  92

  137.9

  —12.2

  2000

  32

  43.1

  37.3

  105

  161.2

  16.8

  2001

  28

  39.6

  −8.2

  117

  175.8

  9.1

  2002

  25

  35.3

  −10.7

  83

  124.7

  −29.1

  Genital warts

  1997

  56

  75.5

  —

  217

  310.8

  —

  1998

  77

  103.6

  37.3

  213

  306.9

  −1.3

  1999

  79

  107.8

  4.0

  230

  344.9

  12.4

  2000

  97

  130.6

  21.2

  217

  333.1

  −3.4

  2001

  88

  124.3

  −4.8

  253

  380.1

  14.1

  2002

  94

  132.8

  6.8

  248

  372.6

  −2.0

  Total

  1997

  240

  323.4

  —

  715

  1,023.9

  —

  1998

  247

  332.4

  2.8

  769

  1,107.9

  8.2

  1999

  306

  417.5

  25.6

  857

  1,285.0

  16.0

  2000

  555

  747.3

  79.0

  1261

  1,935.4

  50.6

  2001

  553

  781.2

  4.5

  1280

  1,923.0

  −0.6

  2002

  561

  792.5

  1.4

  1194

  1,793.8

  −6.7

  Source:

  Health Protection Agency.

  Unified NHS Database
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to create a unified database of(a) health records and (b) users of NHS services; and if he will make a statement. [170334]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national programme for information technology in the national health service in England has been established to connect delivery of the NHS Plan with the capabilities of modern information technologies to support the delivery of fast, convenient and seamless services designed around the patient.

  Fundamental to this is the NHS care records service (NHS CRS) that will enable patient care information and records to be accessed at the point of need anywhere in England.
  820W
  made outside the GUM setting, such as in general practice, are not held centrally and not, therefore, included in these totals.

  Over time, the NHS CRS will provide all 50 million NHS patients with an individual electronic care record to summarise key treatment and episodes of care within either the health service or social care. Access to any personally identifiable information about patients will be subject to stringent access controls, confidentiality and security safeguards and will be fully compliant with the requirements of the Data Protection Act.

  Unused Medicines
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate for each year since 1997(a) the amount of medicines dispensed and never used in (i) England, (ii) each NHS region, (iii) each strategic health authority and (b) the cost of these medicines to the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [169704]

  Rosie Winterton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Waiting Lists
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of patients on(a) in-patient and (b) day case waiting lists was in each Greater London NHS Trust since 1997; and what the percentage change was in each year. [168936]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested for the national health service trusts within the five London strategic health authorities has been placed in the Library.

  Waiting times for first consultant out-patient appointment for suspected cancer following urgent GP referral

  Seen within 2 weeks

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage

  Number

  2000–01

  4

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  90.4

  75

  2000–01

  4

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  95.0

  19

  2001–02

  1

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  90.0

  81

  2001–02

  1

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  83.3

  5

  2001–02

  2

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  85.0

  68

  2001–02

  2

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  8

  2001–02

  3

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  93.5

  100

  2001–02

  3

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  3

  2001–02

  4

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  87.9

  80

  2001–02

  4

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  3

  2002–03

  1

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  88.0

  95

  2002–03

  1

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  83.3

  5

  2002–03

  2

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.4

  125

  2002–03

  2

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  2

  2002–03

  3

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  165

  2002–03

  3

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  85.7

  6

  2002–03

  4

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  135

  2002–03

  4

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  80.0

  4

  2003–04

  1

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  109

  2003–04

  1

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  75.0

  3

  2003–04

  2

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.2

  128

  2003–04

  2

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  5

  2003–04

  3

  Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  151

  2003–04

  3

  Christie Hospital NHS Trust

  100.0

  3

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on NHS waiting times for heart surgery in Manchester, Gorton. [167387]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In February 2004, no one waited more than nine months for a heart operation at Central Manchester and Manchester Children's Hospital National Health Service Trust. The total number of people waiting for a heart operation at Central Manchester and Manchester Children's Hospital NHS Trust was 257.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time was for non-urgent operations within the(a) Sunderland, (b) Easington, (c) Hartlepool and (d) Durham primary care trusts in the last year for which figures are available. [168306]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Primary care trust

  Finished admissions

  Time waited mean (days)

  5D9

  Hartlepool PCT

  9,185

  96

  5J8

  Durham Dales PCT

  6,082

  89

  5KC

  Durham and Chester-le-Street PCT

  10,371

  118

  5KD

  Easington PCT

  8,717

  105

  5KL

  Sunderland Teaching PCT

  22,164

  95

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of suspected cancer patients in Manchester, Gorton saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years. [167386]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Notes:

  1. A finished admission episode is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one health care 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. 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.

  3. Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e., the data is ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times are for hip replacements within the(a) Sunderland, (b) Easington, (c) Hartlepool and (d) Durham primary care trusts. [1608307]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  823W

  PCT—Primary care trust code

  Finished admissions

  Time waited mean (days)

  5D9

  Hartlepool PCT

  153

  145

  5J8

  Durham Dales PCT

  165

  237

  5KC

  Durham and Chester-le-Street PCT

  193

  247

  5KD

  Easington PCT

  149

  233

  5KL

  Sunderland Teaching PCT

  385

  293

  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. 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.

  3. The main operation is the first recorded operation in the HES data set and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode. It is appropriate to use main operation when looking at admission details, e.g. time waited, but the figures for "all operations count of episodes" give a more complete count of episodes with an operation.

  4. Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the(a) shortest, (b) longest and (c) medium waiting times were for first diagnostic appointments to consultant (i) neurologists, (ii) geriatricians and (iii) physicians for people suspected of having Parkinson's disease in of the last five years for which figures are available; [172578]

  (2) how many patients were in the latter stages of Parkinson's accessed hospice care in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [172579]
  824W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: The information requested is not collected centrally. However, the Department is driving forward a major programme of work to improve equality of access to all national health service treatment and care services. 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.

  The Department is developing a national service framework for long term conditions, which will focus on improving services for people with neurological conditions such as Parkinson's Disease. The Department has also commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to prepare guidelines for the diagnosis, management and treatment of Parkinson's disease in primary and secondary care. We expect that the guidelines will be published in spring 2006.

  Wanless Report
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what measures are being taken to ensure that the recommendations of the Derek Wanless Report are being implemented, with particular regard to the prevention of cardiac arrhythmias; [169270]

  (2) how he will ensure that the (a) measures to improve patient information access and (b) the expert patients programme will be applicable to sufferers of cardiac arrhythmias. [169273]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Wanless Report does not make any specific recommendations with regard to the prevention of cardiac arrhythmias. On 12 March 2004, the Government announced that a new national service framework chapter on arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death would be published within one year.

  An expert group will be formed to take this work forward.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fraud Law Reform
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  It is estimated that fraud currently costs the UK economy £14 billion a year. To equip law enforcement agencies to tackle the threat we face from fraud, the existing law needs to be modernised. The main problem is that the existing statutes focus on very specific types of fraudulent behaviour, so they do not effectively cover all the potential varieties of fraud and cannot keep pace with rapidly developing technology.

  The Government is today publishing a consultation paper on fraud law reform. Its proposals are based on those made by the Law Commission in 2002, following a reference made to them in 1998 by the then Home Secretary. In particular he asked the Law Commission to consider whether a general offence of fraud would improve the criminal law. The Commission concluded that it would help to make the law simpler and more easily understandable for juries, defendants and the general public and make the prosecution process more efficient and effective.

  The central proposal is that there should be a general offence of fraud which can be committed in three different ways: by false representation, by wrongfully failing to disclose information or by abuse of position. In each case the behaviour must be dishonest, and must intend to make a gain for the defendant or cause a loss to another. However the gain does not actually have to be obtained, as it does under the existing statutory offences.

  We also propose a new offence of 'obtaining services dishonestly', to close a current loophole regarding fraudulent use of machines. The current offence of obtaining services by deception does not cover, for example, giving false details to access data from the internet for which a charge is made. This is because a machine has no mind and so cannot be deceived.

  The consultation paper also seeks views on whether all behaviour which is currently prosecuted as conspiracy to defraud can be prosecuted under the proposed new law of fraud (or under other existing law) so that the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud can be repealed. It also seeks views on the possible extension of the existing offence of fraudulent trading, and on the creation of a new offence of possessing equipment to commit frauds. The proposals will cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  This legislative reform is only part of a wider set of current initiatives which will help tackle fraud. For its part the Government has:
  36WS
  set up the Assets Recovery Agency and implemented the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These will take the profit out of crime by increasing powers to find and recover money from those who benefit from and launder the proceeds of frauds and other crimes;
  agreed extra resources for the Serious Fraud Office and City of London Police to tackle fraud:
  included new procedures to deal with multiple offending in the current Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill;
  included proposals to ensure effective incentives for criminals who give evidence against their associates, which will help in fraud cases, in the White Paper "One Step Ahead", published on 29 March 2004:
  proposed new methods of tackling identity fraud in the White Paper on legislation on identity cards, published on 26 April 2004. The introduction of identity cards incorporating biometrics (such as finger or iris scans) will help people to identify themselves uniquely and protect their identity against fraud.

  Combating fraud requires vigilance from all and we very much welcome the measures that financial institutions and the retail industry have taken to protect credit cards by a chip-and-PIN system. That step has been found to cut card fraud dramatically in other countries.

  Cannabis Reclassification Campaign Evaluation
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  On 1 April the Opposition spokesman for Home Affairs, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden asked a parliamentary question regarding the evaluation of the effectiveness of the advertising campaign on the reclassification of cannabis.

  I replied that the report was being collated and it was expected to be placed in the Library. I can announce that the results of the evaluation are being placed in the Library today. I thought I would take this opportunity to summarise the findings and highlight the next steps the Government is taking with regard to emphasising the risks and harms of taking cannabis.

  The document 'Tracking the effectiveness of Advertising/Publicity for Reclassifying Cannabis from Class B to Class C' was produced by an independent research company, LVQ Research. It evaluated the Home Office cannabis campaign target under 18s which comprised of:
  Four weeks of radio advertising the message that cannabis remained illegal;
  The distribution of two leaflets: (1) Cannabis and the law, which provided clear and simple information on reclassification; and (2) Drugs and the law, which provided more general information about the law and penalties for Class A, B and C drugs;
  Press coverage in youth magazines.

  LVQ was commissioned to survey a representative sample of 14–17 year olds both before and after the advertising to measure the effectiveness of the campaign. The results were very positive and show that 93 per cent. of respondents were aware that cannabis is illegal which is a significant increase on pre-reclassification levels (88 per cent.); 81 per cent of respondents agreed that smoking cannabis can be harmful—again a significant increase on pre-reclassification levels (74 per cent.).
  37WS
  It is certainly encouraging to note that most young people are aware of the illegal status of cannabis and this information will continue to be communicated through the FRANK campaign along with the health effects and risks of the drug. It is no less important to highlight the dangers to health of taking cannabis as well as the legal issues. We are now embarking on a targeted campaign to ensure that cannabis users are fully aware of the dangers to physical and mental health cannabis poses and to provide avenues where they can reduce intake and stop taking cannabis at all.

  We will be producing information targeted at heavy and frequent users. Although that would traditionally be aimed at the 16–24 age group it could equally apply to older cannabis smokers in their thirties.

  It is important that anyone can access this information and so we are also producing an all purpose FRANK leaflet in the next few months for light and less frequent smokers aimed mainly at 14–17 but could also be applicable to students in higher education and for parents of occasional users.

  The final strand of the proposed education campaign is getting the message across about links with mental health. We are starting to work with relevant stakeholders to devise the appropriate messages and to agree the most effective means of getting them across, for example through mainstream mental health organisations and families of those with mental health problems.

  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs reported that there was no proven causal link between taking cannabis and developing mental health problems it is recognised that an existing mental health problem can certainly be worsened by taking the drug. So the Government message will be clear the only way to protect your physical and mental health from the damage of cannabis is not to smoke it.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq: Export Licence Applications
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a further licence to export military list goods to Iraq. The arms embargo against Iraq remains in place under United Nations Security Council resolution 1483 (2003), with the exception of arms and other related material required by the coalition provisional authority to serve the purposes of this and other related resolutions. As this includes promoting the development of free and fair media, Her Majesty's Government consider it appropriate to grant exemptions for the export of armoured vehicles for use by media organisations working in Iraq. Her Majesty's Government has included conditions for these licences, including a limit to the quantities. The export is consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. Future applications will continue to be assessed on a case by case basis against the UN embargo and consolidated criteria, taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Draft Criminal Defence Service Bill
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  ): My noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Secretary of State for the Department of Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, has today announced the publication of a draft Criminal Defence Service Bill and a consultation paper seeking views on a number of possible models for the delivery of a restructured criminal legal aid scheme. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  It has been the shared belief of this Government and previous Administrations that those found guilty of offences who can afford to pay their defence costs should be required to do so. This is right in principle and will ensure that a greater amount of finite legal aid funds can be targeted at the poor, the vulnerable and the victimised in line with the commitments set out in the DCA manifesto by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.

  The draft Bill contains two key proposals:
  reintroduction of a financial eligibility (means) test; and
  transfer of the authority to grant the right to publicly funded representation away from the courts and into the scope of the Legal Services Commission.

  My Department believes that, taken together, the two measures will bring a greater level of consistency and better control over grant as well as ensuring that those found guilty of offences pay where they are able to do so.

  The accompanying consultation paper discusses in more detail, and invites comments on, the implications of these changes and outlines a number of ways in which they might work in practice. The paper will be sent to the key opinion formers within the legal community, including the professions and the judiciaries and will be published on the DCA's website at www.dca.gov.uk/. Responses are requested by the 6 August.

  The Bill itself will also be simultaneously examined by the Constitutional Affairs Committee as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure and interested parties will have an opportunity to comment as part of that process.

TREASURY

  Customs and Excise
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey)
  The Chief Secretary and I have today presented to Parliament this year's spring departmental report for HM Customs and Excise (Cm 6224).

  The spring report provides an interim update on Customs' activities and sets out the department's priorities and expenditure plans for the coming year. This year it confirms strong growth in VAT receipts, which are more than £2.5 billion ahead of the Budget 2003 forecast—including an estimated £1 billion from our crackdown on "missing trader" VAT fraud. It reports continued success in tackling tobacco smuggling, and over £30 million of criminal assets seized. The spring report also outlines the major changes facing the department following the announcement of

  39WS
  plans to create a serious organised crime agency and a single revenue department—Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

  Alongside this update, the spring report marks a change in policy in relation to the publication of statistics of Customs' seizures. I have decided that Customs will include in their annual and spring reports summary seizure data in relation to those prohibitions and restrictions that they enforce at the frontier but which are not already included in the reports as part of updates on PSA priorities. Customs have not published this information in their annual reports since reporting was streamlined after 1999, but will do so in each spring and annual report from now on.

  There has been continuing interest in the number of seizures Customs make in the areas where they protect society, including particular interest in Customs' new anti-smuggling role on imported meat and other products of animal origin. Customs will therefore publish seizure information on:
  meat and other products of animal origin;
  articles seized under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES);
  plants and plant-based goods;
  pornography and paedophilia;
  firearms, offensive weapons and explosives;
  various other prohibited and restricted goods.

  The data published in this report show that, in the nine months from April to December 2003, Customs made 9,571 seizures of illegal meat and other animal products with a total weight in excess of 119 tonnes. In comparison, there were 2,053 seizures by all agencies involved in these controls in 2001–02, a figure that increased to 7,819 in 2002–03.

  Customs will continue to consider requests for further information in accordance with the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information". They will only withhold information under exemption 4 (law enforcement and legal proceedings) or exemption 7 (effective management and operations of public service) of that code where information would be of value to those who seek to circumvent customs controls or in the clearest cases of risk to the effective management of their operations.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Palestinian Authority
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  I am today announcing a £7 million initial UK contribution to the World Bank's public financial management reform trust fund to support the Palestinian Authority.

  The Palestinian Authority has been in fiscal crisis since late 2000. Lack of revenues due to economic collapse prevents it from delivering services effectively to the Palestinian people. In 2004 its total budget is $1.45 billion. Revenues are expected to be $800 million, leaving a financing gap of about $650 million. Donor budget support in 2003 was $270 million, a sharp fall from 2001 and 2002. The PA has large and growing debts to the private sector and commercial banks. This is an unsustainable situation, and a continued fiscal crisis
  40WS
  could lead to the termination of social and administrative services to the population, and poverty (already at over 60 per cent.) increasing further.

  At a meeting of the ad hoc liaison committee in December 2003, attended by the Palestinian Authority (PA), Israel, major donors to the PA and other Arab countries, the PA asked the World Bank to create a new mechanism through which donors could provide pooled contributions to support the PA's budget. The public financial management reform trust fund was approved by the World Bank's board on 22 April and launched on 27 April. The objectives of the reform fund are to mobilise additional donor resources in support of the PA budget, to harmonise donor assistance in exchange for a commonly agreed reform programme and to simplify procedures for the PA. Use of direct budget support also reflects World Bank analysis that this is the most efficient of all the emergency assistance instruments currently employed by donors, with substantial macroeconomic and welfare benefits.

  An important precondition for creation of the reform fund was a satisfactory assessment of the current financial management procedures of the PA. The World Bank has carried out a detailed country financial accountability assessment (CFAA), which found that major and highly creditable improvements in budgeting and fiscal transparency have been introduced during the tenure of the present Palestinian Finance Minister. Weaknesses in financial accountability remain, related in particular to the lack of adequate public financial statements, inadequate auditing and the undeveloped oversight role of the Palestinian Legislative Council. But the CFAA confirms that the current systems are adequate to justify World Bank budget support. It also identifies key actions needed to further improve the systems, and these have now been agreed with the PA as performance benchmarks for the reform fund. Disbursement of funding will be conditional on achievement of reform benchmarks. This is an approach successfully used by the EC in its recent bilateral provision of budget support to the PA.

  The use of donor funds provided to the PA through the reform fund will be carefully monitored. Prior conditions for the first disbursement, such as passage of a 2004 Budget law, and the payment of all security personnel salaries by direct bank transfer, have already been met. Funding will be disbursed in six-month tranches depending on progress with further reforms, such as revised external audit arrangements, containment of the wage bill, maintaining a minimum level of social sector expenditure, and full control of the Ministry of Finance over all PA procurement. World Bank staff will monitor the implementation of the benchmarked actions on a regular basis. Every quarter, the PA will prepare a progress report. Using these reports, the bank will lead quarterly technical and fiduciary supervision missions to review compliance with agreed prior actions and benchmarks, budget implementation and general economic and social developments. DFED will participate in these missions.

  In the event of the PA not meeting all benchmarks, the World Bank would assess the specific situation and consult contributing donors on whether a waiver were appropriate. Should no waiver be granted, the release of the next tranche of funding would be held back pending fulfilment of the benchmarks. The World Bank could

  41WS
  also, in consultation with contributing donors, suspend disbursements if the PA reversed already implemented policy actions, until remedial action were taken, donors have the option of bilaterally withdrawing their money from the reform fund at any time.

  In addition to the PA's own external auditing arrangements, an external auditor contracted by the World Bank will perform annual audits of the reform fund's deposit account at the PA Ministry of Finance. These audits will verify the extent to which the World Bank's requirements under the grant agreement are being met, and whether the PA's procedures are adequate to achieve this result.

  We expect several donors to contribute to the reform fund. Norway and Canada have already decided to do so. Other countries are considering contributions. The World Bank plans to contribute $20 million of its own alongside the fund. The EC has been providing budget support to the PA since 2000, and is likely to continue doing so. The IMF is involved in a technical capacity. The USA has been actively involved in the design of the fund, and will participate in its management. The G8 has urged the international community to increase and accelerate their assistance provided to the PA. We and other contributors will be urging other donors to give money to the reform fund. Arab states continue to be the biggest supporters of the PA's budget, although some may prefer to contribute outside the reform fund.

  DFID has thoroughly appraised a UK contribution to the reform fund, in line with our published policy on the provision of direct budget support. This policy reflects our commitments under Government accounting that aid should be properly accounted for, used for the intended purposes and represent value for money. When appraising budget support, we ensure the following:

  (i)a thorough evaluation of public financial management and accountability systems, and associated risks, has been carried out;

  (ii)the recipient government has a credible programme to improve standards of these systems;

  (iii)the potential developmental benefits justify the risk, taking account of any safeguards that can be put in place to buttress and develop these systems; and

  (iv)these assessments are explicitly recorded as part of the decision-making process to provide assistance.

  In the case of the Palestinian Authority, we share the World Bank's assessment that there is a significant fiduciary risk, but that a satisfactory programme of reforms is in place to reduce this risk. This level of risk is not unusual in countries where DFID provides budget support. I have judged that the developmental benefits of providing budget support, and the risks of not providing it, justify this fiduciary risk.

  In making this judgment I have also looked at the impact on poverty of PA spending. The PA does not have an internationally recognised poverty reduction strategy. But it has started to develop short-term planning frameworks to guide its own prioritisation. I share the judgment made by the International Development Committee in its report in February that, although unusual, given the current state of the Palestinian economy, "wage payment maintained by budget support is an effective method of emergency poverty alleviation". The PA Ministry of Planning is
  42WS
  beginning to develop a more comprehensive approach to poverty reduction. DFID will work with other donors to help them do this, alongside the provision of budget support.

  I have, of course, considered the many allegations made against the PA about diversion of funds. In particular, there have been accusations that budget support previously provided by the European Commission was used to finance terrorist activities. A EU independent anti-fraud investigation into these allegations has been going on for over a year and has not yet concluded. An inquiry by a European Parliament Working Group on budgetary assistance to the Palestinian Authority reported in March 2004, after a one-year investigation. The majority report concluded that "there is no conclusive evidence, to date, that the EU non-targeted direct budgetary support was used to finance illegal activities, including the financing of terrorism", and that "there is no evidence that EU budget support has not been fully transferred into the PA budget or that it was used outside the budget". It further concluded that budget support had "contributed to bring about concrete changes in the PA financial system and impacted on the PA reform process towards more transparency, accountability and good governance". Recommendations from the report have largely been addressed in the design of the World Bank reform fund, notably that "future budget support should be accompanied by clear, specific conditionalities subject to strict monitoring", and that "such conditionalities should be established in full co-operation and in close co-ordination with the other international donors."

  It has been suggested that aid to the PA should be conditional on progress with security sector reform, and other measures to reduce terrorism against Israeli citizens, such as action against incitement. We agree with the World Bank and other donors that at this stage it will be more effective to link disbursement of budget support to conditions related to financial management, budget allocation and accountability. The Government have made action on Palestinian security its highest diplomatic priority in our relations with the PA. We are also providing practical assistance to help them take this action. Particularly under current circumstances, we do not think an underfunded PA that risks not being able to pay salaries is in the interests of Israeli security. We have informed the Government of Israel of our decision to contribute. The Israeli Government have told us that they welcome international humanitarian and economic assistance to the Palestinians and support the World Bank reform fund, provided the money is properly spent and monitored.

  Contributing to the PA's budget is in line with the Government's strategy for supporting Palestinians. Our new Palestinian country assistance plan says we will work with partners to help end conflict and create a viable Palestinian state that will reduce poverty. The strategy has three aims:
  prospects for peace enhanced;
  more effective, accountable and inclusive Palestinian institutions and governance systems;
  and humanitarian and development assistance delivered more effectively.
  43WS
  Contributing to the reform fund will address all three outcomes. It will also address the Government's wider political objectives on the middle east peace process, by helping the PA to meet its roadmap commitments. Our initial contribution to the reform fund is for 2004. We will consider later this year, in light of monitoring of the PA's use of donor funds and their likely financing gap and spending plans for 2005, whether we should continue contributing.
  44WS
  I am placing in the Library of the House the World Bank's board paper describing the rationale for, and operational arrangements of, the reform fund, which includes as an annex the Palestinian Authority's statement of development policy and a matrix of further reform actions the PA is undertaking. I am also placing in the Library of the House copies of the finalised "Palestinian Country Assistance Plan".

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, before public business begins, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to undertake a ministerial visit to Chester on Friday, 21 May, when the House will sit? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Iraq Survey Group
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they expect the Iraq Survey Group to have completed its work by 30 June 2004.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government fully expect the work of the Iraq Survey Group in uncovering Iraq's intentions towards and programmes for weapons of mass destruction to continue beyond June, until all reasonable avenues of investigation have been explored.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, could the Minister expand on what he means by "all reasonable avenues" have been explored? It appears that the Iraq Survey Group is not fulfilling any meaningful function. Will he also explain whether the Government now believe that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and say whether they will publish all the findings that have so far come out since the resignation of the head of the Iraq Survey Group?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, a huge amount of information is being analysed at present. It is clear that the group's work is very far from complete. Noble Lords will recognise that the difficult security situation in Iraq has not been conducive to the group fulfilling its role as fully as it would have expected and hoped to do. Nevertheless, it is on course to continue its work and will, as I indicated in my original Answer, continue beyond June.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, following the Minister's response, will he confirm that the reason the survey group has found, and will find, no convincing evidence of weapons of mass destruction is because there was none to find?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, some very interesting material indeed is emerging about the intentions of the regime and the potential threats that it posed. We are not in a position to reach conclusions
508
on that at present. However, the group has uncovered substantial degrees of evidence of programmes for which Saddam Hussein's government were responsible. It is important that the group be given the opportunity to fulfil its remit, which is what it intends to do.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is it not curious that some Members of the House seem to believe that weapons of mass destruction programmes do not pose a threat?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend is right. The whole House will recognise not only that Saddam Hussein was capable of being brutal towards his own people but also that he clearly had ambitions as regards his regional role. There was direct evidence of that in the first Gulf War when he was restrained in relation to Kuwait. As my noble friend has indicated, Saddam Hussein clearly had ambitions and was prepared to pursue certain strategies, which would very much be against the interests of all in the Middle East and in the West, to help to fulfil those ambitions.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would the Minister consider it reasonable for noble Lords to ask him "to come off it"? Is he not fully aware that there are literally dozens of countries around the world today with programmes of all kinds of weapons of mass destruction? If we are to deal with them all, surely we shall have a bit of a problem.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is a problem, but we should take joy in the fact when we are able to restrain some who otherwise would have presented such a danger. I believe that we can take some satisfaction from the fact that Libya has withdrawn from a position that it had pursued for a number of years, as can the people of Iraq, and the wider world, from the destruction of the Saddam Hussein regime.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, do the Government still agree with a view expressed by the Prime Minister that the regime change by itself could never be an adequate justification for the invasion of Iraq?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as far as the Government are concerned, it was absolutely clear that the regime of Saddam Hussein, and his ambitions, presented a threat both to his own people and to the wider world. Therefore, it is also clear that whatever the difficulties—who would seek to underestimate the enormous difficulties that face the forces in Iraq at present?—the fact that Saddam Hussein's regime is no more is of conspicuous benefit to the Iraqi people.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that we did not go to war on the basis of the intentions that he mentioned in an earlier answer. nor did the Prime Minister mention ambitions? He

509
mentioned 45 minutes. Can the Minister say at what point the Government will accept that there are no weapons of mass destruction, nor were there any?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is too early to say that with the conviction indicated by the noble Baroness. That is not the position of the Iraq Survey Group. It has unearthed a welter of evidence about the malign intentions and capabilities of the regime. Therefore, within the prevailing security difficulties that the group faces at present, which we all hope will improve as a consequence of the transfer to the new arrangements at the end of June, it is absolutely right that it should be able to pursue its work with vigour and reach its conclusions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my memory serve me wrong or is it a fact that the Government went to war in Iraq on the basis that it had weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to British interests, particularly in Cyprus, and could be used in 45 minutes? Does not the noble Lord agree that that was wrong and that, in the light of what is happening in Iraq at present, it would be best if British troops were withdrawn?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is rash and bold for the noble Lord to suggest that the withdrawal of British troops would benefit the Iraqi people. It must he recognised that dissident forces in Iraq are constantly perpetrating outrages, not least the one this morning, which took the life of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council. We all regret the outcome of that horror and sympathise with Ezzedine Salim's family. However, there is a job of restoring security in Iraq. It is clear that British forces play their role in that at present and will need to do so until we can achieve new arrangements in which the Iraqi people will determine their own future. Even under those new arrangements, external assistance may well be needed until full Iraqi security capacity has been developed.

Sierra Leone
2.44 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso Lord St John of Bletso asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to assist in securing political and economic sustainable development in Sierra Leone.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the UK is the largest bilateral donor to Sierra Leone. We have set out our commitment to support Sierra Leone's long-term reconstruction and development in a 10-year memorandum of understanding under which we will provide up to £120 million over the first three years. This assistance takes the form of support for security sector reform, improved economic and political governance and
510
direct budgetary aid. In addition, UK forces are providing training and advice to the Sierra Leone armed forces.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for that extremely encouraging reply. Her Majesty's Government are to be congratulated on the pivotal role that our Armed Forces have played in restoring peace and stability in that country. Can the noble Baroness outline the drawdown schedule of the United Nations troops, British troops and military observers in the light of the fragility of peace in and along the borders with Liberia? How confident are Her Majesty's Government that the Royal Sierra Leone Military Forces and police are sufficiently trained and equipped to avert a resurrection of violence, whether it be through banditry or is organised?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that an agreement has been made to extend UNAMSIL's presence in Sierra Leone until 2005, so some 3,500 troops will remain until then. On our own contribution, through the British Military Advisory and Training Team we are giving advice to the Sierra Leone armed forces on security sector reform. The Sierra Leoneans are currently heading up a review on that, which we are assisting. We are confident that the training that we are giving with others in this area will mean that the security sector in Sierra Leone will be able to take on board over a period the considerable difficulties regarding the security environment in Sierra Leone.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can the Minister give us any idea of how much is being done to restore the infrastructure—roads, power and water—so that agricultural development can take place? One hopes that Sierra Leone will then become, if not exactly self-supporting, at least hopeful of being so. What is being done in that regard?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness touches on a very important point. Over 10 years of civil war the infrastructure was ruined. The World Bank and the European Union in particular have taken the lead in this area, which has included work on roads. I would be happy to send the noble Baroness further details on the specific projects supported by those two organisations.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, what help is being given to Sierra Leone to combat its growing health crisis, which has resulted from the increasing incidence of HIV/AIDS and in particular drug-resistant malaria?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, will know that health is one of the areas on which we have depended particularly on the work of civil society organisations such as Oxfam, Action Aid and Save the Children because the health infrastructure in Sierra Leone is so poor. The figures

511
for the percentage of those infected with the HIV/AIDS virus differ widely, partly because the data are so poor. We are very conscious that on some of the figures it looks as if Sierra Leone is at that jump-off point from where the infection rates could reach epidemic proportions. We are supporting civil society organisations and looking at ways in which we can support the Government of Sierra Leone themselves to put in place infrastructure to support health.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness confirm that the legitimate government now have full control over the diamond mines, and that child soldiers are being effectively rehabilitated?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in relation to full control of mines, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will know that the sanctions against Sierra Leone have been lifted, as Sierra Leone is now part of the Kimberly process. The percentage of legal exports of minerals has risen considerably, but we are still concerned that this may be only one-fifth or one-quarter of the actual exports from that country. This issue really needs to be tackled.
With respect to the issue of child soldiers, there is a concern about the high levels of unemployment of young people in Sierra Leone. The United States Government are working with some of the communities in those mineral areas, trying to build community development and promote employment in those areas, but we need to do a great deal more.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I declare an interest, as my sister was a medical missionary in Sierra Leone. and she worked for a good many years at the hospital in Segbwema, the Nixon Memorial Hospital. That hospital was almost destroyed and members of staff were murdered by the rebels. That hospital had provided great services to the local community. What has been done to restore the services of hospitals such as that in Segbwema in the rural areas of Sierra Leone?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the rural areas in Sierra Leone are particularly badly served. I said in response to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that health is one area where we face particular challenges. That remains the case with respect to hospitals. In rural communities, we have a difficult task in delivering health services. We do that through NGOs. On the specific hospital mentioned by the noble Lord, I will investigate and write to him.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that Sierra Leone is continuously tropically hot, that the people are divided and somewhat backward, and that it really will be a tremendous effort for this country to secure political and economic sustainable development there? We would need to have large forces, and it would be a considerable task.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right in that historically Sierra Leone has been divided. It went through 10 years of war. Since
512
peace was declared, we have seen national presidential elections, upcoming local elections this weekend, and the intervention by this country's military to help to ensure security in Sierra Leone, which was important at that point in time. There is no doubt that there are huge challenges ahead, but we remain confident that with the Sierra Leone Government putting poverty at the top of their agenda, and with the work that we and other donors are doing on security, we can help Sierra Leone through these difficult times.

Energy: Security of Supply
2.52 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the conclusion of the recent utilities report by PricewaterhouseCoopers that security of supply is now the leading strategic aspect of the power market.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government reaffirmed their commitment to the reliability of energy supplies delivered through the market as a key goal in their energy White Paper published in February 2003. We therefore share the report's view that it is essential that the right signals are being given to the market in relation to ensuring sufficient investment in the required infrastructure. We agree with the PricewaterhouseCoopers head of utilities when he said:
"A consistent and stable regulatory environment is required to make the sector more attractive to investors. Capital will only come with good rates of return".
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that in its report, PricewaterhouseCoopers drew attention to the fact that concern over security of supply had risen sharply in 2003, due on the one hand to the prospective withdrawal of aging plant, and on the other hand to the continued increase in electricity demand and a reluctance to invest in new capacity? Furthermore, is he aware that Dr Paul Golby, the chairman of Powergen, estimated that between £50 billion and £70 billion would need to be invested in the electricity sector in the next decade in order to achieve reliability and to cover demand growth? How is that to be achieved?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the survey is of senior executives around the world, and it actually has rather few specific comments about the UK scene. I think that the UK scene is slightly different; we are well ahead in the field of deregulation, and we have established a stable regulatory environment. Indeed, there were favourable comments in the report, as the noble Lord will have seen, about the National Grid, Transco, and its role in capacity. Of course, at the moment we do not need additional generating capacity. The margins for this year, this winter and

513
next winter are around 20 per cent, which is what it has been for the past 10 years. In due course, with a stable regulatory environment, we think that investment will come.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, how is the Government's policy of encouraging large parts of our country—some of the most remote and most beautiful parts—to be covered with windmills, which do not generate power when the wind does not blow, adding to the security of power supply in our country? Is it not the failure of the Government to show the courage to address the nuclear question that is at the root of these difficulties?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is the case, as has been explained many times, that there is more than one objective of our energy policy. There are cost considerations, security considerations and environmental considerations. Any energy policy must take account of these three objectives. Clearly, renewable energy is a key part of the environmental issue. As far as concerns the nuclear question, which we have covered in great detail on innumerable occasions in the past few weeks, it has emerged as clearly as ever that there is not a cheap source of nuclear energy readily available at this point.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is it not ironical that within days of the publication of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report to the effect that security of supply is now at the top of the list of priorities the Government should have announced that they are going to repeal Clause 1 of the Energy Bill in another place, where this House laid a firm duty on the Government to ensure security and integrity of the energy supply? It is not surprising that the Government are in a bit of a muddle, because the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that the clause was not necessary; and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, accused me of being Stalinist. They cannot both be right.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would never accuse the noble Lord of being Stalinist. As far as concerns this Question, we are not in disagreement about the central importance of security of supply. Indeed, that is stated in both the Electricity Act and the Gas Act. The phrasing of that requirement on the Government is what is in dispute. I am sure that the noble Lord will have seen from the newspapers that the industry is not at all enthusiastic about this amendment, because it thinks that it will make a radical change to the regulatory framework, which it does not want to see, because it wants to see a stable regulatory framework, which is exactly what this report is about.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the report deals largely with the concerns of the utility companies? Has he seen other parts of the report that deal with the concerns of customers and
514
consumers? The main concerns of consumers are service and price. These were identified as their leading concerns. Does my noble friend agree that the best way to deal with this is with a fully liberalised market?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in any sensible energy policy, there must be a balance between the interests of producers and those of customers. Clearly, you can get security of supply by simply having margins of capacity, as we have had sometimes in the past, of over 30 per cent. It is not clear that that is in the interests of consumers, and we have had to take steps through the New Electricity Trading Arrangements to ensure that there is not overcharging of consumers. On the other hand, that must be balanced with making certain that there is a proper flow of investment into the industry, which depends on there being proper returns on capital.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I ask the Minister to reconsider his reply to my noble friend Lord Forsyth. He said that we had discussed the nuclear industry in the past few weeks. We have discussed it, but we have not had any answers. One of the questions that have not been answered is whether or not nuclear power can be regarded as sustainable, renewable energy, as it is in parts of Canada.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, to be correct, the House has had the answers. There is disagreement about the nature of those answers, which is why they constantly get asked again. We have given the answers, and the position of nuclear energy is clear. With regard to CO2 emissions, nuclear energy is entirely beneficial to the environment, but other aspects of it, such as pollution and waste, are serious environmental hazards. We must take both considerations into account when looking at nuclear energy in the future.

Public Services: Gershon Review
3 p.m.
Baroness Noakes Baroness Noakes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making in implementing efficiency savings identified by the Gershon review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, in the Budget, we announced that the Government expected the whole public sector to deliver efficiencies of 2.5 per cent a year, over the three years of the 2004 spending review. Since the Budget, departments have worked with Sir Peter Gershon and others to develop efficiency proposals for consideration in the spending review. Agreed efficiency programmes will be announced alongside the spending review, and John Oughton, the chief executive of the Office of Government Commerce, has been asked to take overall responsibility for their implementation.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. He will recall that, in his interim report, Sir Peter Gershon identified savings of up to £15 billion. He also said that he would report again on what he thought departments could achieve by 26 April. Will the Minister say what the Office of Government Commerce or Sir Peter Gershon have reported as achievable savings? Will he commit to publishing that report?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Sir Peter Gershon referred to scope for efficiencies; he did not use the words "savings" or "waste" as such. He was referring in particular to savings that come about from improvements in information technology and from investment in skills. As I said in my Answer, the full agreed efficiency programmes will be announced alongside the spending review, not before.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, with regard to the Government's target of £20 billion savings over the next three years, how effective has the Government's e-government programme been in providing greater efficiencies? What assistance has been given to the Office of the e-Envoy to meet those ends?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Office of the e-Envoy has played a great part in securing the savings that have already been made, to which, I think, the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, was referring. In particular, the Office of Government Commerce has responsibility for taking forward issues that are still important, such as procurement, in information technology.
Lord Newby: My Lords, can the Minister confirm recent reports that, as part of the Gershon process, the Government are considering outsourcing certain functions of government to the Indian subcontinent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not conscious of that. Of course, consideration is always given to outsourcing, but I am not conscious of any particular proposal relating to the Indian subcontinent. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on that point, if I learn anything more.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, what part does improved productivity in the public services play in achieving the savings?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if we had a useful definition of productivity in the public service, it would, no doubt, play an important part. As the noble Lord knows from the discussions that we had on the matter last week, existing definitions of productivity in the public sector are not only wrong but perversely wrong and lead in the wrong direction. That is why the National Statistician has appointed Sir Tony Atkinson to consider the matter. When he reports, we can perhaps revisit the issue.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Deputy Chief Whip tell the House how and why the
516
headquarters staff of the Home Office have increased so much that they can no longer fit into the new headquarters in Marsham Street?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall ask the Deputy Chief Whip to answer that question when he is asked about the subject. It sounds to me as if there was a mistake in the provision, rather than a mistake in the staffing of the Home Office.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, without wishing to sound too disingenuous about the difference between savings and efficiency, can the Minister say how the Government became so inefficient as to create such scope for improvement in efficiency, as a result of the report?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that I had addressed that issue. The Office of Government Commerce has saved or produced efficiencies of something like £1.6 billion, since it was established in 2000. Some of that is a reduction in inefficiency, but a substantial part—perhaps the majority—is due to improvements in procurement. The improvements in procurement are an ongoing process that, I think, will never reach an end or achieve perfection.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one area of the public sector in which we have a useful definition is inflation? It appears that the public sector inflation rate is 7 per cent, which is miles higher than the overall inflation rate or the inflation rate in the private sector. Can the Minister explain how that is arrived at? What steps can be taken to curb that dangerous trend?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly cannot confirm those figures. The so-called figures for public sector inflation have exactly the same defects as the so-called definitions of public sector productivity to which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, referred. They are nonsense. There is nothing in them, and there is nothing to be learnt from them.

Higher Education Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that the I-louse do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 27 [Sections 22 to 26: supplementary provisions]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 57A:
Page 13, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) Student fees paid to relevant institutions pursuant to this Act shall in principle be additional to and not in replacement of state funding provided directly and indirectly for and in respect of students at such institutions which will be at an annual real level per student not less than that provided previously subject to exceptional macro-economic circumstances."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 57A, which would amend Clause 27, has been tabled by four university chancellors: the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, from the Conservative Benches; the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, from the Cross Benches; the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, from the Government Benches; and myself. The amendment would put into the Bill the principle of additionality.
The passage of the Bill, as I need hardly remind the Committee, has been marked by more intense debate and rebellion in the other place than, perhaps, any other measure since 1997. What has united all parties, including the rebels, is the vital importance of higher education and acceptance that the long-standing underfunding of higher education imperils its future quality, particularly as regards academic recruitment. That general conviction overrides other disagreements—all other disagreements—about student fees.
In opening the Second Reading debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, based her entire speech on the assumption that student fees would be an independent source of funding, additional to state funding. She was echoing the repeated assurances in that regard from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. She said:
"We must ensure that higher education has the funding and the independence to fulfil its many roles".
She referred to what she called,
"a history of underfunding, with a backlog of about £8 billion".
The noble Baroness went on to say:
"it is essential that that underfunding is addressed. That is why the Bill provides greater support to our higher education system".
She finished by saying:
"We estimate that it will raise about £1 billion a year in additional income".—[Official Report. 19/4/04; cols. 12–15.]
Nothing could possibly be clearer, so what could be the grounds for opposing an amendment that does no more than take the Government at their own word? So far as I am aware, the only argument advanced is that it would be a relative novelty. Governments, it is said, cannot or should not bind the future spending of their successors. But this is a very particular Bill with a very particular purpose and may be the exception that proves that convention.
In fact, the taxation provisions in every Finance Bill, for example, bind successor governments unless and until they legislate otherwise. That is precisely what I suggest the vast majority in Parliament want in this case. Surely it would be a deep-dyed farce if, after all
518
the heat and passion, the very foundation of this contentious Bill rested on a mere ministerial assurance. I say "mere" not to traduce the good intentions of Ministers, but because we all know from hard experience that times and Ministers change, as does government determination to stick by assurances given by other Ministers, let alone by other governments. In any event, assurances can be subject to argument and be diluted.
One current example of that is the lottery legislation. In introducing the original lottery Bill, Kenneth Baker, as he then was, assured the House of Commons of additionality, yet a few years later we had a different Minister in a different government justifying lottery revenue being devoted in large sums to sustaining the core funding of the NHS by being used to buy replacement X-ray machines, scanners and heaven knows what.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. It is that experience which has led me strongly to support his amendment.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have never had a more welcome interjection.
We must not have that here. This amendment is the only way which its movers can think of to ensure that. Without the amendment or something like it, one could find in 2006 policy arguments being adduced—after the next election—to justify a reduction in state spending, which in turn could have the effect of converting student fees into an indirect graduate tax by reducing the contribution of the general tax payer.
I should explain one or two aspects of the wording of the amendment. I do not claim that it is perfect, but I believe that its purport is clear and common sense. It puts the principle four-square on the face of the Bill. Reference to "exceptional macro-economic circumstances", while I admit is not a lovely phrase, is a straight lift from Article 9 of the EU Council of Ministers Council Regulation 4253/88, as amended in 1993. I hope that that does not put off some noble Lords. However, that legislates for additionality in relation to EU structural fund support. The exception is designed to protect governments from the effects of economic crisis, allowing them flexibility.
Where the amendment compares real levels of per student funding with those "provided previously" that would, subject to the crisis let-out, require a government to do at least as well in the year concerned as in the previous year. That is exactly what has been promised.
If the amendment is passed, plainly it would need to be monitored, preferably on a consensual basis, by Universities UK and/or HEFCE, the Treasury and the Department for Education and Skills. I wondered about adding a monitoring provision to the amendment, but that really would not be necessary. I think and hope that we can assume good sense in implementing the statutory principle.
Some have asked whether a breach of this provision would be justiciable. The answer to that is a highly qualified "yes", but in practice it would be legally

519
enforceable only in a very clear and exceptional case. Speculative claims would be inhibited by the potentially huge costs involved in mounting a judicial review of this clause. In any event, one has to have leave from the High Court so to do.
The wording is intentionally expansive and so I believe that this formula provides a powerful moral marker as well as a practical, proportionate, long-stop safeguard. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Dearing: At Second Reading I expressed three concerns. The first was better support for part-time students; the second was to ensure that OFFA had no role in admissions; and the third was that the Exchequer should not substitute any part of graduate contributions for Exchequer funding. During that debate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, outlined an amendment he had in mind to secure the third of those purposes. Afterwards I said to him that if he could successfully draft a clause, I would wish to support it.
The noble Lord knows from our subsequent discussions that I have some reservations. However, our objectives are exactly the same. I thank him and congratulate him on his work and the effort he has put in to bringing forward a clause that makes such sense. My objective, however it is achieved, is to ensure that graduate contributions are used for the good of higher education and not for the benefit of the Exchequer. How could it be otherwise when we are expecting young people, standing on the threshold of their lives, to do so with debts to which we are party?
Turning to how that is best achieved, the legislative route has the clear attraction that it serves as a roadblock confronting any future government, not just the present one. That is a real attraction because the tenancy of the seat of government is no more than a tenancy, the freehold being owned by the electorate. I expect that the seat will be up for rent well before the graduate contribution part of the Bill ever begins to bite.
The difficulty lies in drafting something that on the one hand is Treasury-proof—I confess that I was once a practitioner of that dark art whose darkness is its only mystery; it is a troublesome art—while on the other hand is acceptable to a government and does not have unintended consequences.
I suspect that we all want a safeguard against the possibility that the increased funding will be snitched—I repeat the word I used at Second Reading—by the Chancellor, but the problem is that the Chancellor, whoever he, or she, may be, may feel that having complied with the letter of the clause, he has done his bit. I listened carefully to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as is his due, and they confirmed my reading of the wording of this clause. This is a chain index-linking, not one linking the unit of funding to what it was in a base year. That gives me cause for concern that the Chancellor, in thinking about an increase, might feel committed indefinitely to
520
the higher figure, which may not be affordable indefinitely. Therefore, he would back off from something we would all want.
I turn to wheezes and dodges. Although I shall not waste the time of the Committee by outlining them, there are aspects that would mean that the Chancellor would be able to do things that we would very much not want him to do. He could bring things into the reckoning, because the clause refers to direct and indirect funding, embracing matters like funding for the teaching infrastructure and the estate. We are then talking about billions, which could wobble the whole intention.
When thinking of future governments, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who sits on the Opposition Front Bench, has added his name to the amendment. I take that to mean that he has every honourable intent, however much he may dislike the Bill in principle, of ensuring that if it goes through, his party will do the decent thing. When the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, spoke to her very principled and well thought-out amendment substituting tax for student contributions, if it were the case that a Liberal government came into office, we would be assured that if there were any student contributions, they would soon go. The noble Baroness nods in assent. Therefore I turn to the Government Front Bench and look forward eagerly to what the Minister has to say.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am encouraged by the thought that the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, thinks that a future Conservative government would do the decent thing. The decent thing to do with this Bill would be to put it through the shredder because it does not bring in more income than it costs the taxpayer, and it lays open the possibility of the Chancellor—in that marvellous phrase which the noble Lord used—"snitching" the proceeds. I have no experience of the present Chancellor, but when I was in government the previous Chancellor was a twitcher, if not a snitcher. Everything that I have seen of the Treasury over the years under both administrations shows that it does not change its habits.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on moving this amendment. I was fishing in Scotland about lunchtime on a Friday, and a ghillie came running down the opposite riverbank and said, "There's an urgent message from Lord Phillips. He has an amendment which you must look at immediately". The text of this amendment was brought across the water to me and of course I dropped everything to read it. It is an important issue and I very happily added my name to it, although I am not a university vice-chancellor or chancellor, as the noble Lord suggested. Everything that I have learnt in the course of acting on this Bench in respect of this Bill has encouraged me to do everything possible to avoid any invitations of that kind, for the problems are enormous.
I have one question for the noble Lord, Lord Phillips: does he think that this amendment would have prevented the Government doing what they did in 1998 when they introduced tuition fees? That brought in additional income, but the Government

521
then reduced the funding so that the funding per student remained broadly the same. There was therefore no additional benefit of the fee income. In short, this Government have form; this Chancellor has form on snitching the resources from fees. The noble Lord described in his speech the opportunities for challenge in the courts: does he think that this clause would have provided a guarantee in that circumstance?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I do.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Then it was well worth the ghillie bringing the amendment down to the river! If that is the case, it provides something of merit. The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, suggested that it would commit us to the principle of the Bill. I think not. But if universities are to be encouraged to go down the route of having fees, we should at least ensure that what Ministers say will be the position is the position.
Therefore I see no reason at all for the amendment to be rejected, short of the Minister having had an earful from the Treasury on the merits of the proposal. The Treasury never likes anything that smacks of hypothecation or limits its room for manoeuvre. Furthermore, my noble friend Lord Baker fought long and hard for the principle of additionality on the lottery, and once again this Government, not the previous government, have breached that principle. We have seen it, too, in respect of structural funds from the EU.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on this amendment. I would have thought that, given the rhetoric which we have had from Ministers about this Bill, the Minister should have no trouble at all in accepting it.
There is one other point which I would like to make, if your Lordships will bear with me. It relates to Universities UK briefing, which seems to parallel Labour research department briefing, which also finds its way into my interest from time to time. In the briefing, Universities UK comments:
"We accept that it is very difficult to commit future governments to levels of expenditure and we understand that Lord Phillips does not intend to press this amendment to a vote".
I am very surprised that Universities UK should not wish to see this on the face of the Bill, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has explained. I await with interest the Minister's response and perhaps a contribution from the noble Baroness.
Lord Dearing: My understanding from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, was that at this stage he did not wish to press the amendment to a vote and I mentioned that to Universities UK.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: It would be interesting to follow the audit trail of where these things come from. Certainly my support for this amendment was on the basis that it was not a probing debate to discuss the merits or otherwise of additionality and what the Government might say to reassure those people who
522
are concerned about it. It was because it would put on the face of the Bill a specific legal commitment in line with the rhetoric which we have heard from the Chancellor and other Ministers.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: If I might just intervene to respond to the noble Lords, Lord Dearing and Lord Forsyth, I have never said—and never would say—that that matter will not be put to the vote. It would be rather fruitless to have gone to all this trouble to say that. What I have said and what I expect to continue to say is that we will wait and see what the Government have to say on this amendment at this stage. I look forward to that right now.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I add my voice to those who have supported this amendment. It is an intensely serious subject and a very topical one because the universities had experience—in 1997 and 1998, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned—of having the fees that were introduced snitched. Therefore the memory is sharp in their minds. They do not want to see it happen again, for perfectly legitimate reasons, because, frankly, the Bill has no purpose at all if it is merely a transfer of responsibility from the Exchequer to the student. The Bill has purpose at all only if it provides a degree of income and autonomy to the universities. So it is very important what the Minister says in reply, and what her colleagues in another place say if the Bill returns there.
It is also quite important what the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in another place say if the Bill returns there, because there was not much sound of that coming from the right honourable gentleman the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was setting out the spending plans for a future Conservative government. He failed to mention higher education at all as a priority. So I am not quite sure where this money is coming from.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: It would be very odd indeed for the Shadow Chancellor to spell out the outcomes arising from implementing an opposition policy to which we are opposed.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: That is as may be. Nevertheless, his support for this amendment would be deprived of much substance if it were just a verbal pirouette; if it did not in fact bespeak an intention to provide—if there were a Conservative government—greater resources for the universities, perhaps by a different route but nevertheless greater resources. It is important that the Government Benches reply to this amendment, it is hoped by accepting it, or if not, by statements that are a little bit better than simply saying they cannot bind the hands of a future government.
I have many years of dealing with the Treasury over a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned, which was the structural funds of the European Union and additionality there. Anyone who has dealt with the Treasury on this matter is perfectly well aware that the reason the Treasury does not tie its hands is not because it cannot, but because it does not

523
wish to. It is a matter of will; it is not a matter of law. The day it wishes to, it can come to this House with an amendment which will be absolutely copper-bottomed, and which cannot be got around. It might be a better one than the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has produced. The Treasury could do it any day it liked, but that day has not yet come.
So it is extremely important that statements are made if, at the end of the day, the Government refuse to accept amendments of a really clear kind. After all, we are having a comprehensive spending review this summer, which will overlap the period when this scheme enters into effect. Are we going to see in that spending review, before this measure enters into law, an absolute commitment not to snitch? I hope so because, if not, many people will feel that they have been led up the garden path.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: The amendment does indeed bring us to the heart of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said, during the debates in this House and in the other place it was widely accepted that higher education is underfunded; the disagreement has been about how that funding gap is to be filled.
In my view, variable fees are a vital step towards filling that gap. Predictions about how much they may raise have varied but, none the less, it is a fair estimate to say that about half the annual recurrent funding gap for teaching of about £2 billion would be met. Continued increases from the public purse will therefore be essential, as all other speakers have pointed out. If the additional funding from fees is offset by reductions in public funding, then universities will be no better off. Fees must be truly additional.
As the Committee is aware, the debate on whether the fees introduced in 1998 were truly additional still rages. We have raised the issue again today, as we did in previous discussions. However, I am sure that the fees mitigated the effects of the deep cuts that came in the mid-1990s. Indeed, public funding is now on the increase. The Government have committed themselves to increasing public funding. Let me remind the Committee of the Chancellor's words in a Budget speech.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting but she said something which I am sure she did not mean to say. She suggested that funding had been falling under the previous administration. That, of course, is not the position. The funding per student provided by the Government since 1997 has fallen by about 10 per cent; and funding per student under the present administration has been less than in any of the 18 years under the Conservative government. I am sure the noble Baroness would not want to mislead the Committee.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I have no intention of misleading the Committee. I was making
524
the point that when the present Government came to power the threats of cuts for higher education were very substantial indeed. The Government managed to reduce those cuts. I said that the additional resource provided by student support was part of that attempt.
The Chancellor said that,
"university and student finance reforms will be matched by rising real- terms funding, to progress towards the 50 per cent target … The settlement will maintain the levels of real-terms student funding per head, and ensure the universities receive in full the benefit of additional revenue from the Government's higher education reforms".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/04; col. 335.]
That was very welcome, although I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm that what the Chancellor meant when he said "student funding per head" was funding for institutions and did not include funding for student support.
Having said that, I very much welcome the spirit of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. as an opportunity for the Government to reiterate their commitment and as an attempt to hold future governments in principle to that commitment. We have spent many months wrestling with ideas about the way in which additionality could be ensured. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is to be congratulated on the ingenuity of his amendment and I await the Minister's response with interest.
I invite the Minister to consider three proposals. First, the Government should agree to work with Universities UK and the English funding council to arrive at an agreed definition of "unit of public funding per student". It seems that every year, as the Committee may be aware, we get involved in a public dispute about what the unit of funding means. I should like to see, for example, income from private fees clearly identified as a separate and additional element; neither do I think that funding tied to specific projects should be counted in the calculation of unit funding. The Government think differently.
The second proposal is that the Government should undertake to publish an annual report to Parliament on the funding of the sector. Such a report should include three measures: the total public funding for higher education per student, including student support; the total public funding for higher education institutions per student; and the public expenditure on higher education institutions as a percentage of GDP. These measures should be agreed in advance between the Government, Universities UK and other key stakeholders. I accept that Universities UK could do this itself, but the whole purpose is to find a way to strengthen Parliament's position in holding the Government to account.
Thirdly, as the Government pointed out in last year's White Paper,The Future of Higher Education, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the USA all contribute 1 per cent of their GDP in public funding to tertiary education institutions. In the UK this is only 0.7 per cent. The conclusion drawn by the White Paper is that,
"Our competitors see—as we should—that the developing knowledge economy means the need for more, better trained people in the workforce".

525
I interpret the phrase "as we should" to mean that the Government recognise the importance of the UK moving towards the OECD average public expenditure on tertiary education. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm this.
For these reasons, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Unless fees are truly additional to public funding, the whole purpose of the Higher Education Bill, which has been debated with such passion, will be entirely undermined.
Lord Baker of Dorking: The principle of the amendment is very simple. The whole purpose of the Bill is to provide extra money for the universities, otherwise it would not have been introduced or gone through all the trouble it has gone through already. But it has to involve extra money. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on devising a formula to achieve this. The amendment provides a very sensible solution. If it comes to a vote, possibly at Report stage, I hope it will even be supported by his own Front Bench. I am sure that noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench will not want to pass the whole of the Committee and Report stages without supporting one sensible idea.
It will be quite difficult to get the simple principle on to the face of the Bill, but perhaps I may offer a suggestion. I am sure that, in reply, the Minister will repeat the words of the Chancellor—that he will undertake to increase the funding of universities in real terms—but, from my own experience, such pledges are written in sand. I said exactly the same in relation to the lottery—that the money from the lottery would be preserved for the original direct beneficiaries—but that was changed, first by a Conservative government and then changed in spades by the present Government. So pledges are not sufficient.
If the Chancellor's words are to be implemented, one way of doing so—apart from through the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips—would be simply to say that the teaching grants to universities for art, science and medical students should be increased automatically, in real terms, by the rate of inflation. Such an undertaking could be placed on the face of the Bill. We need something more than a ministerial pledge based on what the Chancellor said.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on trying to find a way to address the issue at the heart of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said, this is the heart of the Bill.
In the universities we have dark days where we believe that we will go through the process of obtaining additional funding streams through variable fees but that we will gain no benefit and our students will gain no benefit. In fact, we will gain a net detriment; namely, the transfer of odium from the Treasury and HEFCE to ourselves. That is our fear.
Nevertheless, we all recognise that the amendment has been very difficult to draft. I do not know how the Minister will respond to it—I am not, I am afraid,
526
going to help her on that matter—but I have a suggestion for a failsafe approach which will avoid the problems of additionality and hypothecation having to be, in effect, defined on the face of the Bill. It is not an amendment that the Government will like but it will provide a safeguard to universities and students and I would be grateful if the Minister will speak to it when she replies. I suggest that we should consider a system whereby any decline in levels of HEFCE funding per student is compensated for by a reduction in the total student numbers. This would restore the real value of the HEFCE contribution per student.
Any reduction would undermine the ambition to move towards a 50 per cent target, but it is only sensible to have a failsafe provision in the Bill. We cannot make bricks without straw; we cannot go on with a continually reducing unit of resource. If the resource cannot be increased, I believe that we should reduce the numbers so that the resource per student is not reduced.
Indeed, my suggestion might accompany the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, rather than replace it if it is not accepted. For understandable reasons, he has had to consider the serious macroeconomic conditions. My proposal would recognise that situation and would be an obstacle to the serving-up of ever thinner degrees in the name of expanding totals.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Several noble Lords have referred to the position of the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, so it is appropriate that I should make some statement. There is a law in economics known as the general law of the second best. The Liberal Democrat Front Bench adheres to that law. Our first best solution would be to have no fees at all and for the money to be put into the universities' pot from the Exchequer. We have made it quite clear that that is our first best position. However, if we are confronted by a position in which fees are being levied—and we do not form the Government and are therefore not in a position to get rid of those fees—we would support this amendment on the grounds that it would be a second best position.
Indeed, we exposed the travesty of the situation that took place in relation to the 1998 fees. The fact that the Government were withdrawing money with one hand while taking fees with the other was exposed by a series of Questions put down in the other place by my honourable friend David Rendel, the Member of Parliament for Newbury. Therefore, we have played a considerable part in exposing what has happened and raising awareness of the fact that it is necessary to maintain the real value of the funding per student.
I point out, both in relation to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, and what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that there has been an ambiguity in the unit funding per student, which frequently tends to take the HEFCE funding per student per institution. That includes HEFCE research funding as well as HEFCE funding for teaching. There is an ambiguity in that. It is vitally important that we use the HEFCE funding

527
per student for teaching and that that is not linked up with HEFCE research funding. The funding going into institutions from the research councils must also be kept totally distinct. There have been occasions when the Government, considerably to their benefit, put all three together, and the figures looked very good. The latest briefing from Universities UK provided us with figures for the funding per student just before we began the process of debating in this Chamber. I am grateful that at long last we have those useful figures.
Lord Winston: I rise briefly to support this amendment. I understand very well the concerns that my noble friend the Minister may have, but as an employee of an excellent university, I know the desperate straits in which the higher education sector increasingly finds itself. Unless something like this amendment is supported by the Government or a provision is introduced to reduce student numbers, such as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, if this amendment cannot be supported, I will find it difficult to support the Government.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: I add my voice to those who support this amendment. It is clear that the Bill sets out in the right direction. It is equally clear that, if our universities are to flourish—or to survive in anything like their present form—what is proposed does not go far enough. It would be even worse if what is proposed were then taken away. In one way or another—whether in the form of the wording of this amendment, or the alternatives such as the subtle version proposed by my noble friend Lady O'Neill or with the additions suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp—it is essential that a "no snitch" clause is included in the Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for ensuring that we have had this interesting debate, which has now become the "no snitch" clause debate. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be thrilled when he hears about it. Listening to noble Lords, I am very conscious of the strength of feeling, which is either born from experience within the university sector or, in relation to the noble Lords, Lord Baker of Dorking and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, from their experiences as Secretaries of State. I am sorry that they had those experiences in government. I pay tribute to the eloquence with which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, introduced his amendment.
I had planned to begin by repeating the words of the Chancellor, but as I repeated them on Thursday and they were also used by my noble friend, Lady Warwick, I will assume that noble Lords heard them on Thursday and today and that there is no need for me say them again. Of course, it is important to recognise within those words—and I was interested to think of this Chancellor as a "mere" Chancellor, which is not a word that I associate with my right honourable friend—that the money raised through variable tuition
528
fees will be in addition to the grant paid by the Higher Education Funding Council for England. We hope that our assurances will make noble Lords feel comfortable about the Government's ambitions for the sector.
It will be no surprise to hear that I question whether it is right to agree this amendment to the Bill. Much as we endorse the principle and understand the rationale behind what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, argues, we do not believe that it is right to tie the hands of governments present and future for an unspecified time, which would be the impact of this amendment. Furthermore, as the noble Lord would recognise. there are two technical difficulties with the amendment. I understood what he said about Article 9, in terms of exceptional macro-economic circumstances, but there are still issues about what that phraseology would mean in particular circumstances and whether we would be able to gauge whether those circumstances had been reached or breached. It is also unclear whether the amendment would apply at the level of the whole sector or to individual institutions. If it were the latter, that could cause difficulties where the pattern of provision at an institution changes. Noble Lords well versed in education matters, especially at universities, know that HEFCE provides different amounts of funding for different courses, reflecting the different costs of lecture-based and science courses, for example, which is only sensible. However, it also reflects the ebb and flow of students across courses at different institutions. It would be important to allow for the funding adjustments to take account of the changes in course mix and numbers.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, returned to the issue of underfunding by governments. I have been very clear: I have put the figures in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion. I accept that there has been underfunding of the sector. However, I reiterate what my noble friend Lady Blackstone said last week when she indicated the position that faced us when we came to power. The previous administration planned a cut of more than 6 per cent. We were able to reduce that cut to 2 per cent. It was still a cut and I am sorry that that was the case, but it was better than what would have happened. The noble Lord can shake his head. I can quote figures and so can he, but we both agree that governments have underfunded the sector. I would like to stop the argument at that point because it is important that we move forward.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: The last thing that I want to do is have a debate about figures with the Minister, but this is an important principle. The Government were elected on a slogan of "Education, Education, Education", but proceeded to cut university funding on a per-student basis while, at the same time, raising the money in fees—what has been described as "snitching" in this debate. The Minister talks about tying the hands of the Treasury. That is precisely what we want to do. We want to prevent the Treasury taking this money and using it to reduce the amount of money that it would otherwise provide. The Minister must see

529
that that is central to the whole theory and justification for the introduction of fees and for the Bill itself. It is a central issue.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I understand that that is the issue, but I take exception to the fact that the noble Lord implies that the Conservative Party currently has a policy of support for the universities and that everything was rosy in the garden until we took over in 1997. The noble Lord implies that what I described as the position that we inherited was not the case. There would have been substantial cuts. There were cuts, but they were not of the order that the noble Lord's party would have imposed on universities. We are now in the position of redressing the balance, which is in an important way forward.
I also say to the noble Lord that, as far as I am concerned, what I say on these Benches ties the hands of my colleagues in another place. I therefore expect his support for this amendment ties the hands of his right honourable friend the shadow Chancellor in exactly the same way, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, indicated. I look forward to having some recognition of that in another place as we take this amendment forward and as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, determines whether he wishes to push that or not.
I would like to ask the noble Lord a further question. I do not know what a ghillie is and I hope that at some point he will be able to enlighten me. That shows that I am neither a fisherwoman nor spend enough time in Scotland for those purposes.
I turn to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Warwick on behalf of Universities UK. I accept the issue about a new measure of unit funding which is something that the universities have wanted for some considerable time. We are going to ask officials in the department to work with Universities UK to look at options to do that; to find the appropriate measure which will go some way towards the kind of transparency that noble Lords have indicated that they would like; and, if we are able to find such a measure, we would be willing to publish that in the annual report. We should put that before Parliament. That is what my noble friend was particularly interested in. We are moving to increase the proportion of GDP that is spent on education.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, made an impassioned plea about the reduction in unit funding and the implications of that. I have listened with great care to what the noble Baroness said, but what is important is the blend within this. I would not want to commit such a straightforward link between one thing and another because of the nature of higher education and the different kinds of students that we have within education, for the unit funding is different in itself. The noble Baroness made an important point on which I would like to reflect further, as did other noble Lords.
I recognise the strength of feeling in the Chamber. Noble Lords know very well that it is not for me today to commit the Government in this way. It is extremely
530
difficult to put things on the face of the Bill that commit this Government and future governments for all time. There are many issues to discuss. I suggest to noble Lords that I am perfectly happy to consider further what we might do on this issue, and, in particular, to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, about his amendment. On that basis I trust that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lucas: Perhaps I may briefly enlighten the noble Baroness. The relationship between a ghillie and a fisherman is very like the relationship between the Secretary of State for Education and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Secretary of State for Education shows the Chancellor where the money is and the Chancellor then catches it.
What I have drawn out of the last 45 minutes is a profound sense of sadness at the state that universities have got themselves into—stuck on their knees, begging for every last penny from the Chancellor. I spend a substantial amount of my life at the other end of independent schools asking for my money—not for my children but for other people's children. A lot of these problems could be solved if sufficient numbers of universities were to assert their independence and stand proud. They have many strong and intelligent people leading them. I find it a great pity that they have come to this pass.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she summed up what can be described as a debate. I am most grateful to the 10 noble Lords who took part in it.
I fear, however, that things are left no forrader than when we started in terms of what the Government are willing to concede. If the matter is taken at its root, they are conceding nothing except further discussions and the assurance that, when this Chancellor above all Chancellors says that black is black and white is white, that is how it will be for ever and a day. It will be thus so long as he is Chancellor.
The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, was the clearest possible first-hand, soul-seared experience of one Minister who said with great certainty and conviction that lottery funds would be used in a certain way, only to see that assurance undermined, first by his own party and then by successive governments. I suggest that we all take stock of the debate and read Hansard. There should be a meeting of all those who have spoken in this debate to decide how we should carry this matter forward—it seems to us to be at the very heart of this measure.
The Bill is a farce if we are in the position in which a future Minister or future government could undermine additionality. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Meaning of -the relevant authority"]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 13, line 36, leave out from "the" to end and insert "funding body as defined in section 22(2)"
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to all the other amendments grouped with it.
This group of amendments provides the first opportunity to discuss the director of fair access and the office of fair access. The main purpose of this group of amendments is to question the need for a separate office and a separate director and to ask why the functions proposed could not be subsumed within the existing functions of HEFCE and its Welsh opposite number.
Since this is the first opportunity to discuss OFFA, it is worth spending a little time setting the scene. In this Chamber we have already debated Clauses 22 and 23, which empower the Secretary of State to require the appropriate funding body—either HEFCE of the Teacher Training Agency—to impose conditions on their grants or loans to higher education institutions should the institution either breach the fee regulations or fail to submit an agreed access plan. As we have also discussed, the situation in Wales is somewhat different; at the moment I do not want to go into the complications of the Welsh situation.
In this group of amendments we come to the mechanism by which the Secretary of State seeks to enforce these conditions. As the Bill currently stands, Clause 28 establishes a new authority with a director. Clause 29 establishes that the director shall be called the,
"Director of Fair Access to Higher Education".
Clause 30 sets up the duties of the director. Clause 31 specifies that the Secretary of State can lay down regulations setting out the content of access plans. Clause 32 requires that higher education institutions have to submit their plans to the director of fair access. Clause 33 states that the duration of plans shall be specified by the Secretary of State. Clause 34 states that any variations after plans have been agreed have to be agreed with the director of fair access. Clause 35 empowers the director of fair access to instruct HEFCE to withhold grants and loans in accordance with procedures laid down in Clause 23.
As we know, higher fees can be charged only if access plans are in place. These plans have to be drawn up by the higher education institutions themselves and submitted to the director of fair access, who will vet and agree them—and presumably negotiate over them—with the institution concerned. He will then monitor their implementation and, should an institution fail to implement its plans as specified, the director has the power to ask HEFCE or the Teacher Training Agency to fine the institution. As became apparent in proceedings in another place, fines of up to £500,000 are possible. Under Clause 23, HEFCE itself has powers to fine any institution which charges fees higher than the basic amount without having an agreed plan in place.
These amendments would eliminate the role of the director and the whole set-up of the office of fair access. They would, however, leave in place the whole business of access plans, but require these to be monitored by HEFCE or the TTA, which are the funding bodies defined in Clause 22(2).
Specifically, the amendments would modify Clause 28 to eliminate references to the director, substituting instead "funding bodies"; eliminate Clause 29, establishing the post of director; modify Clause 30 so that references to the director are changed to "the relevant authority"; leave intact Clauses 31, 32, 33 and 34 in terms of content, procedures and duration of plans; modify Clause 35 to eliminate references to the director but endow HEFCE and the TTA with his powers; and modify Clause 38 to eliminate references to the director. Perhaps I should also refer to dropping Schedule 5, which relates to the director of fair access, although it is not in this group of amendments.
4 p.m.
Why do we argue that the director's functions should be subsumed into HEFCE? The case was well made by the Minister for Higher Education in discussion of these amendments in Committee in the other place. He pointed out, first, that OFFA and HEFCE would have to work very closely together, and for that reason would be collocated in Bristol. Indeed, I understand that OFFA will work out of the HEFCE office and in the first instance use HEFCE staff. But he then went on to say—and I believe this to be the most significant statement—
"The Secretary of State made it clear, in his guidance letter, that we do not expect universities to do anything differently from what they do now. They have an agenda of widening participation: that will be subsumed into OFFA, and they will produce the same pieces of paper that they currently produce—no extra paper will be going to Bristol. OFFA and HEFCE will have an obligation to exchange information, so if the access agreement is breached, that would be a matter for the director and OFFA—not HEFCE—although HEFCE punishments, including fines, will be imposed".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee H, 2/3/04; co1.379.]
Our argument, in brief, is that HEFCE is already doing the job and that OFFA is an unnecessary piece of extra bureaucracy. It may cost only £500,000, which is what the Explanatory Notes tell us, but quite frankly that £500,000 could more usefully go directly to the higher education institutions themselves. These institutions already have to have access plans, which have to be agreed with HEFCE. HEFCE monitors those plans, and the universities know very well that it is in their interests to modify and amend the plans in line with requirements laid down by HEFCE. Indeed, HEFCE already has powers to impose tines on universities in breach of the fee regulations laid down under the 1998 Act. However, as the Minister admitted, no institution has actually breached the regulations, and no fines have ever been imposed. He said:
"I do not expect any plans to be breached. Nor do I expect the fee limits to be breached".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee H, 2/3/04; co1.380.]
Vice-chancellors are a law-fearing and law-abiding set of people, and will not knowingly breach their obligations. The Minister may argue that we need to preserve the distinction between funder and regulator, and that HEFCE is the funder and OFFA the regulator. I would be prepared to accept that distinction if we were back in the 1970s. In those days, the University Grants Committee was a genuinely independent organisation, set at arm's length from government and acting as a buffer between the higher education institutions and Ministers. But those days are long gone. Some of us would like there to be an element of the autonomy of the UGC restored but, for the present, HEFCE is very firmly in the Government's control, with a direct line of accountability through a director-general of higher education, located in the Department for Education and Skills. Moreover, it is clear from the functions that it has been performing—for example, in policing the charging of fees under the 1998 Act, not to mention the participation agenda—that any suggestion that it has not been acting as a regulator is absurd, to say the least.
My argument, therefore, is that the functions to be performed by OFFA have already been carried out by HEFCE, which has managed the process perfectly well. There is no need to set up an extra office. The expense and potential bureaucratic complications involved are unnecessary. We should remove any mention of OFFA or its director from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: The more I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, the more I wondered whether I should support her amendment. However, I fear that I cannot support her, although I agree with several of the points that she made.
For me, this part of the Bill, which sets up OFFA, is the most offensive and dangerous. OFFA as it is set out in the Bill, with the powers that it has, is an attack on academic freedom. It would be tempting to see the subsuming of OFFA into HEFCE as a way of reducing the unpleasant aspects of its powers, but I fear that there would be a number of disadvantages. First, it would be much more difficult to abolish if there were a change of government. Secondly, it would be extremely difficult to identify the costs of the exercise. I do not know who was responsible for deciding that OFFA would cost £500,000, but if the behaviour of this Government in setting up the many quangos that they have established, along with boards, tsars and all the rest is anything to go by, that £500,000 will not get much beyond paying for the salary of the chief executive and his staff, never mind the fulsome duties being placed on OFFA.
There is an argument for keeping a separate, standalone body, if for no other reason than scrutiny of what it is up to. In addition, however—and uncharacteristically—the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, is not really being politically streetwise. What we have to recognise, which is so evident from the briefings that we have had from Universities UK and
534
others, is that a deal has been done here between the Government and their Back-Benchers in the other place. Those Back-Benchers, because they are principled socialists, do not like the idea of fees. The Government have persuaded them to go along with this by setting up OFFA, which they see as a body that will interfere with the admissions procedures in our universities and discriminate against youngsters who come from what they regard as more privileged backgrounds. That is the nature of the deal.
The noble Baroness may see this as a Trojan horse, but were we to send the Bill back to the other place without OFFA in place, that deal would collapse and the whole Bill would collapse. Perhaps the noble Baroness is more streetwise than I imagined and that is the tactic that she has in mind. But it is perfectly apparent that the universities, certainly with regard to Universities UK, have entered into a Faustian bargain. That bargain is that the Government will deliver the fees—although we noted in the last debate that that might not amount to very much by the time the Chancellor has finished—and, in return, OFFA will be created, which will have an unprecedented role in interfering in the independence of our universities.
I have much sympathy with the noble Baroness, but I prefer the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Perry, which we shall discuss later and which would leave OFFA in place while seeking to limit the degree to which OFFA can interfere and to secure more independence of OFFA. On that basis, I regret being unable to offer support to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: Like many noble Lords, I have had grave concerns about some aspects of the proposals for the Office for Fair Access, and I know that many or most vice-chancellors share my concern. I should also confess that, when The Future of Higher Education was first published, I, too, thought that OFFA should be part of the funding council. I did not see why it was necessary to create an extra body when the funding council already monitors institutions' widening participation strategies. It seemed to me that it would be administratively tidy, which might help in respect of the possible mushrooming of OFFA's remit. However, I believe that I was wrong.
On reflection, I am not convinced that it would be helpful to extend the remit of the funding council in this way. The funding council already exercises considerable power within the sector, particularly in the way in which funding is distributed. OFFA will have the power not only to instruct the funding council to fine institutions if they breach their access plans but also to prevent them charging fees above the basic level in the first place. It would seem excessive and could possibly be to the detriment of all parties involved were these additional powers to be concentrated with those that HEFCE already has. So I am not convinced that this set of amendments produces a solution to the problems which I foresee arising from the proposals.

535
However, I would urge your Lordships to focus attention on some of the more pressing matters. First, OFFA should have no remit with regard to admissions. As noble Lords will know, that is the subject of two amendments tabled in my name.
Secondly, the regulations under Clauses 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 should be subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. The powers to make regulations under those clauses are very wide and should be subject to affirmative resolution procedure. Again, I have tabled amendments on that point.
Thirdly, OFFA should not seek to micro-manage institutions' widening participation strategies, or to require institutions to frame their plans by reference to particular courses of study. My Amendment No. 85A deals with that point.
Fourthly, there should be an appeals mechanism. The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has tabled an amendment on that, which I shall certainly support.
There are other issues, too, but those are my four main concerns. They are covered in detail in briefings distributed by Universities UK. But the problem here is that locating OFFA within the funding council would not address any of the problems with OFFA that I have just mentioned. In fact, there are distinct advantages in locating OFFA outside HEFCE. Not least, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned, it will allow us to keep an eye on the running costs. That is an important point. But I urge noble Lords who have supported this amendment to reconsider.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I, too, regret that I cannot support the amendment. I see its point and merit. I want to stress a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick—the issue of scrutiny.
HEFCE does not hold its meetings in public. I declare that I was a member of HEFCE and I have the highest regard for the rigour with which discussions take place. But to put OFFA under the umbrella of HEFCE would to some extent obscure what was going on. That is why I prefer to support later amendments which stress the importance of public access to what is going on and public discussion of how this body is funded and carries out its business.
Baroness Lockwood: There are a number of amendments on the subject of OFFA. It is difficult to know where to speak on the different aspects. I seek greater clarification of the respective roles of OFFA and HEFCE. Subsuming the widening of participation responsibility into OFFA from HEFCE will make it difficult for OFFA to be a distance organisation. In other words, if it enters the whole question of widening participation, it must use its powers in relation to that matter, which HEFCE does already.
There are two aspects on widening participation. First, there are those highly qualified A-level students who may or may not receive a fair deal in getting into the so-called top universities. That question was raised in the press today in anticipation of the report which I
536
understand will be published in a month's time, indicating that the state system is not getting its fair share of places in top universities.
OFFA could carry out that role because it would not involve interference with the policies and programmes of universities.
On the second aspect of widening access, we are talking about a different group of young people. They are young people from lower social backgrounds who are not motivated to go into higher education. Some of HEFCE's work has been to support and fund strategies which universities are adopting in order to widen that access and to try and motivate those students at a younger age to have higher expectations of themselves and to work to get qualifications that would enable them to enter universities.
4.15 p.m.
HEFCE has considerable powers in relation to funding. It funds strategies which relate not only to what universities do as single institutions, but also to the way they work with other educational organisations, with the LSC and even with employers, who are providing possibilities for study in places of employment. That is a much more detailed approach than surely OFFA could undertake if it were to accept the responsibility of widening participation.
I should like the Minister in her reply—and perhaps this would be done better in response to later amendments—to tell us where the responsibilities of OFFA will begin and the responsibilities of HEFCE will end. Otherwise, I feel that we are not going to have a straightforward arm's length position from OFFA and the funding provided by HEFCE will become somewhat blurred as to its purposes.
Baroness Warnock: I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has just said. There has been a tremendous confusion between two groups of people from state schools, some of whom—as reported in today's press—are not going to the top universities because they did not apply. I think that that is one set of problems.
There is a quite different set of problems which comes down to how people in the state system are prepared for higher or further education. It addresses a different problem and is about a different group of people. Can the Minister in her reply clarify in very simple terms—because I find myself totally confused—how OFFA can be said to have no influence on the admissions policy of universities if its remit is to widen access?
I think I am being very stupid about this, but I simply cannot understand how those two things are compatible. So I should be very grateful if the Minister could say something about that.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: We all appreciate that whatever the noble Baroness is, she is certainly not stupid. She has made some very important suggestions without making them too clearly. I am sure the Minister can read what she says.

537
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, put a very good case. It seems to me she was in fact perhaps talking in favour of the amendment, because she was saying that the funding council to a great extent is already doing that which OFFA will do.
I do not speak with the deep knowledge that noble Lords have of exactly how this system works, but it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said something very important. He said that the world needs to know what OFFA is doing. It needs to know what OFFA is up to because it is going to be absolutely critical to whether the Bill works or not. It is, to my mind, much the most dangerous part of this Bill. In the end, I suspect the Bill may sink because of it. It is a tragedy that OFFA is in the Bill. If it is going to be there, we need to know what it is up to. I originally argued, at the meeting with Universities UK, that perhaps its function should be subsumed in the funding council. I thought then that was a less bureaucratic option. I now think what the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has said is very important.
Universities regard OFFA as the political penalty they have had to pay to get the small amount of their funding from the students. That is the simple fact—they felt they had to accept this. It seems to me that it is the duty of this House either to get rid of OFFA or to make OFFA a good deal less dangerous than it otherwise would be, or we really will not have done much service to the nation in respect of this Bill. It is the crux of the matter. With regret, I cannot support the noble Baroness's amendment, although I think I would have done so a week or two ago, and I am sorry about that.
Lord Quirk: I also began by thinking that whatever role OFFA eventually had it would be better to have it subsumed under HEFCE. Like others, I have also come to the conclusion that that was wrong and that OFFA should be set up independently if it has to be set up at all, if only so that we can keep an eye on it better.
One of the objections I raised at Second Reading to the existence of OFFA was the danger of "mission creep", and I still see that as a major danger. As has been pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock,inter alia, if the job is to widen access, then OFFA can, quite legitimately, see widening access as narrowing access to other types of student coming in to university.
We have seen today the further attack upon independent education in this country, but there is another major area where universities like to recruit and have the freedom to recruit, and have the financial necessity to recruit—overseas students. With some institutions, the number of overseas students—that is, full-fee students, I am not talking about EU students—represent fairly hefty percentages. The Government have repeatedly assured me, when I have brought this up with individual Ministers, that that is not the intention of the role of OFFA. I fully accept that that is not the intention, but it is none the less a
538
logical development of OFFA. I would therefore like an assurance—not necessarily on the face of the Bill, but at least in Hansard—that the universities will not be penalised if, as penury increasingly hits them, they increase the proportion of students coming from full-fee paying clientele.
Lord Eatwell: The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp may be pleased to know that I support her amendments. I do so for four reasons. First, her set of amendments will save a substantial amount of money—something that has not been referred to in a sector that everyone admits is desperately under-funded. It is surely obvious that the creation of yet another regulator will involve a substantial diversion of resources away from teaching and research, support of students and new outreach programmes, and toward the maintenance of a new bureaucracy in OFFA itself and in the universities responding to OFFA. Suppose, for example, that we accept the Government's figure that OFFA will cost £500,000. Then let us suppose that each university employs just three new people to deal with relations with OFFA. This costs each university a modest £100,000. Given that there are 130 universities, that means for the sector as a whole, costs will rise by in excess of £13 million, excluding the cost of OFFA itself.
I am sure my noble friend will be aware of the recent report of your Lordship's Select Committee on the Constitution on the regulatory state. Page nine of this report states that,
"The recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF) that regulators should produce Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) on all new major policies and initiatives has been accepted by the Government and should be applied throughout the system."
Could the noble Baroness outline the regulatory impact assessment—particularly its impact on the universities—when she replies? Can she also tell us whether any independent bodies, such as the Audit Commission, have assessed the cost of the creation of OFFA on the university sector as a whole? So the first reason I support the noble Baroness is that her amendment will save a lot of money.
Secondly, exactly the same goals can be achieved by her amendments. Great note should be taken of the quotation which she read from my right honourable friend Mr Alan Johnson in Committee. What did he say? Let us consider what the noble Baroness repeated for us:
"we do not expect universities to do anything differently from what they do now."
If universities are not expected to do anything differently, what is the role of this institution? Then Mr Johnson said,
"they will produce the same pieces of paper that they currently produce—no extra paper will be going to Bristol.".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee H, 2/3/04; col. 379.]
That is, the essential tasks are already being performed by HEFCE. If that is the case, exactly the same goals can be performed by HEFCE and by the noble Baroness's amendments.

539
The third reason that I support the noble Baroness—which I regard as the most important—is that I think it is an enormous mistake to create a regulator with such a narrow remit. The Government tell us that OFFA will not have anything to do with admissions, but will concentrate solely on widening the pool of applicants. That is a very important task, but it is but one task and a very limited one. Creating a new regulator for this new task will have one over-riding consequence—the regulator will be looking for things to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Quirk said, there will be mission creep. Like all bureaucracies since time immemorial, it will create things to do. It will demand new surveys, it will continually redefine its terms of reference to make more work, and it will impose ever more elaborate work on the universities. This is exactly what we have already experienced with the TQA. We have already seen this happen in that earlier regulatory disaster that was imposed on the universities. Exactly the same thing will happen with OFFA. It is far better that the role of monitoring access plans should remain where it is now in HEFCE—an institution that already has a very wide range of work to do and will not need to find extra work to justify its existence.
My fourth reason for supporting the noble Baroness is that I reject the argument—which I know has been made by many noble Lords, and I have listened very carefully to what they have said—that there is a need for some independent director of access outside HEFCE, and that independence is itself important. The only argument I really heard for this was the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, saying that it would be easier to abolish the organisation. I am not a betting man, but I am quite willing to take a substantial bet that this organisation will not exist in five years' time. I believe that this notion of the need for independence is a spurious argument, and one contradicted in the Bill itself. After all, the Bill requires HEFCE to impose various conditions of grant with respect to the setting of fees. How is that in any way different from the conditions of access plans? If HEFCE is perfectly capable of making assessments and imposing financial penalties on such a controversial and complex issue as fees—and many other aspects are monitored by HEFCE—why is it incapable of making assessments and imposing penalties on the issue of access plans?
By supporting the noble Baroness's amendments, you can save money, you can do the same thing, you can stop mission creep and you can ensure that HEFCE can continue to monitor access procedure, which it already does very well.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I can say only that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, put a good deal better than I would have done what I was poised to say when he leapt to his feet. I am slightly baffled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and the main strand of his opposition to my noble friend's amendments, which seems to revolve around the potential danger of the whole proposal about widening access if we have an independent body, as compared with keeping the function within HEFCE. The normal argument would
540
work the other way. If one is anxious about a body taking over a function and purpose that one is against, the odds of that happening if one creates a body specifically and only for that purpose are much greater. It comes back to mission creep, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: An argument that I did not mention might help the noble Lord. HEFCE is the funding body; therefore the leverage and power that it can apply in pursuing its interfering practices is greater.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: That is a fair point, unless we adopt a variant of what I think the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, are designed to achieve; namely, that if the widening of access remains with HEFCE, that aspect of its functions should have the public transparency and openness for which the noble Lord hopes. There is no reason on earth why that should not prevail within HEFCE.
I am also influenced by the extraordinary remarks of Alan Johnson in the other place. It makes all my antennae wobble furiously when we have a Minister saying, "There's absolutely no purpose in setting up this organisation, so we're going to set it up". If that is not a prelude to mission creep, I do not know what is. My noble friend's amendments serve the purposes of those on the Conservative Front Bench and of a number of other speakers rather better than they think.
Lord Dearing: Once upon a time I was the chairman of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council, and then of the Higher Education Funding Council. Then they merged into the Higher Education Funding Council for England. It is a rather heavy job to be a chief executive, or even the part-time chairman, of such an organisation, and I am worried, first, about whether they could devote the time and thought necessary to this very sensitive issue. Secondly, I worry about the concentration of power. I always worry about that when there is not the clearest of accountabilities. Thirdly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about on-the-spot accountability. For those reasons, although I am clear that HEFCE could do the job, it would be safer and better to have a separate organisation.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: I am one of those repentant sinners who started thinking that HEFCE was the right place, but have now been convinced that it is not, as said by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. The clinching reason for me was that given by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—risk of contamination between the role of HEFCE as the dispenser of very large sums of money to the universities and its remit on widening access. I cannot support the amendments. It is absolutely fundamental, however, that the distinction between OFFA's activities in respect of applications and its non-activity in respect of

541
admissions should be clearly established in the Bill. There are amendments designed for that, and I shall support them.
I slightly contest the view that the provisions are a kind of Faustian pact. I am not worried about Faustian pacts between the Government and their Back-Benchers in the House of Commons; that is nothing for consenting adults to worry about. However, I am worried about the suggestion that the universities are entering into a Faustian pact. They are not; they do not for a minute dispute the strategy of widening access. The university with which I am concerned spends a great deal of time and effort attempting to widen access. The universities will continue to do so, OFFA or no OFFA.
The provisions do not cause us any serious worries so long as the distinction between applications and admissions is made clear beyond peradventure. I hope that the Committee, with the co-operation of the Government, will bring that about.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I apologise for speaking again on the topic, but the arguments put forward in favour of the amendment are very good arguments for having no OFFA at all. If that were the proposal, I would be with it. To put OFFA under HEFCE does not in any way guarantee that there will not be mission creep, additional bureaucracy imposed on universities, or additional costs for universities. Consider, for example, the research assessment exercise, which is very significantly under the funding councils. It has increased the bureaucracy on universities dramatically, year on year. I thoroughly accept that there are attempts to slim it down, but the exercise did not have the beneficial effect suggested. Full-time people are employed, certainly at universities, to deal with the research assessment exercise as an additional cost.
Lord Lucas: I am very grateful for that speech. I was getting quite close to agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for the first time in 12 years, which was a worrying experience. However, I frequently agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I want to amplify what she said in rather less delicate language. Those who think that there is a difference between widening the pool of applicants and admissions criteria are living in cloud cuckoo land.
We should look at some of the problems with access at the moment. In order to read architecture at Cambridge, when someone applies for admission they have to show a wide knowledge of architecture. That is a very clear set of prejudices against anyone coming from inner-city Manchester who simply happens to think that there is something inspiring about the built environment; they may never have come across architecture textbooks on the reading list compulsory even for consideration by Cambridge. That is an admissions criterion. If we want to widen the pool of applicants for architecture at Cambridge, we have to change the admissions criteria.
542
If we want to get people from comprehensive schools to study more languages at our great universities, we have to offer courses that have rather more relevance to the modern world than some of those offered at Oxford and Cambridge. The whole question about why people do not apply to the great universities, particularly those popular with pupils from independent schools, has to do with the courses that they offer and the admissions criteria that they put in place.
We will charge students large sums of money, so why do we say, "You have to take three years to do this degree. We will teach you for six hours a week, but we will make you stay here three years"? There would not be any problem at all, except for a little more work for academics, in compressing most degree courses into two years—apart from the fact that students would have much less fun. People from backgrounds in which they want to get on with life and work, whose priority is not faffing around playing sport, drinking or whatever else might take their fancy, might like to have access to two-year courses at the great universities. If they are not offered, that affects the pool of applicants for those universities.
We cannot separate the business of applications and the policies of the university when it comes to admissions and the courses that it offers. I oppose this creature because it is inevitable that it will reach out into the guts of a university—what it does, what it offers, and the terms under which it allows pupils entry. If that creature is to influence fair access, that is what it has to do. The only sensible relationship between a university and a government on the matter is one of a conversation of equals. For universities to lie prone on their backs, waiting for the eagle to tear their liver out, is a terrible shame.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I had not originally intended to participate in the debate, but it has become rather a Second Reading debate on OFFA, so I want to express my views in response to some of the points made.
As a member of the Constitution Committee that produced the recent report on the regulatory framework, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that there should be a clear regulatory impact assessment for the regulator. One should take into account the impact on the universities, not just the costs of setting it up. If it is set up, I hope there will be post-introduction impact assessments to see how it is worked out.
I also agree on the point about an appeal. We shall be coming later to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. That too is an issue to which we in the Constitution Select Committee drew attention. Our experience of the evidence we took of other regulators was that that was a highly desirable feature of a regulator now with the power that regulators have. We shall return to that issue later. I accept entirely the point about mission creep, but not just mission creep. It is the pressure from outside on regulators to move into other areas. I can envisage what will happen here because I have seen it happen in

543
other bodies which to some extent I have been responsible for setting up. Outside pressures either from government, the media or pressure groups urges such bodies to move into other areas.
There is a danger that new regulations may come from the Government on what OFFA might do. They might be in response to other pressures from those who want to see OFFA moving from access into admissions. As the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, pointed out, it is a narrow remit. It would be tempting to anyone taking on that role to wish to expand his remit as time goes on. I agree with all the points that he forcefully made, but that led me to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that we should not have that body at all.
All the vibes I get from the universities indicate that they did not want the body either but felt that they had to accept it as a political compromise for the tuition fees that they wanted. The danger is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, properly pointed out, it is for the universities to deal with wider access, which they are doing anyway. Anything in that area can only further compromise the independence of the universities in that regard, about which I feel strongly. For the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and not the amendment. He put the points very well.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is always difficult to respond to a Second Reading debate on the third day of Committee, so noble Lords will have to forgive me if I restrain myself. I shall pick up some of the points noble Lords have made about future amendments, assuming that they will not make them again as we reach those amendments.
It is important that noble Lords have had the opportunity to wrap up their comments in that area so that I have the chance to respond to them at the appropriate time. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for setting out in great detail the specifics of her amendment, which means that I do not have to do so.
I shall begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, that we shall be looking later, without heralding too much, at amendments concerning admissions. I am categoric in saying that there is a big difference between applications and admissions; they are not the same thing. If one happens to live and go to a particular school in the beautiful city of Manchester, which I know and love well and which has some of the greatest architecture in the country, one is capable of reading the books and understanding the beauty of architecture wherever one goes. What matters is that one has the opportunity to get the hooks and to understand how to do that.
That is a combination, as I have said repeatedly, between the best of the education sector being able to provide for such young people and universities in their outreach talking about the joys of coming to university to study architecture. That is an appropriate and
544
proper coming together of those two matters. but it is different from admissions, which we will talk about. I did not want Manchester to be attacked on the way.
We thought carefully about whether we should introduce a new body into the legislation and in particular whether the role could be carried out by HEFCE. As noble Lords have said, HEFCE is capable of carrying out that role, but we thought that a separate body was the right approach for a variety of reasons. I am reluctant to rehearse them all again because noble Lords have indicated them, not least the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in his description of the wider role of HEFCE and the role of the Secretary of State in terms of the relationship between government and HEFCE, which is different from that proposed for OFFA.
The clear distinction between the two bodies is that HEFCE is primarily a funding body and OFFA is a regulatory body. We were concerned that if HEFCE undertook the role of the regulatory body, it might find itself in a conflict of interests. The responsibility towards the financial health of the sector is critical. Perhaps HEFCE could one day be asking itself whether the activities it funded which were carried out according to its guidance were adequate to justify charging higher fees, particularly if it knew how acutely an institution was in need of extra resources.
4.45 p.m.
We think that those are important reasons why it is critical to have the two bodies separate. But we have said that in doing so it is important that we do not duplicate the resources within HEFCE that could be of value to the director. We have said that we do not want cumbersome new bureaucratic machinery and that we expect it to cost about £5,000 per year, as noble Lords have said. We hope that we will obtain the best of both worlds, with the director making use of HEFCE's staff and its systems but with a remit to make clear and independent decisions.
My noble friend Lord Eatwell raised the regulatory impact assessment. There is a copy in the Library. It was published in January 2004. I agree entirely with him that it is important—and the Government have accepted this—to carry out a RIA assessment on all aspects of policy. As a Minister I certainly do so and I know that my colleagues do, too. My noble friend asked me specifically about the cost to the university. The assessment says that compliance costs will vary according to the institutions' progress in widening participation and the needs of their students and potential students. Institutions will know OFFA's expectations in advance and will be able to plan accordingly.
Lord Eatwell: Will the Minister tell me what monetary assessment is placed on the first year's compliance costs?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I cannot say offhand, but I shall ensure that I get that information to my noble friend through the RIA work and that other noble Lords receive it.

545
The noble Lord, Lord Quirk, talked about overseas students and admissions. OFFA has no role in admissions. Students are not in any way affected by OFFA's role, nor would we wish them to be. I hope that that deals with that question categorically.
We expect over time that the director will become a centre of expertise on safeguarding access to higher education and through working with HEFCE we will expect a wide dissemination of information. It is important for the regulatory role of the director to be paramount.
An annual report to Parliament will be vital in tracking the effects. I know that noble Lords have made the political point about this being some kind of trade-off across the Back Benches. It is important when we make such a major change in our relationship with the universities and the way in which people charge that we make some effort to consider the consequences, hence the commission three years later. We are clear that we want to ensure that students apply to universities and recognise that they can and should apply to all the institutions where they are capable of being accepted.
We do not see this as a trade-off. We see it as something for something and part and parcel of the kind of university sector we want to see in place for the future. A number of noble Lords made reference to my right honourable friend Alan Johnson's quote from Committee. As I understand it, he was referring to the fact that access plans will subsume widening participation strategies. We shall be changing the number of plans that are produced, but they will be different in nature because they will be written for OFFA.
I hope that that gives a general picture of the approach we have taken. We believe that it is important for OFFA to have the right kind of relationship with HEFCE and for it to be a small office that will not have mission creep. We will come to amendments that other noble Lords have tabled later in our discussions on OFFA, but it will be clear in its remit. It will be playing a regulatory function, which we believe is important as part of the future of higher of education. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in the debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for his vigorous support of my amendment. The central issues we are debating—as the Minister indicated, to some extent it has been a Second Reading debate—are the two models on offer in the Committee today. One is my model of putting OFFA within HEFCE and the other is of leaving OFFA as a separate institution but drawing its teeth. We shall proceed now to see whether we can draw its teeth.
I always maintain, and shall continue to maintain, that the functions that we are going to give to OFFA are carried out at present by HEFCE. I take on board
546
that the Minister says that HEFCE is a funding organisation and OFFA is a regulatory one, but if ever we talk about mission creep, it is about the mission creep that has already taken place within HEFCE.
I was stirred by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who talked about OFFA being a creature which will reach out and grab you in your guts. That may be the case. If we think about ways in which to tame that creature, it is arguable that we could tame it just as well within HEFCE as we could if it were a separate organisation.
I also take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and others, who said that, by setting up OFFA as a separate body, one creates greater transparency with regard to what that creature that grabs your guts is doing. There is therefore some advantage in terms of transparency and accountability in setting up such an organisation separately. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, it also has the advantage of being easier to abolish.
Nevertheless, as we discuss the amendments this afternoon, I think that we need to question very hard whether it really is necessary for OFFA to be a separate body. It does, and will, cost a lot of money. Do we really need it? Those are real questions. I shall read again what the Minister and other noble Lords said and we shall undoubtedly think further on these matters. However, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 61 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Director of Fair Access to Higher Education]:
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 14, line 4, at end insert "who shall be subject to the guidance of the Civil Service Commission"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 62, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64 and 65. The amendment provides a very different vision of what OFFA could be, although I admit that my heart lies largely with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said in relation to her amendment and her wish to get rid of OFFA altogether. Privately, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, wins his bet and that OFFA disappears in five years' time. I am sure that we would all be very happy to see that happen. In the mean time, we shall live with what I am sure is a necessary part of the total package of the Bill, but our vision of OFFA is very different from the vision provided by what is now on the face of the Bill.
Our vision is of a director who is politically independent, who has no remit in individual institutions and has none of the negative enforcing powers but who has a role in genuinely enhancing and adding value to the efforts to promote fair access that universities are themselves making. Later amendments will deal with those other issues. This group of amendments concerns the political independence of the director of OFFA and makes that post into a Civil

547
Service post—a servant of the Crown, appointed through the Civil Service Commission and paid out of the parliamentary vote with pay and conditions according to the Civil Service rules. For such a key post, we feel that that political independence and integrity is absolutely essential.
I was very struck by an interview with the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar—our first Civil Service Commissioner—in the press at the weekend in which she described the importance of the involvement of the Civil Service Commission in public appointments of this kind of seniority. She said that,
"we are custodians of the civil service core values of integrity and honesty. We also ensure that it remains impartial—that there is no political patronage".
I should like to see the director of OFFA in exactly that kind of role—independent of any political interference or political choice. I should like to see a director of OFFA who is neither a creature nor a crony of the Secretary of State. On the face of the Bill at present, the director will not be independent in that way. She or he will be appointed by the Secretary of State and will take directions from the Secretary of State, and his or her pay and conditions will be determined by the Secretary of State. I do not believe that that is right.
As other noble Lords said earlier, tradition has rightly insisted on an arm's length relationship between government and universities. These amendments take a step in that direction by ensuring that the director is a servant of the Crown and is independent in that way. We are making no change to the reporting mechanism. We recognise that the Secretary of State will need to report and answer to Parliament for what is happening in this area, and we accept that. However, we do not believe that the crucial appointment of the director should be subject to any political influence whatever. I hope that these amendments will go a long way towards ensuring that. I beg to move.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I support Amendment No. 62 and, consequentially, Amendments Nos. 64 and 65. To extend the metaphor that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, developed with great skill, teeth are here, and if Jaws is alive and well in the cool water of academe, perhaps drawing some teeth is an important consequent. If we are to have a regulator, we must make two consequential decisions that are absolutely fundamental.
First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, pointed out very well, the independence of the appointment is critical. This individual must not be conceived to be, be seen to be, be thought to be or actually be an extension of any political office. He or she must be someone who speaks with independence. Equally, there must be independence in the manner in which the duties are carried out, and those duties must be subject to independent scrutiny. The two consequential amendments—Amendments Nos. 64 and 65—as well as much that will come later, suggest a way of ensuring that that scrutiny can take place.
548
I have been a regulator and I was reassured by the independence of my appointment—indeed, it was a Crown appointment. I had very good relations with both Secretaries of State, but that was because the basic independence was there in the first place. I have resisted bullying from political advisers both pre and post-1997. It does happen. Again, unless there is independence both in the manner of the appointment and in the way in which reporting is carried out—and, indeed, in the financing of the appointment—there will be consequential risks. Therefore, the amendments are tabled on the assumption that, if we are to have such a post, we must watch very carefully how it is set up and how the duties are carried out.
Lord Lucas: I find this image of the access regulator much more comforting than either the one posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, or the one posed by the Government. I do not think that one should downplay the power of a person who has the power of publicity, the power of advice and the power of knowing that, if he is ignored, the Government will do something to ensure that whatever obstacles are placed in his path are removed. Over the past few years, we have had many examples of legislation being set out in that way, with the Government setting up or endorsing something which is advisory, voluntary or supportive with the clear understanding that, if it fails, regulatory action will follow. There is no particular reason why, in setting out the functions in this Bill, we should not make it clear that the powers of enforcement will not be brought into effect unless they turn out to be necessary because due progress is not being made. There is certainly no reason why we cannot build in a concept of independence.
A regulator like that should be capable of ranging much more widely. After all, if all one is offering is advice, there is no reason to keep him out of areas of university life, out of decisions being taken in universities or out of the way in which universities are being run, because all he can do is offer advice. It is not a matter of outside direction, but of someone being able to see the whole picture, so that what is done in universities to improve access for everyone is viewed in the round. It is not as though there are separate pots, one called "access", another called "admissions" and another called "the courses we offer", including all the other support arrangements that take place in and before university. If we have someone who is independent and whose powers are in abeyance, we shall have a much more effective regulator. We shall have to wait to see whether such a matter will go through the other place.
5 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend should read precisely what is to be done by the regulator before he concludes that the regulator is there only to give advice. He will actually regulate. All kinds of things can happen to universities, including being fined if they do not do what they are supposed to do. He will accept the terms and so on. I believe that he will be in a much stronger position.

549
I rather like the idea of such a person being reinforced in his or her independence by being a civil servant. That may help, not that I have observed civil servants always being impervious to the will of Ministers. The way in which they react to Ministers is different from the way in which a regulator, appointed under the Bill, will react, as the relationship will be different. I rather like the idea, but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this matter. It is an interesting proposition.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: This is not the kind of amendment over which I shall go to the stake, but it merits careful consideration. Whatever the colour of the government in power, the independence of the post is very important.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: On a number of occasions when a Minister I recall that the view of my noble friend Lady Carnegy was that Ministers were too inclined not to be impervious to the views of civil servants. I welcome these amendments and congratulate my noble friend Lady Perry, not just on this amendment but on the group. The Minister will be relieved to hear that I do not plan to talk to the later amendments, but it is important to see them as a package. It is clear that what is being done here is to give a degree of independence to the regulator, which must be worth while.
I apologise that I keep taking pot shots at Universities UK, but I was struck that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that there was no Faustian pact between the universities and the Government. I read the briefing from Universities UK which says on this amendment:
"This amendment, together with a package of consequential amendments to Schedule 5 seeks to make the Director of OFFA a crown appointment. This would impose constraints on the Secretary of State's power to influence the Director of OFFA and influence the mechanism for appointment. The Director would be directly accountable to Parliament".
That sounds a good idea, but the rest of the briefing goes on to reject the amendment for reasons with which I shall not weary the Committee.
It is apparent that a deal has been done, which, in terms, is even referred to at private meetings, whereby universities feel that they cannot upset the position in the Bill with respect to the regulator. I do not believe that there should be an OFFA at all, but I recognise that it is in the Bill and that the Government are the government and I believe that this amendment from my noble friend has merit. No doubt the Minister may say that there will be other ways of achieving the end, or whatever, but the key matter is independence. Certainly, Universities UK seems to think that the amendment works in terms of its intention. I certainly welcome the spirit behind it and agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. Independence and accountability have to be the hallmark of the regulator and that hallmark needs to be stamped on the bottom of the Bill.
Lord Triesman: From the outset I share the thought that the critical issue is independence. The right
550
reverend Prelate made the point in a few words and it is at the heart of many of the contributions to the debate. I shall deal with that point in talking to the amendments. Many of the other issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has said, will be raised under other amendments and are probably best dealt with later.
I fear that these amendments, as tabled, are unlikely to achieve what I believe have been the expressed concerns of noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. I agree that everyone is rightly keen to ensure that the Director of Fair Access is not subject to government control in the way that he or she is appointed and carries out the task that has been assigned. I wholly share those concerns and I hope that what I say illustrates why the Government have chosen to go in one direction when it is true that other directions were not impossible.
Amendments No. 62, 64 and 65 as tabled would make the Director of Fair Access into an organisation staffed by civil servants and directly funded by Parliament. The normal implication of that, taken as a whole, would be to create a new non-ministerial government department and I do not think that that is what everyone wants. It is likely that a body of that kind will be disproportionately bureaucratic for the size and role of the Director of Fair Access and indeed, from the discussion that we have had, I am sure that that is not the intent. No one is trying to build a bureaucracy. I see noble Lords shaking their heads with some grief that that may be the outcome.
I shall seek to offer reassurance to the Committee that the Director of Fair Access will indeed be independent. That is the test that I want to apply. In thinking about creating the Director of Fair Access a number of organisational possibilities were considered. We were advised by the Cabinet Office that an executive non-departmental public body was the right structure for the director, as we envisaged it, because it would be a small, focused, regulatory body.
The executive non-departmental public body model is a commonly accepted means of dealing with such a conundrum. Government often need to create organisations that will act independently and in the public interest, but which also need public funding and ultimate accountability to Parliament. Regulatory bodies are classic examples: the Office of the Rail Regulator, for example, or the Commission for Racial Equality.
Therefore, there are standard and recognised models and rules that govern how those who run NDPBs are appointed and their relationship with their sponsor departments. We have based the principles on which the director will be established around those key principles. On the appointment of the director, for example, Clause 29(2) provides that the appointment will be made by the Secretary of State. However, as an NDPB, the appointment is subject to the code of practice of ministerial appointments to public bodies, which is overseen by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

551
I hope that noble Lords will bear with me for a moment while I cite the guidance that Dame Rennie Fritchie has expressed as being the underpinning of the work that she carries out in that regard. It is a useful description of someone who I believe we all feel has exercised the functions with a great deal of innovation and originality and total independence. I quote her briefly:
"My task is to ensure that all government departments have systems for public appointments which are visible, fair and open. Further, that all appointments within my remit are made on merit and contribute to the development of strong and balanced boards and public bodies.
I believe that having visible, fair and open systems is fundamentally important. However I also believe that public confidence in the process is paramount and that one cannot stand without the other. This requires constant and consistent effort by a wide range of people to deliver this goal".
That seems to have the watermark of Dame Rennie Fritchie's approach to those matters.
The code that will be used was developed precisely to ensure that some core principles were followed in public appointments. Those principles are listed in the code. with which I know Members of the Committee are very familiar. In a nutshell, the key elements of the code are: that all public appointments should be governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit; that no appointment will take place without first being scrutinised by an independent panel, or by a group including membership independent of the department filling the post; that the principles of open government must be applied to the appointments process; and that those appointed must be committed to the principles and values of public service, and perform their duties with integrity.
Ultimate ministerial responsibility for appointments is exercised in accordance with those principles. Departments are responsible for ensuring that the principles are followed in actual recruitment exercises—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Is an executive non-departmental public body, which is how he described OFFA, the same thing as what we used to call an executive quango? If so, is that not a league away from an appointment made by the Civil Service Commission; for example, that of the chairman of the Crown Estate? The Minister appeared to dismiss my noble friend's model by suggesting that that would create a government department that equalled a bureaucracy. Surely there is a distinction between a quango and an appointment made by the Crown?
Lord Triesman: I will outline in more detail the distinction made earlier. I certainly do not intend in any cavalier way to dismiss the propositions, because they should be weighed seriously one against the other. I find it difficult to answer the noble Lord's question about whether it was what he used to call an executive quango because I am not sure what he used to call an executive quango.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am grateful to the Minister. I used to call an executive quango what the Civil Service called a non-departmental public body, large numbers of which the noble Lord's party pledged to abolish when it was elected in 1997.
Lord Triesman: If the noble Lord is in the happy position of having to find both ends of the equation, no doubt his definition will be accurate in his own terms. I do not know whether it will help us greatly in this debate.
The principles that we want to follow in appointing the Director of Fair Access are very similar to those used by the Civil Service Commission for appointing civil servants, but they are adapted to the fact that appointees to NDPBs—whether or not some call them executive quangos—are not to be civil servants. They will not, for example, owe a duty of loyalty to the Government. The important principle is that the Government should not have that degree of control.
Amendment No. 64 would make the Director of Fair Access and his or her staff servants or agents of the Crown. That status for the director and staff is incompatible with an executive NDPB, the status that we envisage as most appropriate for the director. If the director and staff are to be servants or agents of the Crown then the organisational structures within which they would normally operate will be a government department. I wish to make the distinction about why the choice was made. It was not the Government's preference, because we believed that whoever was responsible for approving and monitoring access plans must be independent of government and of higher education institutions.
There was the option of a non-ministerial government department akin to Ofsted. Other such examples include the Inland Revenue and the Office for Fair Trading—large and complex organisations with broad remits. Although that option certainly offers the necessary independence from government and institutions, it would involve the kind of organisation that I described as a disproportionately bureaucratic way of organising the very targeted function that we expect the Director of Fair Access to perform. It has been the will of the Committee in the debate so far to ensure that it is focused in precisely that way. I have heard no Member of the Committee argue that it should get into any form of drift. I am sure that Members of the Committee would not want all the machinery that goes with a non-ministerial government department.
Amendment No. 62 would mean that the Director of Fair Access was recruited by the Secretary of State but in accordance with the guidance of the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission guidance applies to the recruitment of civil servants, so the amendment would imply that noble Lords wished the director to be a civil servant. Forgive me for spelling it out, but that would be the implication.
We decided against the director being a civil servant, ultimately accountable to Ministers and with a duty of loyalty to the Crown, and opted instead for a director

553
who was visibly independent of government as the head of a non-departmental public body. I believe that that view will be widely shared by the higher education sector generally. The role of the director is closer to that of the Rail Regulator or the chair of the Commission for Racial Equality than to that of a Permanent Secretary of a government department. We are most concerned that that independence should be completely visible.
5.15 p.m.
Amendment No. 65 says that the director shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament. The director as currently envisaged would be an executive NDPB and as such would need to have a sponsor department. Members of the Committee may be prompted by a concern that direct funding from Parliament would give the director greater independence from the Secretary of State. That has been part of the argument that was put so well. The director will have a duty to carry out the functions within his or her remit in the way that he or she thinks fit. There is no question of the Secretary of State dictating to the director how to go about his or her business; the Secretary of State simply cannot do that. The director's decisions on access plans will be his or her own.
The Government have never intended to interfere in how the director conducts his or her business. We accepted an amendment in another place to remove the Secretary of State's powers to regulate when the director should or should not approve access plans. There are no powers in the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to give a direction to the director. He may issue guidance to which the director will need to have regard and may provide for regulations that are subject to parliamentary approval. But he simply cannot dictate to the director how the functions should be fulfilled.
I hope that that explains why we chose this direction. I accept the argument that it was among different directions in which we could have gone. We chose this direction because we believed that it enhanced the independence to the highest possible extent, and that the selection would be made on the basis of criteria that noble Lords believed essential in the context of other important public appointments. I hope that those reassurances will enable the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the Minister for the gracious way in which he presented his arguments but I remain totally unconvinced. The examples that he quoted of non-ministerial departmental bodies vary in size enormously. Just because the two or three that he mentioned happen to be quite large, there is absolutely no reason that there should not also be a small one of the same kind. Let us be innovative; let us show that one can have such organisations without making them large.
I was an HMI in the Civil Service for 17 years. We worked within a government department and were appointed by the Privy Council but we certainly
554
proved ourselves to be totally independent and at times deeply embarrassing to governments of all colours. I see various previous Secretaries of State nodding wisely as I say that. It was occasionally our duty to the Crown so to be. So I am afraid that, from personal experience, I do not find the noble Lord's arguments particularly persuasive. The Minister did well in trying to demonstrate that independence is somehow conferred by the kind of arrangements that the Government are proposing. However, when an official is head of an NDPB, but he or she must take direction, advice and guidance from the Secretary of State, is this like the guidance that HEFCE gets every year, in that it must be followed to the letter, or else? Must he or she have regard to that guidance in everything that he or she does? That does not sound like independence.
I still rest on the importance of the kind of independence that an appointment through the Civil Service Commission gives. We have seen too much in recent times of cronies and creatures of Secretaries of State being appointed to senior positions. I find it very distasteful, whichever party does it. I shall probably return to this with some force at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 14. line 5, at end insert—
"(4) The Director shall identify and promote best practice in fair access arrangements, and shall provide where he considers appropriate advice and training to institutions on best practice as identified in their reports to the relevant authority and the Funding Councils."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment creates another plank in the vision of what OFFA's role should be. It should in a sense be read together with the opposition, to come later, to Clauses 34, 35 and 36, which shows what many of us believe that OFFA should not be. OFFA should not be a regulatory power that has power to punish people if they do not follow a particular line. I am anxious to say that this vision of OFFA as an office that identifies and promotes best practice and offers appropriate advice and training to institutions on best practice is not in my view a wrecking amendment. We are not trying to wreck the Bill, but we are doing what is proper for this House to be doing; that is, asking the Government and those in the other place to think again about the role of the Director of Fair Access.
I for one welcome the Government's emphasis on fair access. I yield to no-one in my commitment to it—the whole of my career has been in one way or another concerned with providing access. I know how desperately difficult it is to reach out and get applications in from groups that are often alien to the higher education world. I am delighted to know that the Government are committed, through this Bill and through other activities, to improving this situation. I simply do not believe that the way in which universities can be made to redouble their efforts in improving fair

555
access is by punitive powers of regulation and then punishment if they do not meet what they say they will do.
I wish to turn this into a different kind of model, one that genuinely enhances what universities are already doing, and which undoubtedly addresses the deficiencies that I am sure can be found in some recruitment processes. I am not pretending that everything is rosy and that it is a perfect world at the moment. Clearly, not enough is happening, and therefore probably not enough is being done, although I remain of the view that much of what is not being done is not the fault of the universities, but of schools.
Nevertheless, I see a positive role for a small NDPB, a small OFFA, that would provide an analysis of the plans that universities send in as to what they will do; which would engage in dialogue with them as to whether their plans are seen as adequate in the light of other plans; which would identify from those plans good practice and best practice, and make that widely known. Also, crucially, it would provide the necessary training. Certainly, some of the deficiencies that have already been identified in the press and elsewhere could probably be helped by a central body that provided advice and training in the way that is suggested in this amendment.
My noble friend on the Front Bench has referred several times to the Universities UK briefing. I was a little surprised to see that in the UUK briefing on this amendment, it says that it does not support the amendment, because UUK believes that the primary responsibility for widening participation rests with institutions themselves. In that case, it seems odd that the noble Baroness who is the director of UUK has not tabled any amendments, for example, to alter the duties of the director, to promote and safeguard access to higher education, which we support and believe is right.
It goes on to say that UUK has already done much of this work itself—so it has. It has brought out and widely disseminated some excellent publications that identify good practice. UUK could in no way measure up—because it has so much else to do—to the power to read through every access plan of every university and to do a real analysis of those plans, which would rest with OFFA and its director. Therefore, it would be appropriate to follow many of the recommendations of Professor Schwartz's report, to have a body not with regulatory and punitive powers, but with advisory, training and dissemination powers. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I appear to be the only person without the Universities UK briefing. I have just managed to snitch a copy from somewhere. I wonder what that says about me.
This is an interesting amendment, because I come at this from completely the other end of the telescope to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. I accept her commitment, and she is well known for all the work that she has done in supporting and promoting access. The noble Baroness feels that this is a role for the Director of Fair Access, instead of the regulatory
556
function. There is much in this amendment that I can support in principle, but I would say that as part of his regulatory function, the director will inevitably become a source of best practice, because he will learn and know so much about it.
I would be happy to accept this amendment in principle. Inevitably, there are technical issues to do with it, such as the position in Wales. This amendment does not allow for the different position in Wales. As I have indicated, we would see that because of the regulatory functions of the Director of Fair Access, he will gain expertise in this area, and therefore he will become a source of such expertise, in the way that the noble Baroness indicated. With the leave of the Committee and the noble Baroness, I suggest that we take this away, craft a suitable amendment, discuss it with the noble Baroness, so that she can see exactly what we have done, and bring it forward.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I do not wish to delay the proceedings, especially as the Minister is in such a helpful and supportive mood. I am delighted that she did not read the Universities UK briefing, and that she has taken her own counsel on the excellent amendment proposed by my noble friend. It is for my noble friend to say, but I very much welcome the positive response from the Minister. No doubt we can make swift progress as a result.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: Many noble Lords are concerned with the sheer volume of work that is likely to arrive at the door of the adjudicator's office on day one. This amendment, unlike the following one, is not a wrecking amendment. Good practice and training will be vital if the work of the adjudicator is to be effective. I am glad that the Minister will look favourably on it.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank noble Lords who have spoken, and I particularly thank the Minister for her positive reply. I look forward very much indeed to further discussions with her. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The Question whether Clause 29 shall stand part is linked with the amendments that I moved. I do not wish to speak further to it.
Lord Baker of Dorking: The clause is not necessary. There is no need for an access regulator to ensure that higher numbers of children from disadvantaged areas go to our better universities. That view was expressed a few moments ago from our Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean.

557
The phrase "Faustian pact" has been used several times. I presume that, in this Faustian pact, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is Mephistopheles and has done some sort of deal with the universities. That is not a pact. The pact that has been done is between the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Left wing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons. The deal is simple: the Secretary of State has said, "You give me fees, and I will give you an access regulator to open up the ivory towers for our lads". The fact is that their lads have been going to the Ivy League universities in our country in huge numbers for the past 20 years—not in hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands but in hundreds of thousands.
I remember a conversation that I had a fortnight ago with the headmaster of the Landau Forte City Technology College in Derby. I was speaking to him because the chairman of that college, Lady Brigstocke, had been tragically killed in an accident. I asked how the college was getting on. The college was built in the most deprived part of Derby, where educational expectations were zero, 12 years ago. The college now has 90 per cent A to C grades at 16 and a staying-on rate of over 80 per cent at 16. At 18, many students go on to university.
The thing that made the headmaster proudest was the fact that, last year, seven of his pupils had got into Oxbridge. That would have unthinkable. Why did it happen? It did not happen because of an access regulator, and it will not happen because of an access regulator. It happened because the college had an inspirational head teacher and inspirational teachers who lifted the expectations of their pupils and said, "You can strike at the top of the tree. Be ambitious. You don't have to go to a college of further education or one of the newer universities". That is where the change must take place. It must take place in the motivation of pupils and students. We do not need an access regulator for that, and I fail to see why one is necessary.
Today'sTimes covers a report by Sir Peter Lampl and the Sutton Trust. The headline reads:
"Best universities snub state pupils".
The figures show that pupils from private schools with a lower combination of A-level marks got a higher proportion of places than pupils from state schools. The headline was wrong. The article includes Sir Peter Lampl's comments. He said that the reason for the figures was that pupils from many schools did not apply to the Ivy League universities. I am glad to see the Minister nod; I shall suggest how she can spend a little money more sensibly than by setting up the OFFA regulator.
With his own money, Sir Peter provides summer schools for children from deprived areas. He takes them to Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial College, the LSE and many other universities, such as Warwick. He encourages them to apply. He is much better than an access regulator. Instead of appointing an access regulator, the Government should give some money to
558
Sir Peter Lampl for more summer schools, so that we can lift the expectations of those children. That is what we must do. In the words of Browning:
"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?".
That is what the Government should do. For that, we do not need an access regulator.
Lord Rix: I suggest that the Minister goes to see The History Boys at the National Theatre, the new Alan Bennett play. In that play, it is only too clear that six or seven boys in the class are going to Oxford entirely because of the thrust and enthusiasm of a very unpleasant headmaster.
Lord Norton of Louth: I support my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking and am much influenced by what he said. Like him, I cannot see the case for OFFA. There is, perhaps, a misperception on the part of the Government of how much the proposal to create that body is resented. OFFA is seen as an additional burden. It cannot be seen in isolation in addressing a particular problem.
I have made the point before that academics are underpaid, under-resourced and undervalued. What they have in excess is regulation. Over the past 10 to 20 years, a massive regulatory burden has been imposed on the universities. There has been no off-setting increase in resources, and the regulation has been notably inefficient, consuming time and resources to marginal benefit. It may have helped raise standards in some of the less good institutions, but only at the expense of the rest. It has made no substantial impact on the quality of university education. One cannot see the additional burden as something that deals with a particular problem, detached from how academics view the burden that they already have. OFFA is an additional burden and is resented very much by those who work in the universities. It may be that the intention is to have a light touch, but that is the perception. We cannot divorce the two.
Secondly, OFFA will not deal with the problem that it purports to address. I agree with my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking on that. The real problem is a cultural one, embedded well before pupils reach sixth form and start to think—or not think—of going to university. It is not even a case of persuading schoolchildren from disadvantaged backgrounds to apply to university; it is a case of creating a culture of attainment and of wanting to go to university in their family, well before they get to secondary school. The universities can help—I did my bit this morning, talking to year 10 pupils in a Hull secondary school—but they can only do so much. OFFA misses the point in that respect. If we really want fairness in the system, we must change the system so that applications for entry are made after A-level results are known.
My noble friend referred to the survey by the Sutton Trust, reported in this morning's press, which suggests that pupils from state schools miss out to those from independent schools in admissions. I notice that the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education in another place said that that

559
justified having the director of fair access, but that destroys the point that the noble Baroness was making about the distinction between applications and admissions. The chairman of the Sutton Trust pointed out that,
"it is not that the universities are biased. They don't really have the data when they make the decisions".
It is a consequence of A-level results not being known at the time of application. Offers are made on the basis of predicted grades, and that can give rise to disparities in the system.
OFFA is not the answer. It will not get at the nub of the problem. The director will largely have an impossible task. However hard universities try to encourage applications—the somewhat ambiguous wording of Clause 31(4) appears to emphasise applications—they cannot guarantee that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds will apply. I appreciate what Clause 29 seeks to do, but this is not the way to do it. If anything, it will generate resentment and, I fear, little else.
Lord Triesman: I think that the noble Baroness sought leave not to speak to the Question that the clause stand part. The Question has not been proposed.
Lord Lucas: The position is that the matter is open to the Committee.
Lord Norton of Louth: What the Minister said is not procedurally correct: it is open to any Peer to speak to the Question that the clause stand part.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Then I shall speak to the Question that the clause stand part and on the essence of what the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, said with such great passion.
I have no difficulty with what both noble Lords said about the role of schools in raising aspirations and about inspirational teachers and head teachers. I agree. However, we know that teachers will tell us how difficult it can be with children for whom it is not part of their culture to think of going to university and in whose family there is no experience of anybody doing it. Such children may not even consider it to be appropriate, as it is not what they and their mates do. There is a deep-seated issue about getting support to some of our brighter young people, and I know that the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Baker of Dorking, would agree.
We are trying to look at both ends of the situation and, for me, it is not a question of "either/or", but of "both/and". I recognise and accept that universities do a great deal in terms of outreach because they know very well that some of our school pupils do not think of going to university. They have no experience of university, they would not go near a campus, they would not understand either what it was for or was about, and therefore they need the experience. That is extremely important. It is true to say that many universities do great things in this regard, but I would
560
say that some institutions could do more. That is inevitably a truism. I should like my own children to be invited to visit our local university, one that is five minutes down the road from their school but they have not set foot in it. So it is important to ensure that we do more.
I turn to a point made earlier in the debate. It is important to take what will be a very different step in our relationship with universities. It is one which, in terms of the argument about ability, they have welcomed. I know that some noble Lords who represent universities will say that this is "not enough" and "does not go far enough", but it is an important development.
However, it is also the responsibility of the Government to look at the potential impact here. It is not just about the "left wing" of a party; that is too easy to say. Having read the media reports and listened to students and their representatives, it is clear that they are worried about the impact and implications. We have a responsibility to look at both of these issues and be clear about them. We are trying to create a system that gives universities their freedom, but in doing so ensure that they look carefully at the outreach work they do and at the bursaries they provide in order to make sure that the system is working well. Indeed, some fantastic and highly innovative work in this area has already been undertaken by universities like Cambridge.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. There is no argument in the Committee that more could be done and, in some cases, more should be done, or that there is a real problem in attracting applications from people in under-represented groups. All sides agree on those points. However, what concerns some of us and certainly concerns the universities is that the way to make this happen is, according to the Government, by regulation, by punitive powers, by fines and by placing more burdens on universities instead of trying to encourage them.
This is the old story of the carrot and the stick. All we are being offered here is the stick. We are not being offered anything that would enhance and improve what universities, with the best will in the world, are trying to do. No university seeks to exclude bright kids; they want them. We would welcome an organisation that helps and supports that aim, but not one that will be yet another set of regulations with punishments if universities do not do exactly what it says.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I accept the aspiration of the noble Baroness that we should all work together in a rosy and cosy way. I hope that that will be the case. But it is also incumbent on the Government to be clear about their expectations, which form the regulatory part of this provision.
I can say to the Committee that I would be astonished if the regulator does anything other than work with universities in a very positive way. I would expect that. However, it is the job of the Government

561
to lay out the consequences if it does not happen. It is as simple as that, otherwise universities will be unsure of the position and left feeling uncertain.
It has been my experience during the passage of every piece of legislation on which I have had the good fortune to work that noble Lords look at the bold, bald elements which often seem to be the negative part of the experience. But this is meant to be about clarity and recognition. Nevertheless, the universities have to understand what the position would be should they not participate in the way we have set out.
My ambition is exactly the same as that of all noble Lords, and I think that the package that we have put together in this Bill is a very good one. It will be much better for universities and will ensure, in a supportive way, that the young people we have all identified and feel passionately about have the chance to gain the qualifications that will enable them to be accepted at university. They should understand that they can go to university and that universities will support them—not as individuals, but collectively. On that basis, I think that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: In the context of what the noble Baroness has just said, will she consider postponing the bringing into force of Clause 35 until it is shown to be needed? Can the Bill be changed from what it is at the moment—a provision that will come into force immediately—to something that would come into force later by regulation so that the stick was not put immediately in the hands of the access regulator, but which could appear later if things did not work out? I should have thought that would at least slightly shift the balance so that the dons are offered, if not more carrot than stick then perhaps more claret than stick.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As I have said, the Bill stands as a package and the package has to be clear. The role of the Director of Fair Access, as he takes up his functions, will be to work with the institutions and to consider the issues with them. We know that the universities are concerned to ensure that they have sufficient time to develop their plans with the director. I see that as a positive relationship. It is not about delaying provisions, it is about this Bill going through and providing the package that we have suggested. It is the right one to take forward for our universities.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: Does the noble Baroness agree that if it is right to look positively on the encouragement that universities provide to school children, but that nevertheless it has to be enforced by a stick and fines, a parallel approach would be appropriate in the case of those schools that do not take a sufficiently active approach to their own pupils by encouraging them to apply for the most ambitious courses?
Schools should provide the A-level support that is needed for some of those courses. Very frequently young people tell me that their schools do not provide
562
teaching in further maths at A-level, thus excluding them from certain engineering and science courses. I have also been told that schools have actually discouraged pupils from applying, for example, to universities in the south of the country. That is an unfortunate situation.
If a stick is needed in one quarter, it is needed in the other quarter, although I suspect that what is really needed is encouragement in both quarters. What is sauce for the goose is surely sauce for the gander when it comes to encouraging applications.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: Perhaps we should remember that the basis for the introduction of the Office for Fair Access was the corollary of the change in this Bill to allow students to be charged a very considerable increase in fees. Although we have made clear our view that additional fees are most unlikely to put students off—we can look to the experience in Australia and Canada for that—and although we can say that the universities are doing excellent work to ensure that widening participation is a key mission statement, we must recall none the less that when this debate was held in another place, the Minister was put under great pressure not only by Members on the Labour Back Benches, but also by parts of the higher education sector, particularly the National Union of Students. The sector wanted to ensure that there would be some degree of guarantee that students would not be put off. That is the balance of the argument that the sector has had to face up to. We have not yet convinced many doubters of the willingness and determination of the sector to follow this through. It is on that basis that many vice-chancellors have felt able to support what the Government are doing.
Universities UK has concentrated on looking at the very specific problems that might be associated with OFFA and has brought forward amendments which it believes will address those issues. I do not think that eliminating one part of the Bill, the part intended to reassure those who doubt most strongly that the other part will be successful, will in any way assist the universities.
Lord Dearing: Before we do not vote on this matter, perhaps I may say a word, although why I know not. I agree with those who have argued that the answer to the problem of access is to be found in our secondary schools. It is the case that those with two A-levels go to university pretty well irrespective of class. The problem is the proportion of those in the less well-off social classes who get that far. One of the reasons why young people do not get that far is that they do not stay on in education after the age of 16.
Some would say that the battle begins right back in primary school, or even earlier. We have to win that battle. It is right for the Government to say that they are placing great priority on making a big investment in the infrastructure and structure of our secondary schools. Various programmes have been put in place. A £1,500 per year maintenance allowance is now being

563
introduced to encourage families to keep their young people in further education. But it is going to take years for that to come through.
Meanwhile we need all the help we can get. I say "we" as a society, because it is a society issue that we should have more of these people going to university. We should come together to encourage, foster and facilitate. All right, it is seen as a negative, but I am hoping—especially with the kind of amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, produced—that there is guidance and encouragement: that is the important part of its role.
Rightly or wrongly—and many noble Lords may think wrongly—there is a suspicion that entry to the more prestigious universities is associated with social class. It may be a false correlation, but it is seen. I think, painful though it is, that in the long run it will help universities to have an OFFA giving that public assurance. Maybe those universities which are looking forward to 2010 may find that if they are going to have their dreams come true, OFFA has been passed at the gateway to that.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I would like to think that the last sentence of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, would apply. But I want to put on the record the resistance some of us have to OFFA. I understand, and it has effectively been said, that there is a package there, but there is another way of doing it which will allow regulation in a much more straightforward way. If universities are told simply that a proportion of the moneys earned and raised from the additional fees had to be set aside for needs-blind admission and therefore scholarships for those who could least afford it, that could be audited through the accounts of the university very quickly and easily.
There would he a corollary, however, which is why the proposal may not be politically acceptable: the fees would have to be higher to make that worthwhile and workable. But I do want to have on the record that there is an alternative: you do not have a £3,000 cap on fees; you do not have a cap; but you insist that whatever the proportion—and it might have to be about one-third—it goes into a needs-blind admission system. Then I think we could achieve some of the goals we have been aiming for. I would not like the Bill to go through without alternatives at least having been put on the record.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [The Director of Fair Access to Higher Education: supplementary provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 not moved.]
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 31, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) Each such report shall include the Director's analysis of whether or not provision for part-time undergraduate European Union students is developing at the same rate as provision for full-time undergraduate European Union students."
The noble Lord said: Before moving Amendment No. 66, I must first declare an interest as Chancellor of the University of East London, where we have 6,232
564
part-time students, and also that my younger son, Jonathan, is a lecturer on inclusive education at the Open University, which has considerably more.
I must also apologise for my absence last Thursday afternoon. As I explained to the Minister and others concerned, I had a long-standing invitation, together with my noble friend Lord Slim, to be at the splendid new gurdwara in Southall. While I was there, I was able to touch on the subject of higher education, albeit briefly—a theme then being debated in this Chamber.
Having read Hansard, I am aware that my absence also caused the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, to speak at greater length than she had planned, and I apologise for that, too. The noble Baroness informed us that no less than 42 per cent of higher education students in Britain today are part-time. Could anyone in all seriousness describe themselves as a director of fair access if he were to ignore those 800,000 students? Hence my amendment ensuring that the director includes them in his annual report. If the Government's view of their policy is correct, my amendment would allow the director of fair access to trumpet their wisdom. If the pessimistic among us are correct, my amendment will require the director of fair access to sound a warning. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett—who unfortunately is not in his place—is also supposed to be speaking to an amendment on part-time higher education, to which my name is added; that is, Amendment No. 77. I will, if I may, say a few words on that.
I believe that last Thursday the noble Lord was speeding towards Manchester as I was struggling through the rush-hour traffic to get to Southall. I imagine that the noble Lord reached his destination rather earlier than I did, but he certainly seems to have missed the boat this afternoon. Amendment No. 77 puts the onus on the Secretary of State to take into account the participation of part-time and full-time students, whereas my Amendment No. 66 puts the onus on the director of fair access.
I do not need to dwell on the virtues of part-time education and the especial place held in the country's affections for the Open University. They were well rehearsed at Second Reading by, among others, the noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone, Lady Dean and Lady Boothroyd, a formidable triumvirate indeed, well up to the fire power of the originals: Pompey, Caesar and Crassus. Further reinforcements arrived last Thursday with no fewer than six noble Baronesses—and one lone noble Lord—attempting to prize out of the Government even more improvements than they are proposing for part-time and/or mature students.
It seems to me, having read the Minister's friendly but carefully worded reply, that even after making pro rata adjustments, part-time students will receive significantly less help than their full-time colleagues, and that universities—wholly or mainly supporting part-time students—will also be disadvantaged by the Government failing to make appropriate financial provision to safeguard their multifarious and extremely valuable activities.
I pray in aid for this assertion two quotes given to me by my noble friend Lord Quirk, both from pre-1992 universities: Leeds and Leicester. First, Leeds:
"Damage would be inflicted to current programmes both by individual numerical losses (pushing up teaching costs) and possible clustering of lower recruitment in some programmes, making them unviable. It is difficult to see a simple or immediate way out of these problems".
Now Leicester:
"An immediate manifestation of not adapting form to purpose is still treating full-and part-time students as distinct species. It matters to institutions that cater wholly or mainly for part-time study, and to others for whom it is a major part of their business".
The position of the Open University was brought to your Lordships' attention by several speakers last Thursday, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, who is in her place. To illustrate my claim that part-time students are one of the keys to widening participation, I stress that more than 9,000 disabled students are studying through the Open University—more than 9,000—including quite a number with a learning disability. The first course concerned with that subject was launched over 20 years ago. It was a co-operative effort between the Open University and Mencap, at a time when I was that organisation's chief executive. The work continues to this day, and is an initiative—together with many others—of which any university would be proud. I am at a loss to understand the Government's apparent reluctance to make appropriate financial provision.
A consequence of not being in my place last Thursday is that I have had an insight into the Minister's reply. In referring to those amendments which seek to support the position of part-time and mature students, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, described them as either being unclear or adding to the burden of regulation. I agree. My amendment does add to the burden of regulation, but not the regulation of universities, rather the regulation of servants of the Crown—in this case the director of fair access. If we are not here to regulate the actions of servants of the Crown, what are we here for? I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I spoke at some length on this issue on Thursday last and I do not intend to do so again today. I wish only to endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and to reiterate two points that I made in my speech last week.
Two sets of people will lose out under the current proposals. One group consists of the part-time students themselves. As I pointed out, there are, roughly speaking, 800,000 part-time students in this country, four-fifths of whom pay their own fees. There are some improved bursaries available but only to those on very low incomes. Many of the students who pay their own costs are faced with an increase in fees from £570 to £1,500, almost treble the amount they now have to pay. Many will be put off from studying part-time as a result of the increase in costs.
566
The second group of losers consists of the universities themselves. They will not benefit in any way from government procedures to compensate for students. The Open University, in particular, will lose students. Ordinary universities with full-time students will receive their fees up-front from the Treasury; universities with part-timers will not receive equivalent amounts and will lose out.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, quoted from an article written by Chris Duke, a professor at the University of Leicester, about the impact of the Bill. He said that it mattered to learners and the wider community that part-timers should have a variegated range of access. Chris Duke said:
"Many more might upskill to the knowledge society away from the low-skills, low-wage equilibrium economy if support, opportunity and goodwill made part-time study a normal part of a healthy, learning society".
In the 21st century we must recognise that the way forward for our universities is to make part-time study as easy as full-time study. We will not do so with this Bill. It is an opportunity missed.
Baroness Seccombe: The amendments enable us, once again, to highlight the important work of institutions such as the Open University and Birkbeck College. I thank the Minister for the full reply that she gave to the Committee last week. I hope that this opportunity to discuss the issue again will enable her to provide more of the detail that she was reluctant to go into on the previous occasion. I also hope that it will enable Members of the Committee, having had time to mull over her answer, to probe the Minister further. The noble Baroness said that her door was open on these issues. What further meetings has she had, or has planned, in relation to part-time and mature students?
The Government have proposed a review of funding to address the imbalance between these two groups but this is unlikely to take effect before 2007 at the earliest. Can she assure the Committee that a review will indeed take place and that it will be implemented as soon as possible? What progress have the Government made on an alternative, first-aid solution, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, as an interim measure while awaiting the 2007 review?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thoroughly support the sentiment behind the amendment and the importance of ensuring that part-time undergraduates are taken as seriously, if I may put it that way. as full-time undergraduates.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Rix, can answer a query for me. Amendment No. 66 refers to part-time undergraduate European Union students but, as I apprehend it, the general duties of the Director of Fair Access apply only to home students under Clause 30 of the Bill. I wonder how, as a matter of practicality, the director can have regard to and survey the impact of part-time student provision across the Union.
Lord Rix: I shall try to answer the noble Lord. The information I have received is that anti-discrimination legislation enables universities actively to discriminate against overseas students if they are so minded. In this sense, "overseas" does not have its natural meaning of "Fog in the Channel, Continent cut off", but relates to
outside the borders of the newly enlarged European Union.
I gather that the Government's policy on fee regulations applies to all full-time European Union students. If fees for full-time students rise, fees for part-time students will follow. If the Bill should be passed, it will affect each and every European Union student but not overseas students. I therefore felt that the gauge of the Director of Fair Access should extend beyond the cliffs of Dover but stop at the boundaries of the newly enlarged European Union. I may well be corrected on this by the Minister.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: There were a
number of references to part-time students in the Second Reading debate and I am glad that the amendment has been brought forward. I hope, too, that the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, as a matter of clarification—which I think was greeted with a little scepticism around the Committee, but not by me because I do not know the details—will be brought further into the light of day by the Minister when she replies. It is a fine amendment and should find support, even among those virulent "savers of the
pound" who are Eurosceptic.
Baroness Lockwood: I spoke in the debate on Thursday and I therefore do not intend to speak at any length today. I support the principles embodied in the noble Lord's amendment. The intention of my Amendment No. 105, which is in this group, is to bring within the ambit of the Bill all part-time courses of at least one year's academic length and which do not exceed twice the amount of time needed to complete a full-time course. That would, of course, bring most part-time courses under its scope.
In her response, the Minister put a good deal of pressure on the promise that there would be a review of the position of part-time students. If the review takes 12 months, clearly there will be no inclusion of part-timers in this Bill. I know that she was sympathetic to helping part-time students but, if the Government cannot accept amendments which seek to include part-time students within the Bill, will they consider making a statement which would guarantee some additional assistance to the Open University and Birkbeck College, both of which will be at a disadvantage when the top-up fee becomes operative for full-time students in 2006? It would help a great deal. If the Minister cannot do so today, perhaps she will have another look at the issue and come back with a positive statement of some help for these two institutions in particular.
Lord Dearing: Following up on that question, can the Minister confirm that the Bill would allow fee deferral for part-time students if that were decided at
568
a later stage? If so, one group of candidates that I hope will receive early consideration consists of those on 50 per cent part-time courses.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Have the Government considered the position of Open University students living in the European Union who study in the European Union and get degrees from the Open University? A student from France or Germany, who may have a brother or sister at a university in England, pays the same fees as English students, because that is the European arrangement. However, top-up fees will affect that situation. What will be the position of the brother or sister who lives in Germany or France, who is studying with the Open University there, and collects a degree at the Open University degree-giving in Paris?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I hope to be as positive as I can. I was not reluctant to enter into this debate on Thursday but conscious of the time and the number of noble Lords in the Chamber. Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to repeat everything that I said on Thursday. However, I can show noble Lords a booklet that has just been produced called Financial Support for Part-time Students in Higher Education. I have arranged for 50 copies to be placed in the Library of the House. Noble Lords may wish to look at it because it is a very good document about what is now available to part-time students. I remind noble Lords that, before 1997, there was no support for part-time students. We have moved to a system that has ended up with grants being available for part-time students, which is the right thing to do.
I put all my remarks in the appropriate context for this discussion. As the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, indicated, if we decide that fee deferral should be available for part-time students, we could do that without the need for primary legislation. That is important in reassuring noble Lords that that facility exists. I also remind noble Lords about something that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, said on Thursday. Part-time students are many and varied, which is a great joy. Noble Lords will recognise that many of those students are very different from each other. Some are sponsored by their employers and some are not. Some will not know whether they are sponsored by their employers. For example, my own department encourages individuals to take up part-time education. It does not pay their fees up front, so it would not be listed as doing so, but it reimburses them in other ways. That is exactly the dilemma that I said that we would be trying to resolve through the students' income and expenditure survey, which, for the first time, will include all students, including Open University students.
As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, when she came to talk to Alan Johnson and me, we are very keen to look at what we can do in that context when we have better information. We are not reluctant to consider supporting part-time students or we would not have introduced the support that we already have.

569
We are keen to ensure that if we go further—if we can—it is in the right way. As with any government, that relies on good, positive information. Should fee deferrals be part of that, the Bill has the capacity to include them. I wanted to put that in an over-arching context. I do not accept the amendments because, in that context, I would not.
To answer the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, I have not had the chance to have any further meetings since Thursday. However, we are in ongoing dialogue, especially with the Open University, which we recognise is important. I am keen to continue that dialogue with the Open University and with Birkbeck, and with all the other institutions that have an interest. We recognise that this is an important part of their work. I can confirm that a review will take place and will be implemented as the noble Baroness indicated. I know that the Open University has expressed its intent to make a case for special interim funding. I cannot make any commitment on that: it is a matter for HEFCE. However, I encourage HEFCE to listen carefully to what the Open University has to say.
6.15 p.m.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is right about European students. The fees paid by full-time European Union students will be capped at £3,000, as is the case for British students. However, just as part-time British students are not within current or future regulation regimes, nor are part-time European Union students, so OFFA would not cover them, as the noble Lord indicated.
I shall deal with the specific amendments, which I hope will enable us to make progress. Amendment No. 66 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, specifically requires the analysis that is undertaken to include provision for part-time undergraduate European Union students. We think that it is important that the director's report covers surveys of access plans, the way in which institutions are improving outreach, the kind of bursaries available, how institutions' ambitions are affecting the picture in higher education generally and so forth. Of course, the director will contribute to the commission's review, after three years, of the work undertaken. However, I hesitate to go further in being overly prescriptive.
Lord Rix: If I change the amendment on Report and drop the words "European Union", would that be acceptable to the Government?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord is asking a Minister to work without a brief. Perhaps he will say that that is easy. Because the matter is important, I undertake to work with the noble Lord and look at the issues that he raised. It is my job to look specifically at the amendment tabled. Noble Lords will know that amendments often have technical defects. We are having a general debate.
570
I understand what the noble Lord is saying, and I will talk to him further on this matter. I am concerned that we recognise that there is a big difference. Institutions such as the Open University are rightly concerned about the impact of our new policies. That is why the commission is so important and why part-time study should be included. It is also why we need to get much better information about part-time students and work with those institutions that support part-time students right across the education sector to ensure that we get it right.
I genuinely believe that our positions are not very different. Quite rightly, those representing institutions with a large number of part-time students are concerned and want to push us to ensure that we have their interests at heart. I am keen that we have a meeting of minds on the matter, because we are not far apart. However, part-time students are not regulated and I am conscious of the director having a clear remit in full-time education and not confusing the issue. Rather, it is a job for the Government to look beyond that.
Lord Rix: Would Amendment No. 77 meet the Bill more accurately than my Amendment No. 66?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I was going to come to Amendment No. 77. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett is not here. Mischief is the word. I am keen on the offer to go to the National Theatre, because I have not been for some time. It does not look as though I will be going, but it would be nice.
As the noble Lord indicated, Amendment No. 77 would ensure that the guidance to the director does not discriminate between full and part-time courses. He will not be surprised to hear me say as an aside that the amendment as drafted does not have a clear legal effect. It is, as we often describe such amendments technically defective because it does not tie in with the sentence that it would amend. Having said that, I recognise the purpose of the amendment is to initiate discussion.
As I have said several times, the director's role concerns the regulation of full-time undergraduate higher education courses and initial teacher training courses. As we have indicated several times in your Lordships' House, we recognise the importance of making sure that potential students are not put off. Therefore, all of these measures as a package seek to support our universities and encourage the aspirations of students to come forward to our universities. Our access plans relate to full-time students because that is where we have introduced the new measure of variability. That is what the director is to regulate. That is important and understood. However, we recognise the valuable role of part-time study in higher education, and the promotion of lifelong learning is critical. There are many recipients of valuable part-time courses and Open University courses in particular, whom we all know. However, where we differ is that, because of the way in which the director is being set up, part-time students should not be a mandatory element of the director's remit. That is the

571
difference. Institutions can show the director their plans. They can look at the whole question of part-time provision if they wish. That is for the institutions to decide, not for us to dictate. That is the difference in what we wish to set up.
With the proviso that I am very happy to talk further—and the understanding that within the Bill as it stands we could move to fee deferment if that were appropriate, as I have already indicated—we recognise that the individual and collective institutions have issues with respect to part-time education. We are in discussion and will continue to be so. We absolutely accept that we need to get more information upon which to make decisions. But we are also very proud of the work that we have already done to support part-time students, and I refer again to my little booklet.
On that basis we do not want to be too prescriptive with regard to the director. It is important that the director focuses on the work to be done on full-time undergraduate courses, as we have indicated. Mature students are included in that. I suspect that we look at the issue of part-time students differently, but I am very happy to continue the discussion on that.
Lord Rix: I would like to thank the Minister very much indeed for that warm invitation and I suggest that I try to put together the "A team" to see if we can push through the open door of her office to discuss this matter further.
I am also very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and to those who took part in Thursday's debate. There has been a very good airing on part-time students and less airing on mature students, although we just had recognition of mature students from the Minister. I am grateful to all noble Lords—I am sure we are grateful to each other—for raising this matter. Part-time students number nearly a million people in this country. That is an awful lot of students and undergraduates.
So as we can knock on the Minister's door some time between now and Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 31, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) The annual report shall include the results of the monitoring of the effects of variable fees on all groups underrepresented in higher education during that year."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 68 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 69. Both these amendments relate to the functions of the Director of Fair Access as set out in Schedule 5, one of which is to produce an annual report. Both amendments relate to that annual report.
The first amendment relates to monitoring the effect of variable fees on all groups that are underrepresented in higher education. One of those groups is disabled students, who are perhaps the most underrepresented group in higher education. Many
572
institutions do not include specific outreach activities for disabled students in their widening participation strategies. It may be that, without further direction from HEFCE and OFFA, they will not do this in their plans for OFFA approval. Those representing the disability groups think that it is essential that the universities be required to include in their plans details of how they intend to increase the number of disabled students.
Many of these disabled students have to study part-time because of their impairment. Paragraph 7 to Schedule 5 requires the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education to produce an annual report which the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament. This amendment to the Bill would require the director to monitor the effect of variable fees on all under-represented groups and to include details of the monitoring in his annual report. This is a wholly reasonable amendment, given the under-representation of disabled students among the student body and the lack of detailed statistics both of needs and resources within the sector on this issue.
Amendment No. 69 picks up the issue of the lack of information and seeks to make OFFA the authoritative source of data on—and trends in—potential student applications to higher education, and to do this by reference to specific underrepresented groups. The process will help inform its own work and priorities and will also embed its value as a body in the eyes of the outside world.
At present there is no single authoritative source of data on student access. We have talked about the lack of data on part-time students. The Higher Education Statistical Agency supplies some data, and the funding council provides other information. It makes absolute sense for OFFA to become the authoritative source of such information if it is to be seen as the access champion. This would allow OFFA to generate informed debate on the issue of access to higher education and help it to be seen as the champion of those who are aspiring to higher education. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I would like to see greater availability of statistical information and I share the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, about the unsatisfactory nature of HESA statistics in many respects.
I am not sure that we can expect OFFA to do better. Some of the material that is mentioned in these amendments is information to which I think OFFA will not have access, and in particular—looking back on earlier provisions in the Bill and the requirement that universities not be required to do more than they already do—I do not see how the universities can provide information that they do not have. Universities do not have information about their applicants that would satisfy even the least exacting of statisticians.
Students are not required to declare their disability. They may find reason to do so, but very frequently they find reason not to do so and I sympathise with

573
their desire to keep certain things a private matter. Students may self declare under the bizarre categories that do duty for ethnic monitoring in this country, but they have a right not to. My experience is that, increasingly, they choose not to, very often because they are of mixed background.
Admirable as it might be to know all these things, in the end we are likely to have reasonably clear information about age—they give their dates of birth—and they can usually manage gender, but we are not likely to obtain information about family income background, ethnicity and disability that would be worthy of statistical elaboration in the course of the admissions process.
Some information on family income background has to be sought when it comes to supplying a bursary. However, in my experience universities that are at present doing this are riding piggyback upon local authority family income assessment. Of course, the basis of that assessment is to be changed in certain ways. It is notoriously unreliable information. It does not wholly fit with national income statistics. Many more are exempted from paying a tuition contribution than the national income statistics would suggest should be exempted. If we are to have more statistics let us have them, but only if they can be made good statistics. I do not believe that these categories of information are available to universities, or to UCAS, or to OFFA, or to HEFCE.
Baroness Lockwood: I support the principle behind these two amendments. It is important that we have as much information as possible on the question of access and the contents of the annual report.
In view of the noble Baroness's comments—and I accept the difficulties that individual universities have in obtaining this information and therefore supplying it—there are surely other sources from which the information can be obtained. Perhaps it should be part of the remit of the department to try to collate this information as part of an ongoing monitoring of the situation. Even if the actual figures are not available, the trends are surely available, which would be helpful, if not detailed, information. The trends would show what progress was being made.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. The problem is not that the information is a bit ropey or that the trends are not available. The problem is that the information is essentially personal and subject to data protection, and is not sought by universities or UCCA and is not available in any systematic way. We would have to do far more to discover trends.
Baroness Lockwood: I sympathise entirely with what the noble Baroness says. I know the difficulty that my own university in Bradford has in obtaining that information when it does its monitoring of equal opportunities policies, and the percentage of questionnaires that are sent out which are not
574
returned. I accept that point, and the problem of the Data Protection Act, but I believe that we should seriously consider what is intended by the amendments to see what further information could be obtained nationally, which could be made available to OFFA when it compiles its annual report.
Lord Addington: This will be the first time that I have spoken in this Bill, so I beg the indulgence of all those who have taken such a core part. My noble friend's amendments, especially Amendment No. 69, relate to disability. It relates to the disclosure of, and encouragement to disclose, hidden disabilities such as impaired hearing and dyslexia. Those are the two biggest ones, which people may not even be aware of as a problem but may discover later on.
Universities and everybody involved cannot give assistance unless they find out what is going on. I have had mainly informal contact with a number of people who have had hearing problems or mild dyslexia and have managed to get through the system. They often try to give information to universities too late, once they are in the process of having their degrees assessed or are coming up to exams. If we can encourage a process by which people examine those problems, there may be an initial increase of work for the universities but in the long term it will save them both time and money. There will be fewer appeals and many fewer pupils failing. According to the trend, things are getting better overall, but examining the problem at a central point has got to help.
It cannot just be me who is discovering that such problems are occurring. For instance, the son of someone from whom I am renting a house is dyslexic and is struggling through a degree. His university did not know that it was perfectly normal practice to dictate exams. That is the sort of absurdity that emerges time and again. It may be that his university knew but that his tutors did not. If there is that degree of ignorance in that one field, I would suggest that gathering such information is essential. If we can get such a requirement for gathering information into the Bill—and I believe that more legislation will do so in the future—it would save time. effort and money in the long run.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: It is in the interests of the universities and the national system that we get better at producing this information. It is clearly not adequate at the moment, for all the reasons that we have heard, but this seems a sensible way in which to tackle the problem—although early reports would have to have a very large health warning on them.
Baroness Seccombe: We recognise the principles behind the amendments, particularly from the RNIB and SKILL lobbies, and understand that information is required. We all want there to be an increase in the number of disabled students who reach the criteria in higher education, but I do not feel that it should be a duty placed in the Bill. The Secretary of State could require that information without a change of primary legislation.

575
We on these Benches are just as committed to equality for disabled students. In fact, we have argued throughout these discussions for equality for all students, so that they can be assessed and accepted on their skills, ability, aptitude and excellence. However, fairness, as highlighted by the Scwartz report, does not mean that the Government, directly or indirectly via OFFA, should be able to choose students. The autonomy of admissions should remain with the higher education institutions. I fear that such information may be used if, for example, there is not enough of one ethnic group at a particular university.
We do not want the system of admissions to become such that students who meet the required criteria are not awarded a place because it has to be allocated to an individual in a group considered to be underrepresented, regardless of whether they meet the skills and ability criteria. If such under-represented groups have the necessary qualities, access through the current "widening access" programme employed by universities should be used to attract them.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: When this debate began, I wondered whether this amendment was yet another add-on under which the Bill might sag. However. I have reached the stage, particularly after hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, of believing not only that the amendment is appropriate, apposite and right but that if it is not passed, we may be judged by a future generation that is yet more sensitive than us to the kind of people who would benefit from it.
Lord Triesman: These amendments would create new requirements for the Director of Fair Access to monitor issues relating to particular groups and to report them to the Secretary of State. On all sides of the Chamber there has been a great deal of sympathy with the motivation behind the amendment, which is to protect the interests of groups which, for one reason or another, may be under-represented in higher education. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters, as they are sensitive and important.
Amendment No. 68 would require the director to include in each annual report the results of monitoring the effects of variable fees on all groups underrepresented in higher education during that year. It is of course important that we should consider closely the effects of the policy on under-represented groups. That case has been made powerfully on behalf of disabled students by SKILL and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which are keen to ensure that we monitor our proposed measures for higher education to ensure that they have no detrimental effects on under-represented students.
I agree completely with the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, about the difficulty in collecting a great deal of the information, whatever our good will or motivations. Personal information is often declared only by individuals and only when data protection applies. The consequence for HEFCE—and it is likely to be true of OFFA as well—has been gaps in data.
576
Interestingly, as I have observed over the years, the more individual organisations collect data, the greater the mismatch may be between the data that they collect. It is not as though an easy composite can be constructed out of data, like the bits of a jigsaw puzzle simply fitting together. However, over time, it is also true that data have improved. Even with part-timers, where there was not a complete gap but there was nothing very good, there have been serious improvements in the amount of information as sources have produced it.
The one area in which it is extremely difficult to make great sense of all the data is in the construction of trends, which often depends on the data being particularly accurate at the beginning. I should tell my noble friends who raised the point that I suspect that the reason why some of our predictions about the numbers and kinds of students who might want to go into all sorts of post-school education have been way off the mark is because we have tried to construct trend-lines from data that were deficient at the start of the process. I draw the conclusion that we must try to do a lot better. It is not wholly impossible, but it is extremely difficult.
Amendment No. 69 is very similar and would require the director to include within the annual report an analysis of applications to full and part-time higher education courses, with particular reference to family income, ethnicity, age, gender and disability. All sides of the Committee would agree that they arc important issues. Of course it is right that we should monitor the effects on those groups. I wholly take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about the kind of disabilities which are often not apparent until someone makes them so. That may be well into the course—not at the point of applying or of admission—and therefore particularly difficult in the context of this legislation. I think that that was the great burden of what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, said.
Let me assure the Committee that we will take, of course, a very close interest in the effects of reform. That is why we have said that we will commission an independent review to look at exactly those kinds of issues three years after the introduction of variable fees.
The remit of the commission, published in a statement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on 27 January, includes looking at participation for particular groups. I have no doubt that disabled and ethnic minority students and students from low income backgrounds will be included in that.
The commission will also look at students' choices of institution, courses and modes of study and include the take-up of provision by full and part-time students. Given the responsibility for overview of access plans, the director will naturally have a significant contribution to make to this review.
Other interested parties—charities, lobby groups, academics and organisations such as HEFCE and Action on Access—will be looking carefully at the effects of this policy, not to mention the whole of the

577
sector itself. It will be interested, to say the very least, and my guess about its reaction is that it will be very alert.
As regards the director's annual report, we are reluctant to be over-prescriptive in legislation about what he should include. We fear that over a period of time we could construct a very long list and fall into a list mentality, which would not be particularly helpful for all the reasons I have given.
Other than the usual accounting requirements set out by the Treasury, I think that we should leave the detail of the report's content to the director. I think that that was the force of what the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, was saying in her contribution a few moments ago.
Much information is already available from HESA (Higher Education Statistical Agency) on ethnic origin and disability, for example. I hope that we would not want to try and duplicate it because the effort is already being made. It is at least questionable whether the director needs to add to that with further data collection and analysis. Certainly, the director should receive that information. It is critical that the information is received, but not necessarily that further data and analysis are generated, other than the increase in the quality and volume of data that HESA seeks to achieve.
Perhaps I may say that I encourage noble Lords to seek information from HESA for themselves. It is an important source of information, which is intended for the public domain. The better informed we are as we review these matters, the more likely we are to reach good judgment. I anticipate that HESA will wish to help in that. I do not think that I should elaborate further; the arguments have been well-rehearsed. There is no lack of concern anywhere in the Committee for the position of those students described in the debate. I think we should try and ensure that over time the institutions we have do their job better, rather than trying to replicate the job in other ways and probably sowing the seeds of some confusion. It is in that light that I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his considered reply. I say to noble Lords who have participated that in the process of the debate I have been convinced that OFFA is not the right body to gather these statistics. Noble Lords will note that in Clause 31(4)(a) one of the requirements on governing bodies in drawing up plans is to,
"secure the taking of, measures to attract applications from prospective students who are members of groups which, at the time when the plan is approved, are under-represented in higher education".
Someone has to gather the statistics, but I think that probably the right organisation is the Higher Education Statistical Agency in cahoots perhaps with UCCA, pooling their information. I take on board very much the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady
578
O'Neill, that universities do not gather this information and for reasons of data privacy do not particularly want to gather and store it; and that it is not necessarily appropriate that they should.
However, what is quite clear is that among its duties OFFA will have to take what information there is—and one hopes to see the improvement of that information over time—and to look at trends and to judge the progress of each individual higher education institution against the available data. However, in the light of the replies that I have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 31, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) The Director shall take account of views expressed by Parliament in response to his report under this paragraph.
The noble Baroness said: This is a small amendment. It need not delay us very long. I am sure that once the Secretary of State has laid a director's report before Parliament it will be placed in the Library. Some Members of Parliament may read it, and others may not. I am trying to ensure in the amendment that Parliament actually takes note of reports, whether through the Select Committee in another place, through a debate or so on. I should like to ensure that Parliament knows what is going on in terms of the universities' efforts to widen participation and to take note of reports, simply because there are so many myths around. There are myths at both extremes of the university system. Perhaps I may say that I have suffered from both in my own career. First, there are criticisms of Cambridge, Oxford and other elite universities being too posh to care about poor students and so on, and generally being distorted in their admissions. Secondly, there are myths about the post-1992 universities letting in any old Tom, Dick or Harry—people who are too thick to go to university, who really should not be there in the first place and so on—with no understanding of the enormous care in recruitment and selection which goes on at both ends of the system. I would just like Parliament to write something into the Bill to make them take note. I beg to move.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I support the amendment not only for the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, but also because I believe that the director of OFFA should be able to give reasons for either accepting or rejecting views—plural—expressed in Parliament.
Lord Skelmersdale: I rise briefly to support the amendment. It occurs to me that there is a small problem. The Bill states that the report has to be laid before Parliament and therefore it will be within the scope of Parliament's discussions. I, of course, have always envisaged that, like my noble friend, it would be the departmental Select Committee that would take

579
a particular interest in that. However, I suspect that legislation does not allow us to say so. It will be interesting to hear what Ministers have to say on that score.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for in a sense heralding what I am going to say. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, that I completely understand and totally accept the principle behind this, but I have been advised as late as today that there are some important constitutional difficulties which prevent me accepting it. It is extremely important that the director should pay heed to the views of Parliament. The director's annual report, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, will be laid before Parliament and probably through the Select Committee system. We will see scrutiny of those reports. The same applies to any special reports that the Secretary of State might invite the director to undertake. It is possible that Motions will be tabled and resolutions passed, and each and every Member of Parliament in either House will be able to express their views in debate.
Therein lies the rub—Parliament does not necessarily speak with one voice, and a Motion passed in your Lordships' House may not pass in exactly the same form in another place. The report from a Select Committee may not be accepted by the whole House. Views, however well expressed, will not necessarily be the views of every Member of Parliament. I am advised there are serious difficulties in placing on the director a duty to take account of the views expressed by Parliament, given that there is no commonly accepted definition of those views. The considered will of Parliament is embodied in legislation, and a director will of course take account of that. We run the risk of placing the director in an impossible situation. I do understand the concern of the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, and I will reflect on whether there is any way that we can respond constructively.
I apologise for the fact that I have not been able to clarify the situation earlier, but as I say, the formal, proper advice came today. It is an important principle, and I hope I have clarified that there are real difficulties but that I will look further. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply. I knew that the amendment was not quite the kind of proposal that could be agreed to, but it enabled me to say what I feel very strongly. On the basis of her kind reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 30 [General duties of relevant authority]:
[Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 not moved.]
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Lord Forsyth of Drumlean moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 14, line 9, after "education" insert—

"( ) not require any governing body or higher education institution to discriminate against or to prefer any student or prospective student on the basis of the school or type of school at which they were educated; and"

The noble Lord said: I do not wish to detain the Committee very long over this amendment, although it is important. Indeed, in the interests of making progress, I might have been tempted not to move it, were it not for the fact that I read in a newspaper today a statement made by the Minister in another place in respect of a survey indicating that children from state schools were not achieving places at the so-called "Ivy League" universities. The survey, which I believe was commissioned by HEFCE according to the newspaper report, identified that a number of youngsters were not going to particular universities, not because they were being refused admission but because they were not making applications. The Minister in another place, as has already been referred to, said that the fact that these youngsters were not getting places at these institutions was why we needed OFFA.
The amendment would state specifically in the Bill the fact that OFFA may not require universities to exercise any form of discrimination against or in favour of an applicant on the basis of choices made by their parents about their school. I believe it is necessary to have that in order to deal with the kind of mistaken impressions that are being created. I have a daughter who is at present making applications through UCAS to universities. As a result, I have quite a lot of contact with youngsters. She went to an independent school—I went to a state school, so I can just about remember what that was like. Amongst her generation, many believe that they are being discriminated against by particular institutions in making their applications. I have no doubt that people will jump up and say it is not true, it is not happening, but in politics, perception is everything. I think it is particularly damaging if youngsters believe that no matter how hard they work, however much effort they make, at the end of the day, people are going to cross them off the list because they went to a particular school. That, to my mind, is as bad as discriminating against people because they went to an independent or a state school—both are equally unacceptable. Children are innocent of the wealth of their parents, or of the schools they attend. It is essential that they should be looked at by universities on the basis of their aptitudes, skills, abilities and potential to make the best of a particular course. Everything I have seen about the way in which universities tackle this difficult matter seems to point to the area of concern lying not with the universities but with the schools.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, made the very succinct point that perhaps some of the stick should be placed in the direction of the schools. There is almost nothing in this Bill which points to the failure of the schools to prepare candidates. How can universities admit pupils who are applying for courses in

581
mathematics or physics if they have not actually reached the required skill levels to embark on the course in the first place? That is a problem of the schools. I noticed the Minister, who has been very helpful this afternoon, was nodding in agreement when I said that children should be treated solely on their merits. Therefore I am very hopeful that she will not have a problem with accepting some form of wording—if not this amendment—which will at least reassure the many people who believe they are to be discriminated against because their children went to independent schools.
There is a certain injustice in what this Bill proposes. Parents who have means or who decide to give up particular items of expenditure in order to send their children to independent schools find that when their children apply to universities, they are to be discriminated against in terms of receiving places. In return for doing so, the universities are entitled to charge them fees for which they and their children get no support through maintenance grants. It does seem to be very unjust. I expect the Minister to say this is not what is going to happen and that this is not the position—in which case I very much hope she can accept Amendment No. 73. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise to support absolutely everything that my noble friend said. Noble Lords may remember that this is the point that I focused on at Second Reading. I was in the state sector but my three children are currently in the private sector. I too feel genuinely and deeply concerned that they will be penalised because they are in the private system. Indeed one of them is on a scholarship in the private system, so she wonders what the point is. We have got to do all we can to allay those fears, if indeed those fears are unfounded.
I want briefly to refer to one of the reasons why I am really worried about this—the Schwartz review. The consultation document states that apparently research has been carried out which shows that, all things being equal, children from the state system do better at university than those in the private system. I want to say loud and clear that I understand that that piece of research has been misused, and I am glad to report that representatives of the independent sector among others are now carrying out research to check whether that has any grounding whatever. I personally doubt that it has. Many pupils from the independent sector are better able and prepared to cope with the private system—particularly some of the more "difficult" universities, if I dare call them that, such as Oxbridge—than are those who are not used to living away from home and fending for themselves in lots of ways from a young age, as is the case with children, in the private sector, particularly those at boarding school.
I agree with what my noble friend said about application to universities focusing on aptitude, skills and potential only. Does the Minister believe that universities need to know at all what schools pupils have attended? Universities UK is very keen to ensure
582
that OFFA should not have any involvement in admissions, but we need real reassurance from the Minister that any reference to a child or pupil's secondary education would he treated as an irrelevance.
7 p.m.
There is a problem. I know that it was a long time ago but, when I was in the state system, I did not have the confidence to apply for Oxbridge. I wish that I had, which is why I feel it so important that we widen participation. I applaud what the Government are doing in terms of seeking to widen participation and encourage universities to make people—people such as me, as I was—feel that they are up to applying; it is a sadness in my life that I felt so shy about applying to universities at all. However, admissions should be based on skills, aptitude, potential, interviews and, if needs must, what one might call secondary exams for application to university, like the old S-level. If any of my children apply to Cambridge, for example, and want to read medicine or law, they will have yet a further exam above their A-levels in order to apply. In the circumstances, given that so many pupils achieve a number of straight A grades, that may be a fair approach.
I want to speak out on behalf of the many parents who make a number of compromises in other directions to put their children through the private system. I know many parents whose cars barely get them to the school, and who compromise holidays and all sorts of other enjoyments in life. There are also those lucky pupils from poorer backgrounds whose parents simply cannot afford private education, but who are bright enough and have the aptitude to get scholarships and bursaries. Will they be penalised too because they have been in the private system? I hope not.
It disturbed me at Second Reading that even noble Lords referred to "the rich students". I take huge exception to that. I feel that I speak for thousands of parents who feel strongly that their children are lucky to be in private education because they get, in the main, a really excellent education. However, parents will be quietly making compromises to ensure that their children get the best. In life, we can give our children only two things: a lot of love, and a good education. It is up to the schools to improve standards of secondary education, to ensure that all pupils get a good education.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: I have some sympathy with the aims of the amendment, although I perhaps take it on a rather broader front. Those of us who do admissions in very selective universities are accused from both directions of discriminating against cohorts of young people on the basis of the type of school to which they have been. We look at not merely their potential and achievement, but their enthusiasm for their subject and the opportunities that they have had. Nevertheless the job is an art, not a science, although it is very conscientiously done.

583
We have to reckon that there are, every year, many disappointments. Far too many young people get three, four or even five A grades—we look at only the first three—for all of them to get their first-choice university. There are disappointments. and it is very easy for a pupil, parent or school to feel that there has been discrimination. The point is not simple, because the effects on reputation are hard to avoid with even the most scrupulous procedure.
I take the serious point about the amendment to be that we should not repeat the history of the United States in respect of college admissions by trying to institutionalise a representational form of access as opposed to fair process for everyone. I think back to the Bakke case at the University of California on admission to medical school. I hope that the Minister can assure us, as we would all support it, that the Bill's provisions have been read with an eye to whether anyone—be they a disgruntled school, parent, a local authority or, in view of the points raised by the Opposition, the Headmasters' Conference—can claim that discrimination has taken place because availability of university places is hinged to factors other than those that legitimately have a role in admissions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Whatever the Government may say, there is no question but that a lot of young people who are or have been at schools in the private sector have the impression that they and their friends are discriminated against in their choice of university. I know a large number of such people—some young relations, many of their friends, and many other people of my acquaintance.
It is very important that the Government dispel that. It is absolutely wrong that those people should grow up with the impression that they have been discriminated against by the Government, which is what they think. It may often not be true—we do not know—but the impression is there. There seems no reason whatever why there should not be something in the Bill to make it plain that that cannot be. The provision should perhaps not be worded like the amendment, but there should be something in the Bill to reassure such people. It is very unfortunate for people who may well in future take a lead in society to grow up with that grudge.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: We should be a little careful on the matter. I would like to think that there is no particular discrimination against those children from independent schools who choose to go to university. Once or twice today, we have mentioned the subject of the courses that are available in sixth forms and whether they reach the heights at which universities want to attract certain students. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, mentioned it in an earlier debate.
We have to bear in mind the balance of resources between the independent schools and the state schools. I would be particularly concerned if the resources of the independent schools enabled far greater academic prowess than were really required to go to university,
584
and if that were to then discriminate in some way against the perfectly good students who come out of the state system. One would not want to discriminate against those from independent schools, but we do not want to build hurdles that the resources of state schools cannot get anywhere near getting their students over.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It has been an interesting debate. I recognise the concern of Members of the Committee to ensure that the Director of Fair Access does not interfere in the admissions processes of institutions. We will be debating amendments on that shortly. It is absolutely clear that it is not the director's job to interfere. It is for institutions to select their students on the basis of academic merit, irrespective of their background or the type of school that they attended. It is very important that we recognise that.
We have no designs on academic freedom, nor do we seek in any way to disadvantage students from independent schools. It is for institutions themselves to decide which students best fit the courses that they offer and who should be part of their community of scholars. I agree that it would be quite wrong for the director to dictate to institutions which students they should admit, no matter what the basis. It will not be the director's job to do that.
It is worth saying that the quote with which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, began, was a misquote in the Times. I want to repeat what was said at the beginning of the quote, and I shall make sure that I give the noble Lord a correct copy. Alan Johnson said in his opening statement:
"All the evidence suggests that admissions are generally fair and that is why it will be outside the remit of OFFA".
I hope that that offers some clarification. There is a longer quote, which I shall ensure the noble Lord receives, but I want to place that matter on the record because it is important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, may have gained an impression, which is widespread, which I understand, particularly from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who has personal experience of the matter. It is not the place of the legislation to deal with false impressions. It is about clarifying that admissions are entirely the responsibility of institutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, said that there was a difficulty because some universities are oversubscribed with good candidates. They make choices based on a range of factors that might include how far they think the students have travelled in terms of their ability, knowledge and so on and their confidence level—which was an important factor as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said, in her own background and certainly in mine—and how much students have developed themselves in that process. On the one hand, as the noble Baroness said, that might be because they have experience of living away from home and are more mature; and on the other

585
hand, they did not have a school that provided them with that, but my goodness look how far they have come.
Universities weigh up all such factors when they consider their cohort of students. That is right and proper. We do not believe that they should discriminate and we do not believe that they do so in considering applications. We have always said that the issue is that the Director of Fair Access makes sure that we get students to apply who do not have that confidence factor and do not necessarily attend a school that promotes it and has never heard of the university.
I have said several times today that it is not an either/ or situation; it is not the schools or the universities, it is both/and. It is building on the enormous amount of work that universities do in outreach in waking up students to the idea that university could be for them. For a student who has never heard of a university or never thought of it, a day spent going round a science lab in a university could be one of the most exhilarating experiences of their lives. There are many instances, as noble Lords know, of individuals describing the moment that they made the decision that university could be for them. We want the Director of Fair Access to address all those factors in encouraging applications from students, but we do not want any form of discrimination.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will not be surprised to hear me say that the impact of Amendment No. 73 goes wider. The only proviso in respect of what I have just said is that the director might want to suggest to a university that it might want to consider outreach to its local schools. There are a number of instances—I talked about my own children earlier—where it is important that universities in a locality have a relationship with local schools, particularly those where there is not a tradition of going to university.
I do not think that any noble Lord would find that strange, but the amendment would effectively prevent that from happening. This is about the director and the institutions letting good common sense guide them. We have indicated in our guidance to the director on the bursary requirements that eligibility will be defined by financial need and not at all by the school.
I hope I have reassured the Committee that this issue is about institutions being responsible for admissions. I hope that the words I have placed on the record—if noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will reflect on them—make the Government's position crystal clear. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, to that effect.
I also recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, said; that while sometimes the pendulum swings between those attending state schools being unable to get in and those attending independent schools being unable to get in, on balance when students apply universities behave properly and applications reflect the issues for us in making sure we
586
receive the applications from students that all noble Lords wish to see. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister has not reassured me at all. Of course I agree with everything she said about the way that universities will set about this. I want to be able to say to a young person that it is the university's job to decide whether they will go there and no one can tell it not to admit them. The Minister has just said that the director of OFFA might say that a university has to take more people from local schools, so it could not take my young friend.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I absolutely did not say that. I said that in the process of looking at an outreach programme that a university might instigate to explain what university life is about it might be reasonable—this is an example I have plucked out of the air; it is not written down anywhere—for the director to say to the university, "Your local schools would welcome the opportunity for someone from the university to go and talk to them". Lots of universities do that. I was not implying or stating anything further than that, so the noble Baroness should be reassured.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In the far-off days in the mid-1950s when I was a college representative on the National Union of Students, NUS policy was to seek to abolish the then minimum maintenance grant. I took part in a plenary debate on the issue to move a contrary amendment, citing a cousin who was capable of going to university but would feel that she could not impose on her parents for the total expense if the minimum grant was abolished.
As the debate developed, representative after representative said that they had been mandated to vote for the motion, but citing the considerations I had raised they were going to change their vote, and I carried the amendment. Irony being the stuff of life, 40 years later I recommended to the late great Sir Keith Joseph that he should abolish half the minimum maintenance grant and then in the second year he should abolish the rest of it.
My concern in support of my noble friend's amendment is for a young person like my cousin who might be put off striving to get to university for fear that they are being weighed out of the race. I am partially reassured by what the Minister has said in reply, but they are words that need uttering again and again. "Trust the universities" is as useful a slogan as "trust the people".
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I congratulate the Minister on the ingenious reply. We have spent a long time saying that there should be no interference with the admissions procedures of the university. She has turned the argument neatly round against us and said that we cannot possibly interfere with the admissions policies of the universities, even if it is to prevent them discriminating against people from particular schools.

587
It is ingenious, but it does not quite wash. The Minister is a member of a Government that have spent a lot of rhetoric creating the impression that universities are discriminating against pupils from state schools and from particular areas. I could almost sense the weariness in the helpful contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, for the universities are between a rock and a hard place.
Ministers are saying things and creating an impression that is perhaps exaggerated by the media, as the Minister indicated may have happened today in the case of the Minister for higher education in another place, but nonetheless it has an effect on the people who read it and the culture that operates.
If one is responsible for admissions at a university and there are far more candidates with three or four "A" grades than there are places, there will be great difficulty where the well has been poisoned with the view that it is not the enthusiasm, ability, expertise or potential that governs whether people are awarded places, and indeed that universities will be subject to financial penalties from a Government that believe that they are not doing enough in this area.
I understand and welcome what the Minister had to say, but I feel that her colleagues have created an atmosphere in which people believe that there is discrimination. I am grateful for the contributions to the debate. My noble friend Lady Carnegy reinforced what I said about my experience: youngsters believe that they are being discriminated against. Many ask me why they have to put on their UCAS form the school they went to and why it should be a relevant consideration from the point of view of the university.
On the other hand, I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, concerning the importance of the resources available in state schools. But that is not a problem for the universities; the resources and standards in our schools, which is where the focus of attention should be, are a problem for the Minister's colleagues in her department. However much one wants to give a place to a youngster with ability, it must be impossible to do so if he has not learnt the basics required to set forth on the first-year course, and it will be extremely difficult for him to move forward. Therefore, in so far as those problems exist, I believe that the emphasis should be on schools.
I did not understand the point that the Minister was making—perhaps she could help me—when she said that the amendment would prevent universities having outreach programmes at their local schools. My amendment states:
"not require any governing body or higher education institution to discriminate against or to prefer any student or prospective student on the basis of the school or type of school at which they were educated".
To my mind, that does not prevent a university having an outreach programme at schools in its area.
However, if that is all that troubles the Minister in respect of the wording, I should be very happy for her to amend it slightly in order to deal with that point. Given the words of support that she expressed—very
588
welcome they were, too—I still do not understand why she could not undertake to consider this wording and perhaps come back with a revised form.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Buscombe, who rightly pointed out the huge sacrifices that people make to send their children to independent schools. Indeed, other people send their children to state schools and make huge sacrifices by buying houses in the appropriate catchment area. Therefore, it is not an entirely even-handed debate as between the state and independent sectors.
I shall not follow my noble friend Lord Brooke into discussing what I may or may not have said at NUS conferences, where the noble Baroness's Secretary of State was a contemporary. Goodness me—looking at this Bill, his views have changed somewhat. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): I must inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 74 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 75 to 77 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 14, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"( ) The Director shall not in the performance of his functions frame his advice by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research (including the contents of such courses or programmes and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed) or criteria for the selection and appointment of academic staff and for the admission of students."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 74 addresses the issue of academic freedom, and I am sorry that we are reaching it just at the point when noble Lords are disappearing for their supper, very understandably.
The issue of academic freedom was a key concern of almost all noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading, and rightly so because the principle of academic freedom is, for all of us, an absolute. In a free and open society, there is no way that universities should not have freedom of academic expression or freedom to criticise and be critics of government or of any aspect of society, and no one—especially in the political sphere—should have any control over them whatever. That, for me, and I believe for most noble Lords, is indeed an absolute.
The amendment uses the words of the 1992 Act in respect of the Secretary of State giving grants to the funding councils. Looking around the Chamber, I believe that perhaps only five or six of us were here in 1992 when the debate on that Act took place. I can assure Members of the Committee who were not here that it was a fierce and long-lasting debate. As I recall, it ran for more than seven hours. In response to a concerted attack from all sides of the House, the then government brought forward an amendment with wording identical to that in my amendment.
It is interesting to note that, at that time, the comments from all sides of the House addressed in particular the absurd possibility that one day some

589
future Secretary of State might wish to interfere with the criteria under which students are admitted or might wish to interfere with the processes of recruitment. In 1992—only 12 years ago—it seemed impossible that any encroachment on that freedom could ever be envisaged or be likely to happen. What a long way we have come since then.
It is important to say that there is every possibility that, if OFFA did its job properly, it could go a great deal further than simply consider applications. That point was made earlier by my noble friend Lord Lucas, who pointed out that the kind of courses that universities offer and the kind of decisions that they make about the overall pattern of their courses very much predetermine the kind of applications that they will receive. It can either encourage certain kinds of applications or discourage others.
Therefore, it seems to me that there is absolutely no way in which OFFA could not be tempted—in some ways, properly tempted, given its remit—to go far more comprehensively into, for example, setting targets for individual courses. Could we not show concern that, whereas certain courses are very appropriate for attracting applications from underrepresented minorities, others are not, and therefore we must consider the other courses which are not doing so well?
Could OFFA not also go into the manner in which courses are taught? Certainly, I know from personal experience how very hard some of the universities which have a very strong access commitment and which take a large number of students from underrepresented groups alter the way in which they teach, particularly in the first two terms of a course, because they expect students to enter university with inadequate preparation from their schools. Therefore, of course the teaching must be different from that at universities which attract people from schools which have taught their students and prepared them well for university. Should not OFFA also concern itself with the way in which courses are taught?
Similarly, those of us who have worked very hard to attract applications from under-represented minorities know very well that the profile of the staff in the university is very important. If all the staff are white, middle-class males, the university is conveying a certain kind of message about itself. Therefore, we worked very hard to ensure that our members of staff were representative of the wide diversity of students whom we wished to attract.
In other words, unless we can prevent it happening, it seems to me that those are all concerns which OFFA may find itself becoming involved in—not only in relation to applications but in relation to the criteria for admissions, the way in which courses are taught, the content of the courses and the structure of the staff and so on. I believe that we would all agree that that is wrong. We do not wish any outside body, particularly not a non-departmental public body, to involve itself in matters of that nature. That is why my amendment is comprehensive and covers, as the 1992 Act did, the whole range; that is, courses of study, programmes of
590
research, the contents of such courses, the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed, the criteria for the selection and appointment of academic staff and the admission of students.
I conclude with two brief quotations from a speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—I am sorry that she is not in her place—in the 1992 debate when she was the Opposition spokesman on higher education. She said, in a tone of surprise:
"It is not possible to anticipate or determine what some future Secretary of State…might do about, for example. the kind of students who should or should not be admitted, the kind of academic staff who should or should not be appointed, or about departments which the Secretary of State has taken against and wishes to close. Lists of exceptions cannot encompass every possibility. An interfering Secretary of State could always find ways of exploiting loopholes".—[Official Report, 20/1/92; col. 651.]
Again, she said at Third Reading that,
"the selection of students and their admission are entirely, and must be, matters for individual academic institutions. No government…should be involved in such detail. We must trust responsible people to get on with the running of institutions, deciding whom they can teach and who can best benefit from the courses they run".—[Official Report, 3/2/92: col. 102.]
I find myself in total agreement with what she said. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. Given my failure to persuade the Minister to accept Amendment No. 73 and given that I have consistently been robust about the briefing from Universities UK, on this occasion the briefing in respect of these amendments is helpful. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I too support the amendment. I was here in 1992, but up in the gallery. However, when I was younger I did not have the stamina to listen to seven-hour debates. Perhaps that comes with maturity as one accepts a place in the House. I prefer this amendment to later versions because it picks out the content of academic freedom in this context: course content, programmes of research, appointment of staff and selection of students. I believe it is necessary to include all those.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: Noble Lords will know that I have tabled my own amendments on this subject. They are the culmination of long months of discussion, including discussion with the Government. I certainly support the spirit of this amendment, but I look forward to moving my own shortly. I shall explain my amendments in more detail when we come to them, but I want to touch briefly on why I prefer them to that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry.
The word "admissions" is potentially ambiguous. We have had an enormous amount of discussion about this matter. I am clear that admissions standards, requirements, procedures, policies and decisions all need to be excluded from OFFA's remit. A wide interpretation of the word "admissions" would do that, but it could also exclude other matters that are

591
properly the remit of OFFA, such as open days or outreach activities which the Minister has said are entirely appropriate to OFFA.
However, a narrow definition of "admissions" might simply be admissions decisions. In that case this amendment would prevent OFFA from involving itself in admissions decisions, but not practices. So, for example, OFFA might be able to require institutions to end the practice of conducting interviews and fine it if it does not. I am not convinced that these amendments do what is necessary. I hope that when I put forward my amendments the Committee will consider that they take a clearer approach.
The amendment would also prevent the director of OFFA interfering and widening participation at the level of individual courses. Institutions may wish to refer to particular courses in their agreements, but OFFA should not be able to require them to do so. I believe that it is right that OFFA should consider widening participation generally but should not examine matters on a course-by-course basis. That would lead to an unacceptable level of micro-management by OFFA and could open the way to political pressure in certain areas.
Many factors affect application to particular courses which are outside the control of institutions. I have tabled an amendment on this subject too. Although I support the thrust of the amendment and although its wording reflects the wording, as the noble Baroness has said, of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992—it certainly appears to be sensible—because of the problems of the word "admissions", I believe that my amendments would more successfully fulfil the aims of the noble Baroness.
Lord Dearing: I have put my name to an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. Like her, I find myself in accord with the proposals made by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, but the point about the word "admissions" made by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, is valid. It has the advantage of being interpreted more widely than in Amendment No. 74. While I support the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, on what goes in, I am less confident about excluding the fact that the Secretary of State may give advice to the director.
When I dealt with the curriculum for schools it was said that one may give sex education, but that one should hold back on the practice. On the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, which we discussed earlier, there was considerable support for widening the remit of the director to include advice, guidance and training. If I were the Secretary of State and the director was getting a little too enthusiastic, I would want to say, "Cool it, mate". Providing that the direction was published, I would not want to say, "It's wrong to provide something like that".
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, had to say about the differences between the two and in particular about the issue of
592
"admissions". On the face of it, I cannot see that there is that much difference. As it stands, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said so eloquently in introducing the amendment.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I hesitate to speak because I have not been able to do so before. Therefore, I may say something that has been said many times. I hope I shall be forgiven. I speak as someone who was state educated and went to Oxford on scholarships, so I know what that is like—it was wonderful. But later when I was head of an Oxford college, I became conscious of three points that this appointment should consider. First, not enough people from state schools went to Oxford because at that time many teachers regularly said to their children, "Oxford is not for you; it is elitist; it is Brideshead Revisited", and so on. We tried to counter that. Our undergraduates used to go to comprehensive schools, as I did, to reassure the students, but it was an uphill struggle.
I remember one extremely promising girl who, although she performed extremely badly, was taken by the chemistry tutors because she had had six teachers of chemistry in one year. They recognised that it was a time of great upset in the school, but they took her just the same. Another girl who had won a place very nearly did not come at all because her teachers told her that she was a class traitor. They said so to her friends and family.
To some extent we must look at the need for this appointment to educate schools and to make the point that if Oxford takes only 100 medical students that is because of the size of its medical school and because it cannot expand. Equally, there are limitations in law. I do not believe that any of those points are made sufficiently clear to schools. We read about such matters in the newspapers, but schools need to be told. It must be explained that if a pupil is the 101st pupil, that is desperately bad luck but it is not prejudice. We need to consider the matter much more from the point of view, not of what the universities are doing, but of the situation that confronts people.
Lastly, I can remember very well the effects of social engineering when we indulged in it from time to time. The weak undergraduates had to be propped up by the strong ones. One will never cure undergraduates of helping each other and trying to work to enable the weak ones to manage. That is social engineering which has a very bad effect.
I wholeheartedly support the amendment, but I believe that the concept of the appointment should be considered. We need someone who knows the problems of all universities, who is close to them and who understands them. We need someone who will go to schools and say, "These are the problems; every effort is being made to help you but that is how it is".
Lord Winston: The noble Baroness, Lady Park, makes an excellent point. Rather than considering the director as encroaching on academic freedom, perhaps

593
one should consider him as someone who may assist at the front end of admissions to universities. I hope that that is taken to heart.
I wish to make a point wearing not so much my Imperial College hat as that of chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, which has striven hard to increase access. Thirty per cent of students at that university come from social classes C2, D or E. At Sheffield Hallam we believe that one of the things that should be written into the Bill is that OFFA is barred from having any influence over admissions. If OFFA is allowed to intervene in admissions decisions—for example, by setting admissions targets for students from specified groups or social classes—that would lead to the taking of many wrong decisions that could be damaging to students and universities.
The current proposals suggest that financial sanctions imposed through OFFA would be against failure to deliver a widening participation strategy. It is unclear how performance against delivery of such a strategy would be measured. Logically, the only feasible means of measuring delivery in this area—setting admissions targets and imposing sanctions against the delivery of specified admissions targets by class or social grouping—would undermine the fundamental principle applied by higher education institutions that admissions must be based on ability to benefit and probability of success in the course. By encouraging institutions to focus on volume, that would increase the risk of failure.
Baroness Buscombe: I support all that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has said on her amendment. I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, says on her later amendment—I am sorry that the two are not grouped. I prefer the one tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, because it appears more all-encompassing and therefore more reassuring. At the same time, however, it will be worth while to listen to what the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, says on her amendment.
Lord Wilson of Dinton: I, too, support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. I accept entirely the Minister's argument about the need to widen applications. Taking one university as an example, I have found extraordinary figures in the Cambridge University Reporter to show that of the last round of applications some 36 per cent came from London and the south east, 20 per cent from overseas and 1 per cent from the north-east. There is a clear geographical imbalance.
There are many ways in which we face a challenge, as the noble Baroness quite rightly pointed out. The Bill as drafted is unbalanced. On the one hand, it proposes a great apparatus of law on universities' access plans. On the other hand, on the very important issue of academic freedom, the law would say nothing if the Bill were passed as drafted. That shows an imbalance that needs to be corrected.
We have heard arguments about this group of amendments and about ones that we shall consider later. I wish that we could agree both, but I can see that
594
that is not practicable. One way or another, it is important that the issue of academic freedom is addressed in the Bill to rebalance the picture. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
Lord Lucas: I very much support my noble friend's amendment. Clearly, if we are to have an access regulator with teeth, he must keep his teeth out of such an area.
Presumably, one of the first things that the access regulator will do is talk to students who have not gone to university or to people in the north-east who, despite having good qualifications, have not applied to Cambridge, and find out what their problem is. If the reason given is, "All the Cambridge courses are too fusty. Of course I do not want to go there; I want to go where there are modern courses", or if it is found that schools are not up to it, that the kids are not getting far enough and that Cambridge has no arrangements for accepting people who have done a one-year access course to bring them up to standard, will the access regulator simply close his book and say "I cannot touch it"? If he did, he would be entirely ineffective, because he would not be addressing the problems that exist. Alternatively, will he open such discussions and questions with the university and be given a raspberry?
My difficulty with the model of the access regulator is that he is too powerful. He cannot discuss the real problems because they are the problems of the university. If the amendment were agreed he could not mess with the universities in this area; therefore, he could not deal with the real problems.
7.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was present at that great debate all those years ago. I remember great blasts from my late friend Lord Beloff towards the government that he supported about their monstrous behaviour. I said afterwards to our Front Bench, "For goodness' sake, put in a phrase about academic freedom and that will shut everybody up". I cannot remember whether they did, but that seems to be happening with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. She has made one or two proposals that would of course be very desirable.
However, my noble friend Lady Perry has carefully used words, lifted from other legislation, that specifically say what the regulator cannot do. That seems a much more effective approach than the golden syrup of providing that there must be academic freedom and the subject of student admissions must be avoided.
My noble friend included the question of staff and explained why. Listening with a fairly fresh ear and without a mental picture of what goes on during the admissions process, I think it is very important that the universities decide who will be their staff, where they come from and whether they should be from an ethnic minority. That is their job. I wish to goodness that the Government would leave it to universities. I get more and more angry about OFFA.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It would have been enormously helpful to me if we had been able to group these amendments with Amendment No. 75, but I understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, wanted separate debates. I am in a slight dilemma about how to handle things, so I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me if I do not quite get the procedure right. I shall be brisk, because I recognise the lateness of the hour.
If the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, and my noble friend Lord Winston have the opportunity today to look back on reports of earlier debates, they will feel that they have echoed what was said about the role of schools, including the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, put very well. I hope that they will forgive me if I do not refer back to those matters, but we have had the opportunity to discuss them. I hope that the noble Baroness will come back to me if she feels that I ought to say more.
The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, is doing what she talked about at Second Reading: recognising this House's proud record in defending academic freedom. It is a proud tradition. and it is right that noble Lords seek reassurance that that freedom is not under threat.
I have given assurances in your Lordships' House—I no longer know how many times—that the director will not be responsible for admissions, so I shall turn the page to avoid repeating much of what I have already said. One of the things that I wish to say to Members of the Committee from universities is that current evidence suggests that admissions are generally fair. It is important that we restate that point. Attracting applications from under-represented groups is a problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, referred to admissions to Cambridge from the north-east. In looking at those statistics, Cambridge University may decide that some of its outreach should be in the northeast. That would be a reasonable conclusion to draw, but it is for the university to consider such issues. There are always interesting dilemmas for some of our top universities, in particular, in looking at where their applications come from. It is hard to get representation from the north-east if students there simply do not apply.
However much noble Lords have tried to shift OFFA on to schools, there is also an issue about the extent to which universities can be involved in that. As Members of the Committee know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's draft guidance says:
"Institutions' admissions policies and procedures will be outside your remit".
Amendment No. 74 uses the wording of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. I understand her desire to reflect that in the Bill, but we must consider other issues, some of which have been raised by my noble friend. I repeat that I have not had the Universities UK briefing, therefore I am the one person in the Chamber who does not know what will be said.
596
It is part of the group of amendments proposed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, which are about changing the function of the director to an advisory one. Therefore, the term that the noble Baroness uses is "frame his advice". On its own, this amendment does not work. It does not adequately cover the director's functions. It would not prevent the director taking admissions into account in doing things other than providing advice—for example, in agreeing plans—which is not what the noble Baroness would wish to happen.
Furthermore, the reference to particular courses of study creates some difficulty. Clause 31(1) requires universities to include in their plans the fees of each qualifying course, which means any course for which variable fees might be applied—that is, full-time, undergraduate courses. Access plans are necessarily tied to the freedom to charge higher variable fees for full-time undergraduate courses. It would be wrong to sever that tie, which this amendment would do. As noble Lords have indicated—the noble Lord. Lord Dearing, in particular—it would remove the duty on the director to have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance, which, not surprisingly, the Government think is important. It is valuable to have that.
I have reservations about the technicalities of the transference of the 1992 legislation to this legislation. It does not work. Had they been grouped, I would have gone on to say that we are mindful to accept Amendment No. 75, and as we return from dinner. I hope that we will have a useful debate in which I will be able to state how important it is that noble Lords have convinced me and my colleagues to put this right in the Bill.
Lord Lucas: Will the noble Baroness briefly address my question? What will happen if the problem is with the admissions procedure or the courses? If that is what is causing the lack of applications from the northeast, or from comprehensive schools, or from a particular social class, does the access regulator have nothing whatever to say? Must he just shut up?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The access regulator's relationship is with the university in looking at what the university can do to support applications. The instance that the noble Lord gave me would not occur in reality. The director would not be talking to students about why they were not applying. It does not work like that.
The hour is late for me; sustenance calls. If I have not responded correctly, I shall have either a word with or send a note to the noble Lord to make sure that I have picked that up?
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the Minister for her reply, and I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am grateful for the support for the amendment from many sides of the Committee. I accept what the Minister said about some technical details needing to be looked at again, but I am sure that by looking at this together with the other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, we will

597
be able to come back with something on Report. I am delighted to hear that the Minister is mindful to accept something fairly comprehensive. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House do resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before seven minutes to nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Smoking
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh Baroness Rendell of Babergh rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their view of the therapies available to help people to stop smoking.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, everyone in the United Kingdom is aware by now that smokers should give up their habit. Smoking, restricting smoking, banning smoking and the effects that it has, both active and passive, on the health of the nation are in the news almost every day. Certainly, a week never goes by without the announcement of some new restriction on smoking—or the disastrous result of it on our hearts, lungs and circulatory systems—appearing in the media. Today, for instance, sees the presentation of the findings on passive smoking at a conference organised by the Royal College of Physicians. Great stress is placed on the need for smokers to give up and many therapies have been developed advising on how to do so. Smoking is said by some to be more controlling and enslaving than a heroin dependency.
It is 27 years since I stopped smoking, but I still remember the horror and the very real anguish and longing I suffered after I gave up those 30 or so cigarettes a day that I had been smoking. I do not mean to go into case histories this evening, least of all my own. Apart from trying cigarettes stuffed with dried lettuce leaves, which would in any case have solved only part of the problem, I found no aid available. Now I see herbal cigarettes are back again as a suggested remedy to help people to conquer their craving. Do Her Majesty's Government realise how difficult it is to stop? When they advise people to stop smoking, there are entering a quality of life area, where by giving up his or her addiction the smoker may see the whole purpose, routine and programme of life change, a support one always relied on in times of stress or crisis banished, and a supreme pleasure snatched away.
What is being done to ease the passage of addicts—I see nothing wrong in using this word, I know that I was an addict—from the dependency that has them in its grip to a final freedom from cigarettes? According to Cancer Research UK, simple interventions such as the advice of a doctor, nurse, pharmacist, dentist, or
598
other health professional, are powerful motivators to stop smoking, and encouragement is given to all health professionals to ask patients at least once a year about their smoking and offer advice about giving up.
Apart from the herbal cigarettes that I have mentioned, there are systems called Smoke Rx and 7-Day Smokeaway, each of which provides a week's supply of natural supplements and aromatherapy. The promoters of the systems recommend focusing the mind on kicking the habit and the repetition of the mantra, "Let's get healthy". Probably the oldest aids are those which come into the category of nicotine replacement therapy; nicotine gum and nicotine patches. The gum is chewed until the taste becomes peppery, and while it rests in the mouth the nicotine is absorbed through the cheek into the bloodstream. This process is to be repeated once the taste of the gum fades for 30 minutes. Ten or 12 pieces of gum a day for one to three months is recommended.
Nicotine from a patch placed directly onto the skin is absorbed into the bloodstream throughout the day. The 16-hour patch is used during the day and thrown away at night, while the 24-hour patch is worn all the time and replaced during the day. It is said that United Kingdom smokers reach for that first-thing-in-the-morning cigarette earlier than everywhere else in Europe, and the manufacturers of the patch claim that this type is particularly suited to heavy smokers who crave a cigarette on first waking up in the morning. Experts believe that the need for an early cigarette could be one reason why two out of three attempts to quit the habit by smokers in this country fail within a week. Patches have been available on the NHS, I believe, for the past three years.
The first kind of nicotine replacement therapy claimed to deal with both elements of smoking addiction—the physical and the psychological—is the inhaler, called the "inhalator". A cartridge is inserted into a tube about the size of a small cigarette holder. Sucking on the end of the inhalator pulls nicotine vapour through the cartridge, which is then absorbed through the mouth and throat into the bloodstream. Each cartridge lasts about 20 minutes and between six and twelve a day may be used, each providing a low dose of nicotine over a long period. This system seems to satisfy the craving for a nicotine rush. The drug Bupropion, trade name Zyban, apparently helps take away cravings and helps with withdrawal. The inhalator cartridges cost about two-thirds of what cigarettes cost and can be bought over-the-counter from pharmacists and supermarkets, but both Zyban and nicotine replacement therapy are available on National Health Service prescription. According to Cancer Research UK, these medications approximately double a smoker's chances of stopping. Can my noble friend tell the House what side effects, if any, Zyban has?
Breath carbon monoxide monitors have apparently been in use for 20 years. The help that they give seems to consist in giving the smoker visible proof of his damaging CO levels and are designed to be used during smoking cessation programmes. The NHS has a smoking helpline, as does Quitline. Many people anxious to give up, I might say most, hope to achieve their aim by a slower and therefore less painful process

599
than any cold turkey method, and prefer to attempt it by cutting down the number of cigarettes smoked. ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—warns that that is a pointless strategy for people concerned about their health. Apparently, the belief is that cutting down lulls would-be quitters into a false sense of security, with the result that they draw more deeply on the fewer cigarettes that they have allowed themselves. Dismissing that method, ASH says that it is just a different way of consuming the same drug. Similarly, smoking low-tar cigarettes simply leads to smokers inhaling eight times the amount of nicotine and tar than is stated on the packet.
So we come to hypno-and psychotherapy. What results are achieved by self-hypnosis, for instance, I cannot say. I have no experience of that method, but I hope that other noble Lords speaking in the debate will be able to give more information on it, particularly on the effects and the success rate. The same goes for experience of the inhalator, patch and gum therapies.
An organisation called Goldmoor offers a self-hypnosis programme called "Mind power" that claims to handle various kinds of stress. The Allen Carr is more convincing—to me, at any rate—with its boast of having 40 clinics in 18 countries and having treated 20,000 smokers in the past year. One is told that a trained therapist conducts a group of up to 20 people, and the session lasts for four to five hours. Smokers are encouraged to smoke as much as they like during sessions. At the end, they smoke a final cigarette and then, rather dramatically, I suppose, throw their lighters and remaining cigarettes into a pile at the front of the room. The therapist focuses on the reasons why we smoke, rather than why we should not. A combination of psychotherapy and hypnotherapy is used, with the aim of removing the smokers' belief that the habit provides them with any sort of genuine pleasure or crutch. Feelings of sacrifice and deprivation that may ensue from giving up are, in theory, removed, and the ex-smokers suffer neither fear nor pain from their loss.
On what seems to me a far lighter note, the British Heart Foundation, which runs an enthusiastic and dedicated anti-smoking campaign, has converted the popular Internet tetris game into an anti-smoking therapy. Apparently, when playing the game for the three minutes that it would usually take to smoke a cigarette, the player sees how many fatty deposits he or she can stop clogging up a section of artery. The idea is that the game distracts the player from his or her desire to smoke. I am afraid that my experience teaches me that the slight stress and challenge of the game would be more likely to lead one to reach for a cigarette.
Finally, there is the option of just giving up cold. It is hard. "Will-power" is an expression almost totally gone from our usage. It needs to he revived. We have become accustomed to expecting help with everything and doing little on our own. I can say only that I have never talked to anyone who, having given up, regrets it, or to anyone who feels no improvement in his or her
600
health from having done so. Meanwhile, the world awaits a harmless potion that in a single dose and at one magic swoop will take away the craving to smoke.
Which therapy does my noble friend favour? Do Her Majesty's Government prefer a particular method as the safest, least likely to carry serious, troublesome side effects and the most efficacious?
8.3 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Rendell of Babergh for bringing this important subject before us tonight.
Every day, 450 children in Britain start smoking cigarettes. One in three girls aged 15 smokes, and most smokers start in their school years. Nineteen per cent of 11 year-olds in England have tried smoking. Children and young teenagers get addicted to nicotine, and the addiction can be as great as that of adults. If they decide to give up, where do they turn?
There are many good school-based programmes. Most are based on educating children about the danger to health and ensuring that children do not smoke at school. All that is very good in making children aware of the problem, but for children who smoke regularly there does not seem to be as much help and support given as there is for adults. One good organisation, called Quit offers advice to adults and to children and young people. It is one of the best that I have seen. It gives help and support to young people, such as a telephone helpline, counselling by working in groups during lunch hours at school and speaking in the same language as young people.
Recently, I read an article in the press that revealed that research showed that children as young as eight were smoking six cigarettes a day. Dr Nick Lupini, a GP in Llanelli, says:
"I have seen children of eight who smoke half a dozen cigarettes a day. When you have children as young as eight smoking cigarettes something needs to be done".
He goes on to say:
"The prescription of nicotine patches would only happen as a last resort in these cases, and we would try other methods first. The real problem is children getting hold of cigarettes, not nicotine patches".
I had the opportunity of speaking to Dr Lupini last week. He told me that, although children may smoke at a young age, they were,
"rarely heavily addicted and they only occasionally smoked. A bigger problem was teenage girls who smoke".
Nicotine replacement products can be prescribed to children by GPs to tackle the problem of cigarette addiction, although some doctors have questioned the practice, as they believe that it might pull children further into the grips of addiction. From what I gather, there appears to have been no research into the effects on children and young people of the use of nicotine replacement therapies. There is a need for more research into the most effective way of helping and supporting young people and to see how effective therapies are for this age group. One report that I read recently said that research in the field was in its infancy.

601
A piece of research on young people, which was commissioned by ASH and carried out in July 2000, illustrated how difficult the problem was. The research, carried out by KSA Associates, showed that cigarette smoking retained a strong appeal among young people and that social pressures to smoke were strong. For many young smokers, the thrill of flouting the rules by buying cigarettes under age and smoking them at school seems to be part of the appeal of cigarettes. The research also showed that young people who wished to smoke had little difficulty in obtaining cigarettes. They know which shops will sell cigarettes to under-16s. Many young smokers rely on older friends to buy cigarettes for them, or they buy cigarettes at school, obviously from their school friends.
Underage smoking is a huge problem and there are difficulties in giving effective help and support to children and young people who would like to give up. I welcome the initiative by the Welsh Assembly on smoking cessation programmes for young people. Between 2001 and 2003 eight pilot adolescent smoking cessation projects were held in Wales. Because of the success of those projects, the National Assembly for Wales has won funding worth £221,000 from Europe to co-ordinate a Europe-wide adolescent smoking cessation programme. As a result, an initial conference is being held in Cardiff today and tomorrow. Representatives from 14 European countries will be attending and the aim is to support projects in eight countries, including Wales. This is a great initiative and should provide much-needed information.
I am sure that the Government are doing all they can, but unless we can persuade children and young people that smoking is not a good idea, how will we be able to reduce the number of adults who smoke?
8.8 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell of Babergh, for raising this topic. We are not here to debate whether people should give up smoking, or indeed whether they should ever start, but whether there are measures that are effective.
I would suggest that it does not really matter what method someone uses to quit, providing of course that it is safe. There seems to be one single factor that determines the outcome, and that is the motivation to quit. People have to want to quit. They need to realise that they have a problem and to want to change their behaviour. It is at that point that pressures from society come in so strongly. In the clinical scenario, the unique opportunity of a clinical consultation may provide the teachable moment in which a person confronts the reality of their situation, but that depends on having some evidence of damage or potential damage to show them.
Much work has been done on behaviour change based on the "trans-theoretical model". It recognises the brick wall of trying to persuade someone who does not see the need to change to make the change, and the importance of maintaining change when it occurs.
602
Smokers can be thought of in groups covering certain stages. The first is the pre-contemplation stage, covering the kids who think it is cool to smoke. Those young people are not going to stop. They may then move into contemplation, thinking that perhaps it is not so cool when they cannot run as well as they could, or that they are coughing because of the cigarettes. The next step is key, that of preparation and beginning to think about stopping. That is followed by the action to stop, where the different therapies and support come in. Lastly comes the difficult stage of maintenance.
Motivation to stop smoking can be assessed accurately with three simple questions: do people want to stop smoking for good; are they interested in making a serious attempt to stop in the near future; and are they interested in receiving help with the quit attempt? Once the decision to quit is made, it seems that nicotine replacement therapy helps, in particular for those who had a high nicotine intake through their cigarettes. It also helps to identify heavily dependent smokers.
Student teaching in both medical schools and nursing undergraduate curricula is woefully inadequate, but the curricula are full and I suggest that it is probably at the postgraduate stage that the skills to help people stop smoking should be learnt. Pack cover messages probably do not have any effect; they just raise general awareness so that with hindsight people are aware of the risks they have been taking for a long time.
In the USA, studies have suggested that youngsters who smoke have higher levels of feelings of stress and depression, so smoking in young people in itself may be a pointer to mental illness in teenagers. So how do we discourage youngsters from ever starting on the road to nicotine addiction? A group of 14 year-olds from Caen in northern France and their teacher have come together to put on a forum of theatre vignettes in schools to get groups of parents and children to think about not smoking. They play a scene of kids smoking outside school in the morning, followed by a scene of two of them at home that night. The audience is invited to volunteer to take over the role of any character and act out what they think should be done, and the scene evolves. Interestingly, it is the youngsters, not their parents, who call for firm discipline and a zero tolerance culture. While the parents feel unable to confront their children, the children themselves seem to be pleading for strict rules so that they know where the boundaries are.
But the youngster in love seems to be able readily to quit if their loved one insists on it. That is a pretty powerful tool in getting people to stop smoking. Being in love is a therapeutic measure.
Passive smoking is known to damage health. I shall not go through all the background, but the figures from New York show that if there is a culture of not smoking, it makes quitting easier. Around 100,000 New Yorkers have now stopped smoking, and it is estimated that 300,000 smokers in the UK would stop completely if smoking was banned in public places.

603
We have to ask why so many nurses smoke. I would suggest that there is a sub-culture at work. But things can change. At my medical school, of the six porters, five were smokers two years ago. Since then I have given each quitter a box of House of Lords chocolates when they have given up for three months. The nonsmokers also get House of Lords chocolates to encourage them to stay off. I suggest that our gift shop is just as good as nicotine patches, but it is becoming a bit expensive for me as I am rolling the programme out to the canteen and the staff at Cardiff Central station.
Unfortunately the record of the tobacco industry is not good. The "Latin Project" is a sad tale of undue and undisclosed influence on the part of the tobacco industry. Therefore please can we have a ban on smoking in public places? It should be viewed as a therapeutic measure. Wales wants to do it. This is not about politics or power struggles. Banning smoking in public places is a preventive therapeutic measure.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I join the general approval for and gratitude to my noble friend Lady Rendell for introducing this debate. She has rightly focused on looking at what works in terms of smoking cessation, rather than the damage that smoking does. However, as chairman of Cancer Research UK—an interest of which I remind the House—I believe that it is important that we focus on the truly horrific fact that smoking is responsible for a third of all cancer deaths in the United Kingdom each year, equating to 46,000 deaths in 2002, and that lung cancer kills one person every 15 minutes in the United Kingdom.
Lung cancer is an extremely difficult cancer to treat in the majority of cases. It is also an extremely easy cancer to prevent in the majority of—if not all—cases, by preventing people ever taking up smoking in the first place, and cessation of smoking for those that do.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, but I do not think she needs to persuade smokers that smoking is dangerous. Most of us who have been or are smokers know it. What she needs to do is to persuade smokers that life without smoking can be safe. That is a lot harder.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right. My dear father used to say that it was easy to give up smoking: that he had done it hundreds of times. He died, not of lung cancer, but of bladder cancer—a cancer that is related, as are many other cancers, to smoking. I believe as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, that knowledge about smoking, as well as knowledge of the dangers of smoking, are tremendously important.
I know that the noble Earl is sometimes gloomy about the ability to persuade people to give up smoking successfully, but there are now 12 million people in this country who are ex-smokers and who have been convinced that life without smoking is worth while. That is a very important and encouraging
604
fact. But I take the point that we need to know what is effective in this area. We need to have proper research that gives us the evidence on which to base strategies.
That is why I support not only the work that is founded on looking at the biologies of cancer or at developing new therapeutic targets in order to treat cancer, but also the very important behavioural research that seeks to understand the motivation for taking up smoking in the first place and looks at effective strategies for changing that.
There is very interesting research going on in Oxford, where Dr Robert Walton is investigating the molecular basis of nicotine addiction and how a person's genetic make-up influences whether they become a smoker and how easy they find it to give it up. That is the sort of research that will help to inform the counter-preventive strategies of the future and lead to more tailored and therefore more effective smoking-cessation aids. I am afraid falling in love is not a cure for everybody, nor an option that is open to everybody.
It is tremendously important not only that we conduct long-term trials on smoking cessation, but also that we are willing to share that evidence with the developing world. If there is one thing that is enormously sad when looking at countries in the developing world as they get richer, it is that more and more people smoke. They are then building up epidemics for the future and will have to go through the same learning curve that we have gone through in public health. That would be an absolute tragedy. We know the dangers, we are beginning to know some of the strategies that are effective in countering smoking, and we ought to be sharing that knowledge internationally.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lady Rendell of Babergh, who I congratulate on this Question, I will give my case history. I have given up drinking, smoking, gambling, swearing, pudding and coffee. Smoking was infinitely the hardest.
I started smoking at my colonial Rhodesian school when I was 12. The big boys smoked and the tough boys smoked. I was puny, and smoked hoping that I would be thought big and tough. Nearly all of us 10 Acton children smoked. The advertisements told us that smoking was grown-up. The economy depended on tobacco. We smoked box after box of 50 Matinee cigarettes. In a joking voice, cigarettes were sometimes called "coffin nails". We ignored that voice and our farmhouse was a blue haze.
Thus prepared for life, I departed for university in England. Down the years, cigarettes were my constant companions.
In 1988, following the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I fell in love and, aged 46, I married an Iowan. The social climate of that American mid-west state was fiercely anti-smoking. My wife banished me to the basement to smoke. At a dinner, I soon learnt that you could not smoke in other people's houses. I asked to smoke in the living room and then the

605
television room and received a firm "No". Taken to see the car, I asked to smoke in the garage, and again got a "No". "I suppose the car will get cancer", I muttered furiously, and went out into the snow to smoke.
Gradually things changed. Everyone I met seemed to have given up smoking, even the most hard-boiled of mystery writers who seemed a natural smoker if ever there was one. Cigarette packets had a warning from the Surgeon-General that "Smoking can damage your health". I began to wonder if possibly he did not have a point, and then would hastily smoke two cigarettes to rub out the thought.
A doctor, originally from Glasgow, told me that he had given up smoking in the 1960s because of the proven link with lung cancer. There was a smoking room at that Iowa city party. "Look at that ashtray", he invited. I looked—really looked—at that ashtray overflowing with cigarette stubs. "What filth are you putting into your lungs?", he asked. I could not get that ashtray's image out of my mind. Finally, I went to an editor friend and poured out my thoughts. She summarised them. "You love your wife; you're very happy. Do you really want to kill yourself with cigarettes so as to be naughty?".
On 2 January 1991 I had lunch with my doctor friend. I told him that I doubted if I could stop smoking. He uttered the immortal words, "If you really want to give up smoking, you can do it". He recommended nicotine chewing gum, Nicorettes. After lunch I threw away my box of cigarettes and never smoked again.
But it was tough, very tough. The craving was constant. The Nicorettes were a blessed relief, but how I pined for the real thing. I ate far too much; my concentration waned; my temper deteriorated. On the other hand, my wife glowed with happiness and friends congratulated me. Somehow I got through that first year. Whenever I nearly gave in I would cling on to those words, "If you really want to give up smoking you can do it", and I would resist temptation.
After a year, with difficulty, I gave up my Nicorettes and switched to chewing gum. I believe that I have compulsively chewed more gum in your Lordships' Library than anyone else in history. Then my dentist forbade chewing gum as a peril to my teeth.
Fourteen years have gone by and I never think or dream of smoking. My experience shows, first, that a social climate hostile to smoking helps; secondly, that the support and encouragement of family and friends helps; thirdly, that the image of an overflowing ashtray with the slogan "What filth are you putting into your lungs?" helps; fourthly, that health warnings help; and, fifthly, that analysing the underlying reason you smoke helps. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, I believe that doubting that one can succeed is the greatest barrier to giving up smoking. So, sixthly, the words "If you really want to give up smoking you can do it" should be engraved in gold and stressed to every smoker who comes to the National Health Service for help.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Rendell for instigating the debate and for her masterly summary. Smoking is the subject of endless speculation. As someone once said, it is now proved beyond doubt that smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.
If smoking is so harmful, why do people do it? Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, my question to the Minister is: what evidence is there for what helps people to stop smoking? I am not convinced that therapies are the whole answer. In my family we have an expert on giving up smoking; he has probably tried everything. I have several friends who have attempted to give up; many with success, some not. One used to use patches; take the patch off to have a cigarette and then replace it. Giving up is highly individual and nearly always difficult despite incentives. People seem to think that they could give up if they wanted. A cabaret song went something like this:
"My teeth are all yellow and so is my tongue, I breathe through a kipper, they call it a lung, but I'll give up the habit. I will even yet, when I've had just one more cigarette".
I know that a significant incident in life can precipitate stopping smoking. Long before I knew that I was pregnant with our first child, I gave up smoking, alcohol, tea and coffee. Clearly, my body was telling me something. Many women and men give up when they have young children. People give up after health scares, but some resume. Smoking is partly a public health issue and partly a personal issue, linked sometimes to therapies. Smoking is about addiction and risk taking. Many young people experiment and take risks such as smoking, drinking or drug taking, and stop the behaviour as they mature. Some do not. Some become addicts and addiction is difficult to break, as we have heard this evening.
I will briefly discuss hard-drug taking and drug treatment. I declare an interest as chair of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. We know that drug treatment works and that treating people for drug misuse saves a lot of money to all systems, including health and criminal justice. Treatment has to be readily available and suited to individuals, taking into account their lifestyles and mental states. Treatment can be a long process. I have heard users say that stopping is not the problem. Staying off drugs is the difficult bit. Therapies do work to help people stop using drugs, and so does the support of family, friends and communities, which was reflected in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Acton.
There are parallels between drug use and smoking, but there are also differences. Smoking is a common social drug. I am sure that anti-smoking therapies can work, but they work better if they are supported by family and friends, once a person recognises that they need help. I said earlier that smoking is partly a public health issue. Public health is influenced by economics, social climate, campaigns, the media, education, advocacy and the law, as well as public services. In other words, health is not simply an individual issue.

607
In considering smoking cessation, I would like to say a word or two about social climate, campaigns, education advocacy and the law. I suspect that they may influence giving up smoking as much as therapy. Education and preventive measures designed to put people off starting unhealthy habits have had uncertain success rates and are difficult to evaluate. Making smoking unacceptable is beginning to happen. I can remember when cigarette advertisements implied wellbeing, toughness and sex, depending on whether or not you were on a horse. More and more people are insisting on not having to be near smokers. Health campaigns have become tougher. Helplines are frequently given alongside the deterrent to stop.
Last week a report from New York stated that a huge increase in cigarette tax and a ban on smoking in bars had cut the number of adults smokers by 100,000. New York City experienced the biggest decline anywhere in one year. Those who did not stop cut down by 13 per cent. A professor of health care put this down to a threefold attack—raising taxes, making it harder to smoke indoors and promoting cessation. Therefore, public health messages, legal imperatives and social climate seem to be powerful means of influencing health behaviour. If we can add suitable therapies, this holistic and multi-faceted strategy is the one most likely to succeed.
8.29 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, if noble Lords do not mind, I should like to speak in the gap. I was notorious in this House for smoking 40 cigarettes a day, presumably reeking like a kipper and all the things that go with cigarette smoking. I wanted to give up. I had terrible problems with pleurisy, pneumonia and various other complaints. However, what I needed was something to spur me into giving up. Someone asked me to look into chemicals in perfumes—noble Lords will know that I am concerned about chemicals. I saw an article about aromatics in tobacco. I looked at the website and found five pages about extremely toxic chemicals.
Indelibly printed on my mind is the time of 10.15 on 15 March— the ides of March—2000. I have not had a cigarette since. What I did was to use nicotine patches—and nicotine lozenges for the periods when the patches did not meet the bill. I went through a programme with nicotine patches and kept on with the lozenges for about 10 months or longer. Then, like the noble Lord, Lord Acton, I reverted to nicotine chewing gum and he and I have probably kept Wrigley going ever since.
The spur was the support of a noble Lord who wrote the date down in his diary. He was—and still is—an inveterate smoker and he did not believe that I would give up.
Another spur was a very nice Labour Whip who promised me a glass of champagne after the first year and a glass of champagne after the second year. Then she realised that it was getting a little expensive so we have had no more champagne.
608
The third spur is the amount of money that I have saved. My bank balance is fit and flourishing and I am now able to give money to charity that I would not have been able to do before. I no longer smell like a kipper, I am fit and healthy and I am delighted to promote anything that would stop smoking.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, there are certain debates in which noble Lords join in even though they feel totally unqualified to so do.
The noble Countess may have been one of the greatest smokers in your Lordships' House, but my noble friend could challenge her on that score.
I stand here as the good boy in class, the one who did not smoke because he thought it was tough—probably because he was more scared of what his mother would do to him if she found out.
The serious point that comes across is the fact that there are two legalised and traditionally approved-of drugs in our society—alcohol and tobacco. But any use of tobacco damages people. Nicotine-dependent dried leaf damages people in all circumstances. It is probably the most addictive—and most easily addictive—of all the drugs that we consume, one that we have ingrained in our society and which we will have to push out by inches.
The story of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, shows that if a person is in the right social environment it can be very easy to try to quit. I say "try", I do not go through the process. If people are in a society where regular smoking is not encouraged, they do not do it so often and they are less likely to start.
I would like to go back a few years, when many more people smoked. The cigarette was a wonderful marketing tradition. It was one of the great marketing coups when people stopped smoking pipes and starting smoking cigarettes, because they are so much more social. How many chat up lines started with the offer of a cigarette? A couple of friends and I discussed how quick people had to be with a lighter to break in to a conversation with a girl. All these things were there and have been removed, largely by making sure cigarettes are, first, more expensive and, secondly, not consumed in public. That is one of the greatest things we have done. The Government must do everything that they reasonably can do—and, of course, enforce—and we have to apply social pressure.
The second and most important part of this debate is tackling those groups where smoking is deeply ingrained. They tend to be the lower-income groups that can least afford it, where both parents smoke, the children smoke and the house has a thick blue fog around it.
In a short debate like this I am fortunately not going to have to go through information with which I am not as familiar as I should be. But a Government who have introduced a Minister for Public Health have got to take very seriously that commission. They must support those who are going to guide and give

609
counselling to those who are smokers. They have to inject money into communities whose members have traditionally gone to doctors only as a last resort.
These are people who do not read the diet fad books or take herbal remedies. These are the people who are going to be the most difficult ones to touch. This is probably a set of sociological clichés by today's standards. They are people who did not have long-term objectives, who thought of "now" as what they have. They do not have the tradition of going long term and worrying about their health. These are the people that we have to get hold of. It is so much easier for what used to be called the middle class to do this. In the environment in which they find themselves, the disapproval and the knowledge is there.
If we decide that we are going to ban smoking in bars and restaurants in this country, we will have taken the first step towards improving that the social environment. However, it will not help those who are already smoking if they simply stand outside and consume cigarettes at a frantic gulping-it-down rate outside those buildings. It does not really help those consume cigarettes outside offices.
We must get the support services in place and active. They must be activated through health workers, since if health workers point people in the right direction, they will take the advice—or at least they stand a better chance of taking it. We must do that sort of work and become involved with those parts of the community where smoking is most deeply engrained.
Can the Minister give us some direction about the programme and what guaranteed funding it has in the medium term? That is one of the problems, because preventive health therapy is not engrained in National Health Service culture. What is happening here? This is a programme with which the Government must be asked to take action. I hope that if they do so, we shall not have to address this subject again in at least the medium-term future.
8.36 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for introducing this debate. Only a cynic would believe the story of a patient who asked his doctor, "Will I live longer if I stop smoking and drinking?" and was told, "No, you won't live longer but it will seem longer". Of course, he was wrong. Sir Richard Peto has estimated that smoking will cause 450 million deaths world-wide in the next 50 years. Of that number, 180 million of these could be saved if there was a 50 per cent reduction in smoking.
There is a ray of hope, in that 70 per cent of smokers would like to give up. How can they best be helped to escape from this lethal and anti-social habit? The reason why it is so difficult to give up smoking is because the nicotine in the smoke is so strongly addictive. When the victim does stop completely, he can experience craving and withdrawal symptoms, which are so real. It is important to emphasise that it
610
is not the nicotine that is the major cause of smoking-related disease, although nicotine can have a direct effect on arteries. It is the 50-odd cancer-producing chemicals that are so lethal. Therefore it is rational to give nicotine to satisfy people's craving when they are making a serious effort to stop.
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence—NICE—recommends nicotine replacement therapy or the drug called Zyban. These will double the smoker's chances of giving up, but they are for smokers who seriously wish to stop smoking as part of an abstinent-contingent treatment—ACT. The smoker undertakes to stop smoking on a particular date, known as the target stop date. It is important that there is advice on how to succeed and an initial prescription that will last until two weeks after the target stop date. Second prescriptions should be given only to those who have demonstrated that they are making a serious attempt. If the attempt is unsuccessful, no further attempts are funded within six months, as a rule.
It does not seem to matter by which route the nicotine is given, whether it is by patches, lozenges, inhalers or chewing gum, so it seems reasonable that the choice is left to the individual. Zyban works by suppressing the region of the brain that gives the smoker a nicotine buzz when smoking a cigarette. It is therefore taken before the person starts to quit smoking, and is intended to put people off smoking by stopping them getting the hit from the nicotine. It also reduces the usual withdrawal symptoms of anxiety, sweating, and irritability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, asked about the side effects. Some users reported nausea, headaches, dry mouth and blurred vision, which are not too serious. The drug is not recommended for pregnant women, those who are breast feeding, epileptics, or those with liver diseases or eating disorders. Early trials have found it to be highly effective, especially when combined with an overall giving up strategy.
The fact that many nicotine replacement therapy products are available over the counter from pharmacies is clearly an improvement on the situation a few years ago when they could only be obtained by prescription. Has the Minister considered making them even more readily available from newsagents and other such outlets where cigarettes are so readily accessible? Diet and exercise should be recognised as having an important role.
The NHS smoking cessation service is now available across the country giving behavioural support to those who really want to stop smoking, providing one-to-one counselling or group sessions, depending on personal preferences. I understand that 500 new staff have been recruited for this work. Can the Minister tell us how many centres are actually working throughout England? Will she give us an assurance that the £138 million allocated for this service for the period 2003–06 will be spent on those services? As the money has not been ring fenced, how will the Minister ensure that PCTs do in fact spend it on smoking cessation?

611
Smoking is a lethal plague and anything that can be done to help its victims escape would be most welcome.
8.41 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, for enabling us to have such a thoughtful debate. She took us on a fascinating journey around the various therapies, via dry lettuce leaves. Clearly, love is more effective than dried lettuce leaves. We have heard about the therapeutic qualities of chocolate and even the role of the Whip, which is something I suppose we should all think about.
In recent months we have had many debates in the House on smoking but this was an opportunity to address and to take a look at new issues. I am very grateful to noble Lords who have shared with us their often heroic struggles to give up smoking. In such instances, one personal experience is worth a million words, when we understand just how hard and difficult it was to meet that challenge.
There is no doubt that just as public concern about smoking is increasing, we have reached a crucial point in our strategy to tackle smoking. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in that respect. In 1998 we published the White Paper, Smoking Kills. That was a landmark in public policy. The action that followed has established the UK as a world leader in the field with our smoking cessation services.
We have reached another turning point as we embark on an exercise in public policy involving people in a unique way in the questions in the consultation document and, indeed, in giving such prominence to smoking in this context. The noble Lord asked whether we are serious about the issue. We are. We called our document Choosing Health. That is exactly what we mean. It indicates that every one of us bears a responsibility for our own health. The document asks specific questions about smoking:
"What else can the Government do to ensure that people don't start smoking and if they do to support them to stop?".
and:
"Who else in society should be involved in helping people not to start smoking and supporting those who start, to stop?".
They are pertinent questions.
I hope very much that this debate will be read by those compiling the responses to the public debate, because such a lot of very important information has been given tonight. I want to refer particularly to the excellent contribution of my noble friend Lady Gale in that respect. She raised the important issue of children who are sometimes outside the formal therapeutic structure but who in fact are so vulnerable. The figures in relation to children and young people are not as good as we would want them to be in terms of the response. So, our smoking cessation policies have long emphasised personal responsibilities.
My noble friend Lady Rendell asked me what therapies work; how we know what works; what we provide; and why we provide it. Indeed, these are
612
important and timely questions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said, when we are talking about smoking, we are liable to think about and to deal with a lot of statistics—of which the most important is that there are 120,000 deaths per year from smoking. Of those deaths, the highest proportion occur in manual socio-economic groups. I think that the most important and encouraging statistic is that 70 per cent of smokers say that they want to quit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, they have to want to quit. That is what we have to work on when we devise our motivational strategies. Our job as a Government is to make sure that they have the right help at the right time in the right way.
The challenge lies, as many noble Lords have said, in the nature of addiction to nicotine. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, gave a very cogent account of the nature of that addiction. The Royal College of Physicians has described it as comparable to addiction in relation to hard drugs. Indeed the withdrawal symptoms are extreme, I understand, with the impact they have on people's inability to give up.
We understand about the degrees of dependency. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, talked about the Oxford research which is looking at why some people are more dependent—whether they are more susceptible or whether it is genetic. I hope we will see more research like that because the knowledge that this might provide will give us somewhere to go in terms of our future therapies. The noble Baroness made an extremely important point about the developing countries and what we can see in terms of the global figures, which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, used himself.
If our smoking policies are to be effective, we have to recognise the strength of the image of smoking, the strength of the addiction, and the power of ritual in helping people to break the cycle of dependency. That is exactly what we are trying to do as a Government—to come at it in both ways, to address the psychological and the physical dependency. We are the first Government to set up smoking cessation services as part of the NHS and by 2006 we will have spent £200 million. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that the money is not ring-fenced because so much of the work to do with smoking cessation is to do with the other services that we offer throughout the NHS. I have no doubt that PCTs, knowing as they do of the cost-effectiveness of those services, will ensure that that money gets through.
We know that our smoking cessation services are successful because they are based on the knowledge of what works. That is the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell. They are based on motivational support and effective therapies. The motivational support comes through the trained motivators who are in the centres—I am afraid I cannot give an answer to the number of centres. We recognise the quality of training that personal supporters have, a point referred to by many noble Lords. That help combined with the pharmaceutical therapies themselves on a systematic and regular basis—the four to six-week strategies, and then the therapies that kick in and last nine to 12

613
weeks—is what is accounting for the success. Certainly, our two preferred therapies are based on the evidence of what works. That is a nicotine-replacement therapy—noble Lords have paid tribute to the effectiveness of that, whether it is in patches or whatever—and in Bupropion (Zyban). There is compelling evidence to show that those who use the smoking aids roughly double their chances of quitting. The fact that we have made it available over the counter is making the NRT more accessible, giving more choice, and making it easier to access without going through prescription. I do not know about newsagents—I think it is something I could take back to the department with some enthusiasm.
Importantly, we are finding that NRT is a popular choice. About three-quarters of smokers choose that, and about half of those succeed in quitting. With regard to Zyban, the noble Baroness asked me about side effects. That question has been partially answered by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. It is a very effective therapy, but it is available only on NHS prescription. It is a relatively new product and it acts on the part of the brain which governs cravings. There are known and documented side effects. Some are not serious, such as insomnia and dizziness, but there is a very small chance—one in 1,000—of seizures and other side effects that are well known. Doctors would certainly screen their patients for those side effects.
Since Zyban was first marketed, it has been closely monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and our own committee on safety. A number of steps have been taken to highlight Zyban's profile and maximise its safe use. We have put out strengthened warnings as a result of that monitoring. We have issued new dosage guidance, advising a slower increase. All that has been done by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. There has been a noticeable fall in the reporting rate of suspected ADRs since the titration was changed.
Zyban has also been the subject of a referral to the European equivalent of the CSM, the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. It importantly advised that the balance of risks and benefits as an aid to smoking cessation remains favourable. That is consistent with the most recent advice provided by the CSM, and we obviously continue to keep Zyban very closely monitored by the medicines regulatory agency. The recommendations of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in 2002 were that both NRT and Zyban should be used as first-line treatments. It reminded us that they are among the most cost-effective of all treatments.
We have that combination of therapies because we know that it works. When that is combined with counselling, we can increase the likelihood of quitting almost fourfold. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, some of those quitters are young people. Because we have based our responses on what we know works, we do not provide hypnotherapy or acupuncture on the NHS although we are not hostile or indifferent to them. There is good evidence to show that they can work effectively as complementary
614
methods, and can contribute to the package of care. We say that anything that the doctor thinks would work should be tried, provided that the patient is willing to try it.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, drew attention to the fact that the therapeutic strategies take place in a context where education assumes a much more important role. There are much bolder and bigger messages on cigarette packets, and much more intelligence going into schools and the places where young people gather. When we come to our public policy statement on public health, we will ask questions of the very wide public audience about whether the Government should pass a law to make all enclosed workplaces and public places smoke-free. What about restaurants? What about pubs and bars? We look forward to some of those answers, because that will take the public debate a very long way forward.
Of all that we have heard this evening, I highlight the noble Lord, Lord Acton, simply saying that the most effective advice was, "If you really want to give up smoking, you can do so". I would like to leave the debate with that, as it was a particularly inspiring message. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in such a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate.

Higher Education Bill
8.53 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 30.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 14, line 10, after "regard" insert—

"(i) to the need to protect academic freedom, including, in particular, the freedom of institutions to determine the criteria for the admission of students and to apply those criteria in particular cases, and

(ii)"

The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall be brief. I supported the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, because we have the same aim. The matter is clearly important to the whole Committee, and I do not really need to explain my reasons for moving the amendment. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, and that the Minister has indicated that she is minded to accept the amendments.
If the Government are clear that OFFA is not to interfere in admissions, they need to make it explicit in the Bill. This is necessary because of the inevitable scope for confusion that arises when OFFA is, in the words of the draft guidance,
"to expect the most, in terms of outreach and financial support, from institutions whose record suggests that they have farthest to go in securing a broadly based intake of students".
Several noble Lords have made that point.
Briefly, it might be helpful to explain what I have sought to do with the amendments. First, I have been asked why I have sought to exclude only the criteria for the admission of students and their application rather than frame my amendment with reference to admissions generally.
As I mentioned earlier, the problem I see with the word "admissions" is that it is capable of both a wide and a narrow definition. A wide definition might say that everything that leads a particular student to enrol on a particular course comes under the heading "admissions". That would then include everything from the factors at play when a student first forms the idea that they might like to go to university to the point at which they sign their name for a specific course at a specific university.
Such a wide definition might include such things I have already mentioned as summer schools and outreach work. I do not think that would be right. A more narrow definition might include only the actual admissions decisions and exclude the requirements for admission and the procedures employed. That might leave the way open for OFFA to claim that although the admissions decisions are none of its business the fact that the university conducts interviews, for example, is indeed its business. That would not be right either.
I want to ensure that we exclude admissions standards, requirements, procedures, policies and decisions from the remit of OFFA, so I have sought wording that is clear and unequivocal. That is why, having sought prolonged legal advice, I chose to seek to protect an institution's right,
"to determine the criteria for the admission of students and to apply those criteria in particular cases".
I sought to do that by making it part of the director of OFFA's remit that he must have regard to the need to protect the rights of institutions and their academic freedom.
Amendment No. 90 goes further and makes it clear that OFFA may not require a plan to include provisions relating to the admission of students. I accept that this is a belt-and-braces approach, but I hope that precisely because of that it will find favour with your Lordships and with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Dearing: I am glad to sponsor the amendment.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I did not expect the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, to be quite so fast after dinner. I have one or two comments that I nearly made on the previous amendment but decided in the cause of getting to dinner that it would be better to do so now.
I welcome the amendment because the issue of division between access and admissions concerned us all at Second Reading. There are two issues. First, I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate and give us a reassurance as to how watertight on admissions the amendment is. It refers to having regard to the need. One can define that in any way; it is the need and not the requirement on admissions. How
616
strong is that provision, and how likely is it to be disputed? The reference to "particular cases" may he a normal legal phrase, but does it mean that they will be only certain cases or can it apply to every case of admission? I would like reassurances on the legal firmness of the amendment.
Secondly, paragraph (b)(i) would read to "have regard to" and so on, which is the same phraseology that would be used in paragraph (b)(ii) which would read,
"have regard to…any guidance given to him by the Secretary of State".
I seem to recall—perhaps I was wrong—that the director does not have to follow every guidance that the Secretary of State gives. The Secretary of State gives guidance that the director has to take into account, but he does not necessarily have to follow it. Does that mean that the director does not necessarily have to follow the need to protect universities in relation to admissions either? I am a little confused and unclear on this matter, and I am concerned that it does not wholly protect universities on admissions. I should be grateful for the Minister's response.
My second point is rather more important. The amendment refers to academic freedom and uses the words "in particular" in relation to admissions. But that is academic freedom in general. Academic freedom is certainly being undermined by the role and responsibilities that the Director of Fair Access has—in particular, given that he can use sanctions and penalties. Therefore, he will be able to use sanctions and penalties against universities if, in his view, their access plans do not come up to scratch. That, to me, seems considerably to undermine academic freedom and yet the amendment refers to the importance of paying regard to academic freedom. Therefore, why select this particular area as not giving freedom to the universities?
More importantly, I find it very difficult to understand how exactly the distinction will be drawn between access and admissions, and I should be grateful for the Minister's further guidance. It seems to me to be a very thin dividing line. lf, for example, the director comes to the conclusion that some of the admission criteria which a university has and is free to apply in terms of the amendment undermine the access plans, will he then be able to challenge those access plans?
The key issue is one of admissions. In a sense, the access plans are important but they are not the crux of the matter; the crux of the matter is admissions. I hope that I am making myself clear. What I mean is: is it not possible that a director who is under a great deal of pressure and who wants to establish a big reputation will be able to look at the admissions and conclude that the access plans are not being properly carried out? If that is the case, he will be able to apply the sanctions and penalties of the access plans. Therefore, I find it quite difficult to see how, in practice, that very thin dividing line can be maintained.
That leads me to two conclusions. One is the extreme importance of an amendment which we shall debate later—that relating to the right of appeal. But

617
if there are issues here that will affect universities, it is important that those matters do not rest entirely on the discretion of the director, who can then apply the penalties and the sanctions. Therefore, I think that that amendment will be crucial in clarifying some of the very difficult issues to be resolved.
Secondly, I am led to the conclusion that it is then difficult to justify OFFA and the director in the first place because academic freedom is undermined. That is why I continue to be very concerned about this whole aspect of the Bill.
9 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I had hoped that this would be a rather happy debate. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, for raising his concerns on this issue. The noble Lord, my noble friend Lady Warwick and the noble Lord, Lord Dearing, have put their arguments very succinctly this evening. As noble Lords will be aware, there has been a huge amount of debate and discussion around this issue. I hope that, in accepting the amendments, we have made clear that we have understood the critical importance that this matter has in your Lordships' House and beyond in terms of the universities.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, that, as I understand it, it is a watertight case. The effect of the amendment—that is, removing admissions from the director's remit and preventing the Secretary of State making any regulations under Clause 31(2)—would require a plan to include provisions on the criteria for admissions for students.
In talking to the universities, in particular, we have been very clear that this is about inputs and not outputs. We shall be looking at the work that universities do in drawing up their access plans and the kind of work that they will do in respect of bursaries and outreach programmes. We recognise that some of the work that they do may have no impact on what happens in an individual institution, but it might have a broader impact on a group of universities as the university sector works with students. Therefore, for example, it is possible that if a university such as Cambridge—if I may quote the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—were to carry out outreach work in the northeast, that might have an impact on the number of applications to the University of Newcastle. That is why we are very clear that the director should recognise that this is about inputs and not outputs. That is a critical part of the freedom. We are very clear that it is for universities to determine their own admissions. That is a fundamental part of the agreement between us.
These amendments put on the face of the Bill the reassurances that noble Lords have sought. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who have pushed very hard on this matter; I would not want them to feel that they
618
have not played an important role in this matter. These two amendments work in terms of the Bill, and on that basis I accept the amendment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I thank the Minister for listening to the representations. I know that she will have further discussions to consider the wording, but at the risk of appearing slightly churlish, I am concerned about two aspects in addition to the points made by my noble friend Lord MacGregor. First, the Minister's preferred amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, does not contain the definition of "academic freedom" which is contained in the previous amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Perry.
Secondly, the ability of the Secretary of State to provide guidance to the director was removed by the previous set of amendments. That has been mentioned at various times throughout the afternoon. It has been suggested that if the Secretary of State is to retain the right to give guidance to the director of OFFA, it should at least be made public so that the direction given to OFFA is transparent. I believe that point was made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Dearing. While not detracting from the positive response that we have had from the Minister, I want to ask her, while reflecting on the matter, to bear those matters in mind before she returns to this at a later stage of the Bill.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I thank the Minister for what she has said. I also thank all who have spoken in the debate, not merely on this amendment. Many in the university world who will read Hansard tomorrow morning will be very relieved. This has been a long, hard-fought battle and we have had many discussions. The Minister will know that I am not yet done, but I am enormously pleased with this outcome.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 14, line 11, at end insert—

"( ) in the performance of those functions, have a duty to consult with those stakeholders who have an interest in ensuring fair access to higher education"

The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to add to the duties of the director of OFFA in Clause 30 a duty to consult relevant stakeholders on the overall higher education access policies as monitored by OFFA. That would better inform its ability to ensure best practice in universities' access plans. OFFA is set to become the lead body in terms of spreading best practice in widening access and monitoring universities' attempts to achieve that.
The genesis of the amendment was discussions that the AUT had with the other unions on the Higher Education Bill. The original idea was to set up an OFFA board which would oversee its work. Board membership would have included representatives, for example, from the TUC, the CRE and the Equal

619
Opportunities Commission. However, partly because of the cost of such a board, and partly because of the inevitable bureaucracy involved, that idea was dropped in favour of a duty to consult. That would allow those organisations with an interest in seeing broader access to have an input into OFFA. The duty to consult need not necessarily be a burden on OFFA and that is certainly not the intention behind the amendment.
Such a duty would help to strengthen OFFA and over time ensure that it is seen as credible and effective. Without a duty to consult it would be entirely possible for OFFA to talk to nobody apart from the higher education institutions. That could only be damaging over the long term to the cause of widening access, which, we all agree, is important. I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: In speaking to Amendment No. 78A, I wish to place on record my gratitude to the Minister for making available in draft the guidance that the Secretary of State intends to issue to the director of OFFA when the Bill receives Royal Assent.
I, together with representatives of Universities UK, have had the opportunity to discuss the draft guidance with the Minister and her officials, for which I am very grateful. As the Minister will be aware, there are a number of points in the guidance with which I am not entirely content. For example, the phrase:
"I would expect that OFFA would expect the most…from institutions whose record suggests they have furthest to go"
is unhelpful, given the sensitivities about admissions.
However, I appreciate that in that wording the Secretary of State is trying to do something that I requested: to ensure that OFFA recognises the excellent track record of many institutions. Indeed, I would like him to go further on that point. I want to see the guidance changed to make it more explicit that OFFA is intended to act in a light-touch, non-bureaucratic way. I know that the Minister does not intend OFFA to micro-manage institutions' widening participation strategies, and that could be a little clearer in the guidance.
That illustrates the reasons for the amendment. It is said that many heads are better than one. I think, quite simply, that consultation produces better legislation. Incidentally, the guidance ought to make clear that the director of OFFA should consult regularly with key stakeholders in developing his or her modus operandi. I hope that the Minister will agree.
Lord Skelmersdale: We strongly agree that consultation is absolutely vital. I am very surprised not to find it in the Bill already. However, I question the scope of the duties that the two amendments would impose.
Amendment No. 78 argues that OFFA must consult those,
"who have an interest in ensuring fair access to higher education".
620
Does that include every student's parent, for example, who will want to guarantee that his or her child has a fair and just system of entry into higher education? Who is to decide what is fair: the Secretary of State, the director or someone else? I do not know.
Amendment No. 78A states that,
"the Secretary of State or the Assembly must consult bodies appearing to him or it"—
interesting wording; none the less, we know what it means—
"to be representative of institutions likely to be affected by guidance".
If the guidance under this clause is, as I think is intended, to dictate to the director how he should carry out his duties in relation to widening access. should businesses be consulted? I made that point recently in connection with a health matter. Should businesses be consulted, given that this year's students are next year's workforce? That may be particularly significant if the director ends up, for example, with a role in vocational training, which I have talked about before in these debates.
There are no set periods within which the consultation must happen. More importantly, neither amendment provides that the results of such consultation must be taken into account or adhered to by the Secretary of State or the Assembly before the guidelines are implemented or before the director takes steps to ensure fair access. It is normal for a consultation requirement to appear in such Bills. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort in that regard.
Lord Triesman: Consultation is a vitally important factor in all policy-making. Ministers and officials have been actively engaged in consulting stakeholders in developing the policy framework surrounding the director. We have consulted widely on the Secretary of State's guidance to the director, and I am confident that such a consultative approach will be carried on by the director himself once appointed.
I ought to say immediately in response to my noble friend Lady Warwick that the intention is precisely that OFFA would have a light touch. That has always been intended to be a feature of OFFA. We have always believed that OFFA should be happy to discuss details in its operation, just as there will be further discussions on the details of the notes of guidance themselves in the way that has been sought. There is no intention of getting into micromanagement.
Amendment No. 78 requires the director, in the performance of his functions, to consult with those stakeholders who have an interest in ensuring fair access to higher education. I have already mentioned the draft letter of guidance from the Secretary of State to the director of fair access. We have said that the director will need to talk to the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Disability Rights Commission and work with them to help institutions understand best practice in the area of outreach. We have also said that HEFCE and the director will need to work closely together and

621
exchange data freely. The director will also engage in a consultative process with individual institutions when making decisions on approval of access plans. In discussions, it has already been suggested to us that we should include specific references to other bodies in the guidance letter to the director, and we are reflecting carefully on that. We are committed to adequate, full and appropriate consultation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, mentioned a moment ago, the first amendment is drawn very broadly, and the list of people with an interest in protecting fair access would be a very long one. Businesses, certainly; parents and young people self-evidently have an interest; as well as universities and colleges, schools and training providers and many others. We would expect OFFA to consult organisations representing those groups under-represented in higher education, but all of the groups that I have mentioned, and business was a good example, have a genuine interest in fair access if it is to deliver the most able graduates for industry and commerce. The point was well made.
As individual citizens, we all have an interest, because this is a question of fairness. If for some reason a single stakeholder were missed out, it is unclear what the legal effect of the amendment would be. We entirely recognise their concern, and suggest that a possible solution would be to revise the Secretary of State's letter of guidance to the director of fair access, as my noble friend Lady Warwick has already suggested, and to attach greater prominence to the issue of consultation. That seems to be a sensible way through the absence of other references to the point. I give an undertaking that we will pursue that course of action and discuss, with anyone who wishes to discuss it further, the details of how that might be achieved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, moved Amendment No. 78A, which deals with consultation on the Secretary of State's guidance to the director. It is precisely because we value such consultation that we have published a draft letter of guidance from the Secretary of State to the director in advance, which should allow ample time for scrutiny by universities and many others who might have an interest. The draft guidance has been discussed in detail with Universities UK—we have been grateful for its thinking—and also with a number of other bodies. Of course, it has been shared with noble Lords and with Members in another place.
Consultation is at the heart of the way in which the director will carry out his functions. For example, there must be discussion between relevant institutions and the director if the director were minded not to approve an access plan or was considering applying a sanction. We have agreed to make regulations under Clauses 31 and 35 subject to affirmative resolution, ensuring detailed scrutiny by Parliament. I assure noble Lords that we would not expect ordinarily to issue guidance to the director without first discussing it with those most likely to be affected. We support the principle.
622
There are three reasons why the amendment would not work. First, there would be circumstances in which we would need to issue revised or supplementary guidance very quickly. A statutory requirement to consult would, under current Cabinet Office guidelines, imply a standard 12-week consultation period, with a further time to consider the responses. That would delay the publication of urgent guidance where that guidance could be helpful to the director and the institution.
Secondly, a statutory requirement to consult would make the guidance letter from the Secretary of State over-elaborate and would imply a detailed level of emphasis that would be unnecessary and burdensome. I remind the Committee that the guidance is not a legal direction: it is simply meant to convey the spirit in which, we hope, the director will operate.
Thirdly, if we were to engage in more formal consultation, it would seem appropriate to consult a wider range of bodies than the noble Baroness's amendment would require. The amendment would require the Secretary or State or the Welsh Assembly to consult only bodies representing institutions before issuing guidance. I understand that that would be a major concern to the noble Baroness, as she has important responsibilities for institutions. I am concerned that it would exclude other sectoral organisations with a legitimate interest. The problem is that such formal consultation would create a major delay in the process. I know that many institutions—probably all—are keen to finalise their access plans, including their fees, as soon as possible. Regrettably, the amendment would frustrate that process.
I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment. I hope that we have given some serious indication of the way in which we would like to pursue the consultation question. We take it very seriously.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am delighted that business is one of the sectors with which consultation is already going on and will go on in the future. However, I would like to press the Minister a fraction. He accepted that plans would need to be changed from time to time, but can he give an instance—a hypothetical instance, I accept—in which it would need to be changed so quickly that guidance would not be appropriate?
Lord Triesman: I am loath to speculate about specific instances, but I observe that institutions want a high level of flexibility to respond to the demand for courses that, they perceive, will come from students. Often, they work rapidly in such circumstances. I suspect that, for some of the courses that will come up rapidly, the notion of the importance of access will be a feature.
We must make sure that the whole sector can respond in good time. One of the criticisms that is sometimes made is that the sector takes a long time to do things and sometimes misses the boat.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply and take on board the strictures about the phrasing of the amendment. I should have started by

623
saying that it was a probing amendment. There is ambiguity in the term "stakeholders", and it is unclear whom one wants to consult and whom one does not.
It would be helpful if the letter of guidance were rephrased and there were greater emphasis in it on the concept of consulting. Given that the amendment was tabled on behalf of the AUT, I must make it clear that representatives of academic and other staff at universities should be among those who are consulted.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I thank the Minister for what I took to be rather reassuring words. They will he of some comfort to the sector.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 78A not moved.]
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Contents of plans]:
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 14, line 21, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
"(2) A plan under this section relating to any institution must include provisions relating to—

(a) the promotion of higher education, and

(b) the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education.

(3) The provisions referred to in subsection (2) shall include measures which the governing body will take to—

(a) attract applications from prospective students,

(b) provide, or secure the provision of, financial assistance to students,

(c) make available to students and prospective students information about financial assistance available to students from any source.

(4) The plan shall include the governing body's objectives in relation to the matters covered by subsections (2) and (3), and its arrangements for monitoring the achievement of those objectives."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 80 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 91, 92 and 93. Amendment No. 80 addresses the nature of the plans which the institutions will be required to submit to OFFA. Amendment No. 80A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, seeks to leave out subsection (2)(a). I am inclined to support it and wish that I had not included the proposal in my own amendment. I agree entirely that giving OFFA the right to approve a plan on the "promotion of higher education" gives it rather wide-ranging powers. My amendment would substitute the word "and" for "or", but that has been picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp and, I suspect, was a government drafting error in the first place.
My proposed subsections (3) and (4) would change the nature of the kind of information institutions would be required to give to OFFA. Rather than having regulations which we have discovered are to come from the Secretary of State rather than OFFA
624
covering how the plans should be drawn up, we think it would be much more sensible to ask governing bodies to submit plans setting out how they intend to attract applications from all prospective students. It is limiting to provide that governing bodies should submit plans for one kind of student. Surely their overall strategy for recruitment, how they intend to attract students from all walks of life, would be of the most interest to OFFA.
I have a personal objection to the phrase,
"members of groups which…are under-represented in higher education".
It is too vague. Someone said that stockbrokers are under-represented in higher education. Should governing bodies submit a plan for how they will recruit more stockbrokers? It is an infelicitous phrase. Perhaps the Government could think of a form of words that focuses more closely on what they wish to say.
Amendment No. 91 again seeks to take out the provision allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations and provides for OFFA to give guidance to institutions on what kind of content the director would like their plans to include.
Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 comprise the last plank in our vision of a different kind of structure and framework for OFFA's functions. The amendments propose that institutions should submit their plans for widening access as part of the overall triennial strategic plans submitted to their funding councils. I have managed a fairly large university in my time and it seems quite absurd to pick out what is a very key part of a university strategy—that is, the strategy for recruitment—from the rest of the plans covering the mission of the university, its financing, student numbers over the coming three years, new buildings, the adaptation of classrooms and so forth. Universities are required to include all this information in their triennial strategic plans. Surely plans for widening access, as now, should remain part of the overall strategy rather than be picked out as a separate element.
I do not know whether representatives from NATFHE have had discussions with the Minister, but their briefing states as a fact that the section on widening access is to be taken out of the triennial plan to HEFCE and submitted separately to OFFA. I think that is wrong. It seems to be bad management practice to pick out one central part of the university strategy—how the customers are recruited—from the rest of the plans for finance, buildings and so forth.
The amendments would ensure that the plans for OFFA are originally part of the overall plan submitted to the funding councils. The councils would then pass on the relevant elements of the plan to OFFA for its consideration. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I support all that my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, has said. I underline also the point that she made about subsection (2)(a), which is the subject of Amendment

625
No. 80A. I certainly agree with that. I simply stress the importance of looking at the universities' overall strategic plan. We have been drilled, dragooned, cajoled, steered and pushed towards having overall strategic plans, and that is the right direction to go. Therefore it would be sensible to leave consideration of this part of the strategic plan as part of the larger whole.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Amendment No. 81 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shutt. It is a little amendment and relates to subsection (2) of Clause 31. It is really a probing amendment, as to why it is "or" and whether the "promotion of higher education" is part of the access plan or whether that is not part of the plan as a whole.
Having said that, I have a great deal of sympathy both for Amendment No. 80A—which eliminates paragraph (a) altogether—and for the whole run of amendments that have just been proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. It seems to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, has just said in relation to the development of strategic plans—and of the access plan being an element that is integral within those strategic plans—is the right way to look at it. To separate them out and create separate plans is somewhat absurd. It goes back to my general wish not to see OFFA there at all.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is always extremely helpful to debate one group of amendments while thinking about the next group. I will confine myself to these amendments, but I will bear in mind what noble Lords have said about the next group of amendments—Amendment No. 80A in particular, which picks up the theme that noble Lords have identified. I will try to work through them reasonably speedily and address the concerns raised.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, said, Amendments Nos. 80, 91, 92 and 93 all seek to remove the regulation-making power relating to the content of access plans, the approval of plans and the maximum length of time a plan may be in force.
We considered very carefully what was most appropriately enshrined in primary legislation and what we felt best left to secondary legislation. We need a degree of flexibility, within the bounds of the remit of the director, as to the content of access plans. That said, I accept the need for clear boundaries within which the director can operate, and within which regulations can be made. There also needs to be appropriate levels of parliamentary scrutiny.
As noble Lords will see from the Marshalled List, I have brought forward Amendments Nos. 110 and 111, which make the regulation-making power in Clauses 31(2) and 35(2)—covering the content of access plans and the enforcement of plans—subject to the affirmative procedure. That is the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as noble Lords will be aware. But I do not agree that we should have no regulations at all. They
626
are a well-travelled and recognised route for enacting provisions which may need some changes and adjustments to be made without primary legislation.
For example, a provision about the financial information that institutions could be required to provide to students: in time it is quite possible that we may be able to remove that requirement in regulations if information were available through another route. Under this amendment we would be unable to do so.
Amendment No. 80 would prevent institutions being required to include in their plans commitments to running outreach activities to raise aspirations and attract applications from under-represented groups. There is no mention of under-represented groups in this amendment. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, have said that the term is insufficiently clear, but it remains the best way of expressing in legal terms what widening participation is about. I am happy to discuss whether there is a better term, but we have checked and that is the best term. We do not, as I have made absolutely clear, wish to interfere with admissions, but improving the number of applications from under-represented groups is to be encouraged, as we have deliberated this afternoon.
The amendment would also, of course, remove from the face of the Bill any reference to the provision of information to the director. We believe that it is important that the director can ask for and receive relevant information where necessary. This would not be onerous. The director would simply ask institutions to confirm on an annual basis that they have met the commitments in their plan. It would be important that the director could ask for any information needed to check that this was the case were it ever called into question. Clause 37 provides that the director may exchange information with HEFCE and with the Teacher Training Agency. This means that he would not need to seek information from institutions which had already supplied it to these bodies.
Amendment No. 91 is a consequential amendment to Amendment No. 80 and seeks to remove reference to our regulation-making power, which I have already discussed.
Amendment No. 81 does not relate to a drafting issue, as some noble Lords may have felt. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said, it would require that the provisions in the plans should relate to both the promotion of higher education "and" the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education. The Bill currently states "or", recognising that in England we intend the focus of plans to be clearly about the latter.
Let me explain briefly but slightly further. The clause covers both England and Wales. While in England we want our plans to be focused solely on the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education, the National Assembly for Wales has yet to make a decision on whether to introduce variable fees and, if so, what arrangements it will make for plans. It may want to focus more generally on the promotion of higher education.

627
I asked for clarification from Jane Davidson, the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning. Let me read a brief extract of the letter that I received from her. It states:
"I do not envisage defining the contents of fee plans, whether in relation to access or to the promotion of HE, in such tight terms to allow institutions no flexibility or in such tight terms as to interfere with their autonomy. I am firmly of the opinion that institutions must be given the space to respond to their local circumstances. Rather, I envisage a process whereby essentially institutions propose what additional contribution they will make to higher education in Wales as a result of their fee income".
I hope that gives some assurances on how the Assembly envisages its plans operating in Wales.
I know that concerns have been expressed by organisations such as SKILL and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, but I can assure the Committee that we have absolutely no intention of causing difficulties for them in England with these clauses. I hope I have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that that is not what we intend. We shall return to this issue with the next group of amendments. I am of course willing to reflect on the matter if that will help.
I was going to say that I have some sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but he is not in his place and his amendment will not be moved by anyone on his behalf. I shall swiftly move on to my conclusion.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, in regard to Amendment No. 92 that, under our proposals, access plans will subsume the widening participation strategies which institutions currently submit to the funding council. No institution will have to produce both. We therefore believe that the plans will generate negligible additional burden. This is particularly true given the closeness of the working relationship between the director and HEFCE in that context. I know the noble Baroness was very worried at Second Reading about that issue.
We believe that it is very important to reject these amendments. Amendment No. 92 would delete all the regulation powers in Clause 32 and instead would produce a strategic plan in perpetuity. We do not believe that is the right way to go. There would also be technical difficulties with the amendment.
Amendment No. 93 seeks that the institutions' first action plan should last no longer than three years. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent an institution from proposing an action plan that lasts only three years. The flexibility we have built in enables institutions to align their action plans in a range of different ways, tying in with their financial cycle, their financial strategy, their business planning cycle and so on. The Bill provides a power to specify the maximum period that a plan may be in force, and the Committee will see from the draft regulations that we have indicated that that period should be five years.
I hope that I have answered some of the queries that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, had in putting forward her amendments. We believe that we would need the flexibility of secondary legislation and
628
regulations. I also hope that I have given enough reassurance to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I thank the Minister for her careful reply and noble Lords who have spoken in support in this debate. I am a little surprised that the Minister felt that Amendment No. 80 would prevent institutions from submitting plans about how they would attract applications from the type of students about whom we are all concerned. Subsection (2)(b) in my amendment requires institutions to include,
"the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access".
Also, my argument for subsection (3)(a) was that it would of course include not only students who are currently under-represented—if that is the phrase that we are using—but all students. The provision has to fit in with an overall plan. It cannot be right to single out certain groups and say, "This is what we are going to do for them", without including that as part of the institution's overall recruitment strategy. Higher education is just not like that. There is a total recruitment strategy, not bits and pieces of what one is going to do.
I am happy that the Minister agrees with some of the thinking behind my Amendment No. 92. In her answer to Amendment No. 93, she said that it would be important to have institutions thinking of their access plans alongside all their other plans for finance, buildings and so forth, which is exactly the point that I was making. However, we shall doubtless return to the matter at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe moved Amendment No. 80A:
Page 14, line 23, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I will also speak to Amendment No. 84A. I will not detain the Committee for long. Amendment No. 80A makes a very simple point, although it appears to be in almost direct contradiction with Amendment No. 82 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
Clause 31(2) states that a plan must include provisions,
"relating to…the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access to higher education".
That is fine. That is what I understand OFFA to be about. That is what I thought the plans would contain. However, what is the need for paragraph (a), which states that plans must include,
"provisions relating to the promotion of higher education"?
I do not understand what that means in this context. When I first looked at the provision, I thought that there was no problem. If the plan fulfils condition (b), by definition, it fulfils condition (a). However, does it? Some more cynical than I have pointed out—and the Minister referred to this—that the provision appears to give the Secretary of State and the Director of Fair

629
Access, or the relevant authority in Wales, the power to require that all sorts of things are included in the plan, whether or not they have any connection with access.
Although the Minister sought to reassure the House on that point, I was not at all reassured by the quote from the letter from the Assembly Minister, which raised a lot more questions than I had imagined. I confess that I am genuinely puzzled. I do not intend to press this amendment to a vote, but I give fair warning that, if the Minister is not able to provide a convincing argument, I shall return to the issue on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: Our Amendment No. 82 is grouped with these amendments. It is a probing amendment and it has almost probed successfully. Both the Minister and the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench referred to the Government accepting the recommendations of your Lordships' Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. In fact, as I understand it, Amendment No. 111, which is the acceptance amendment mentioned by the noble Lord and the Minister, does that only in part. My problem is that Clause 31 is a bit of a mish-mash. It refers to,
"the promotion of higher education",
and the finance conditions attached. I will come on to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in a minute.
9.45 p.m.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers—as it then was—published its first report on 5 March 1993. This said:
"The Committee is not likely to think it appropriate to delegate powers to impose or to increase taxation or other charges, except to take account of inflation or increased costs; to create criminal offences unless the general scope of the offences and the maximum penalties are contained in the primary legislation; or to remove or reduce benefits conferred in primary legislation unless that legislation lays down clear criteria for determining how the power is to be exercised".
The report went on to say that it was concerned with financial powers which would always be affirmative—and, indeed, the current report of your Lordships' Select Committee has backed this up. As I said, Clause 31 is a bit of a mixture. I would even describe it as a mish-mash.
I am therefore surprised that Amendment No. 111 refers only to Clause 31(2) and not to the whole clause, which the later amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, does. She will know what number that is. That refers to the whole clause, plus a whole string of four other clauses. I am not going to debate the four other clauses, but I am certainly debating that one. That was the purpose of our tabling Amendment No. 82.
As far as the other two amendments are concerned, surely there is a valid argument that the promotion of higher education as aspects of the equality of opportunity in connection with access should be
630
looked at as part of the whole picture surrounding higher education. The links between finance, fees and access plans shows in the clause that it already could have a wide-ranging implication under the Bill, touching areas such as research funding and more general funding for the universities.
Amendment No.84A removes the words,
"relating to either of those matters".
In doing this, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, allows regulations relating to the equality of opportunity in connection with access and the promotion of higher education to include what I suggest are some rather vague "further provisions". That is a quotation from the amendment. The use of these words could leave it open to wide interpretation. If we are to have regulations at all, surely they should be limited to relating to the matter in hand.
Those are general comments on the other two amendments in this group. I would like to know why the Government's acceptance of the ideas of the Select Committee on Deregulated Powers and Regulatory Reform has been limited to Clause 31(2).
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I say to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that when we come to debate the next group of amendments that I put forward on delegated powers I hope to answer his question completely.
My understanding from the 14th report of the Delegated Powers Committee on 23 April was that we have acceded to the specific recommendations that it put forward and those are covered in my Amendment No. 111. Before we get to debate that group, I will ensure that if what I have said is unclear, I will refer to it.
The noble Lord said that these seem to be diametrically opposed amendments but I believe that they are searching for the same issue, which is to look at why we have drafted the clauses in the way that they appear on the face of the Bill. I hope to be able to offer some clarity.
Amendment No. 80A and the consequential amendment, Amendment No. 84A would, as my noble friend Lady Warwick said, remove paragraph (a), relating to the promotion of higher education, from the Bill. I covered this matter in part in my remarks on the previous group. We are quite clear in England that it is our intention that access plans should be related to the equality of opportunity in connection with fair access. I understand the concern expressed by my noble friend Lady Warwick that access plans may suffer from "mission creep", which is new terminology to me. The amendment would remove from the Bill the reference to the promotion of higher education.
In the first instance, I assure Members of the Committee straightaway that in England we have no intention that access plans should cover anything other than the equality of opportunity in connection with fair access. We have always been clear that that would be the case—that has been the entire foundation

631
of our policy. Teaching, research or business links have not been a part of our thinking as far as access plans are concerned.
We have given clear signals of that in the Bill. The title of the director is the Director of Fair Access, and Clause 30(1) says that he must perform his functions in such a way as to promote and safeguard fair access to higher education. As Members of the Committee will have seen from our draft regulations, we intend that the contents of access plans should follow very closely indeed the specific provisions set out in Clause 31(4).
The position in Wales is rather different. I shall say only that there are only 13 higher education institutions in Wales and, from August, there will he 12. Wales outperforms the UK average on widening participation. The position is different, and the Assembly might wish for plans that cover a different scope. The term "promotion of higher education" is a wide one, as my noble friend has recognised. It is there specifically to give the National Assembly sufficient flexibility and freedom.
I am clear that higher education institutions are autonomous bodies, and the provisions in Clause 31 are in no way intended to undermine that long-established principle. I am reluctant to take away from the National Assembly the freedom to make those decisions by removing the term "promotion of higher education" from the Bill, but I recognise the concerns that my noble friend has expressed. We shall reflect on the matter and have further discussions with Universities UK on the basis of this evening's debate.
Amendment No. 82 seeks to remove the reference to,
"promotion of equality of opportunity",
from the Bill. We recognise that the main key to widening access to higher education is improved attainment at all levels of a child's education. We have also debated the role of both/and, not either/or, which I have tried to suggest is relevant to the role played by universities. We need to ensure that we have established that opportunity fully within Clause 31.
On the basis that I shall return to the issues referred to by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee under the next group of amendments and on the understanding that I shall reflect further on the issues raised by my noble friend about the breadth of concerns in relation to the meaning of the clause, while recognising the importance of giving the National Assembly the right to have that flexibility, I hope she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. However, I must confess that, especially on the Wales front, I am not much comforted—and neither, I suspect, will be the vice-chancellors of Welsh universities. I shall consider what the Minister said carefully and discuss it with Welsh universities, but I am rather alarmed at the degree of flexibility and freedom that seems to have been introduced suddenly into the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 81 to 84A not moved.]
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 14, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations under section 31(2) may not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: I have just been criticised by the Minister for jumping ahead and asking my question on this group of amendments under the last group. In response, I might quote from the report of Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Clause 31 concerns plans, which are essentially financial. The Bill does not specifically exclude from the scope of regulations under the clause, measures which are not wholly financial, such as those relating to admissions policy. That is why I described the clause during the debate on the previous amendment as a "mishmash".
As regards the regulations referring to Clause 43 in Amendment No. 109, as described in Clause 43(2), this covers,
"an order made by the Secretary of State under section 18"—
and—
"regulations made by the Secretary of State under any provision of this Act".
Obviously, that would mean that there would need to be consequential changes to Clause 43(3).
Amendments Nos. 92A, 93A, 93B and 111A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, aim to insert the affirmative parliamentary procedure into Clauses 32, 33, 34 and 43. As we have discussed previously, we support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Perry and thus feel that the changes made to the plans under OFFA would mean that regulations under these clauses would not be needed.
If the clauses are to remain as they are, we welcome the application of the affirmative parliamentary procedure. However, we feel that our Amendment No. 109 would also achieve that. I beg to move.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I have Amendments Nos. 92A, 93A, 93B, 109A and 111A in the group. I was delighted when the Delegated Powers Committee recommended that the regulations under Clauses 31 and 35 should be subject to affirmative resolution. Universities UK has called for that since the publication of the Bill. I am delighted that the Government have decided to bring forward Amendments Nos. 110 and 111 accepting the recommendations of that committee.
Unfortunately, I do not think that the committee went far enough. The powers contained in Clauses 32, 33 and 34 are also very significant. I shall concentrate my remarks on Amendment No. 92A because that is in my view the most significant.

633
Clause 32 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying,
"matters to which the relevant authority is, or is not, to have regard in making any determination relating to approval".
I am no lawyer, but I have taken advice. I know that among your Lordships there are those who can imagine just how wide that power might be. It is important to remember that the Secretary of State is also responsible for appointing the director of OFFA and may issue guidance to which the director must have regard. I think these powers are very wide. It is not much to ask the Minister to accept that they should be constrained at least by a little parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment No. 93A subjects regulations under Clause 33 to an affirmative procedure. I understand that the current duration of plan is intended to be five years. I am content with that. What if the Secretary of State changes his mind once the Bill receives Royal Assent and makes regulations which require plans to be renewed every year? That would impose a significant additional burden on institutions and would be inconsistent with the Minister's avowed intention that OFFA should be light-touch and non-bureaucratic. Again, Parliament should have some say and institutions should have some opportunity to influence the legislation.
The same applies to regulations under Clause 34, which deals with the variation of plans. I know from my experience of trying to secure changes to the secondary legislation under the Export Control Act that negative instruments are nigh-on impossible to change once they have been made. I want to ensure that in future universities have some say in the way the regime develops. The Secretary of State should consult on changes to the regulatory framework—hence my Amendment No. 109A. If the Government see fit to accept my other amendments, I assume that consultation will be part of the affirmative procedure, but I would welcome clarification on this point. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that I was not being critical of him. I was merely conscious that in this group I was going to talk about delegated powers. As he was particularly interested in clarifying the scope of Clause 31, it is my understanding that Amendment No. 90, which we have accepted, does clarify this point. If that does not satisfy the noble Lord on that particular point, perhaps he and I can have a word outside the Committee.
As I have made clear through Amendments Nos. 110 and 111, we have accepted the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and will be very pleased to publish our regulations and consider the comments of noble Lords before they are formally laid. These amendments also have the advantage of allowing for other regulations, still subject to negative procedure, to be laid together
634
with those now subject to the affirmative procedure. In other words, for the first set of regulations we can lay a single set of regulations of both negative and affirmative, and use the affirmative procedure. I hope that that will go some way to addressing the concerns of noble Lords as we go through these amendments.
Amendment No. 85 is in line with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee but actually creates a difficulty in the wording because of the position of Wales. As I think I have explained in your Lordships' House before, the National Assembly has a different regulation-making procedure, much more akin to the affirmative procedure in this Parliament. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will accept that my own amendment seeks to achieve the same outcome, but taking on board the issue in Wales.
Amendment No. 92A, on which my noble friend has focused, concerns the approval of access plans. We have listened very carefully to some of the concerns expressed about the clause by Universities UK. An amendment was made in another place to Clause 32, restricting our regulation-making powers in respect to the approval of plans. This followed from representations from Universities UK. However, I do not believe the nature of these regulations justifies the high level of scrutiny provided for by the affirmative resolution procedure. As I mentioned earlier, in the first instance they would be made as part of a single set of regulations which in any event would be subject to the affirmative procedure. In the first set it will be very clear what the position is.
Amendment Nos. 93A and 93B would make regulations under Clauses 33 and 34 subject to affirmative resolution. Again, while we intend in the first set of regulations for the director to be approved by the affirmative procedure, we do not believe that subsequent changes would, in themselves, justify an affirmative approach.
Amendment No. 102 goes beyond the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which were that regulations under Clause 35(2)(c) be by affirmative resolution. Amendment No. 102 would extend this to the whole of Clause 35(2). Again, I reassure noble Lords that the first set of regulations will all be through the affirmative process, but again we believe that it is appropriate to leave the provisions for the future to be by the negative procedure.
Amendment No. 109 seeks to make every single regulation made under this Bill subject to the affirmative procedure, which I suggest is a rather unusual departure from parliamentary procedure. I understand the desire to make Parliament play a very active role in scrutiny and I support that desire. However, I believe it is appropriate to have different forms of scrutiny, and that there are occasions when the negative resolution procedure is more appropriate. I know the noble Lord's concern mostly involves regulations related to variable fees and the director of fair access, but there are other issues in the Bill—supply of information, a number of technical matters

635
relating to student fees and so on. As we said, the first group of regulations will all be by the affirmative procedure, and I hope that being able to see the process in action will put noble Lords' minds at rest.
In Amendment No. 109A, I too agree on the importance of consultation, and I assure the Committee that we will consult on any regulations made under Clauses 31 to 35. I am happy to place that on record, but I do not believe that this needs to be included as a statutory requirement in primary legislation. It follows existing practice under Section 22 of the 1988 Act. When we do consult, we will not only wish to consult the institutions. There are a number of bodies who have a legitimate interest in this area, and I believe it is important to have the flexibility to do that.
Amendment No. 111A would make regulations under Clauses 31 to 35 subject to affirmative resolution. As I have already indicated, I do not believe that the high level of scrutiny is appropriate for the affirmative resolution procedure when considering the kind of change that we would expect to those regulations.
I have welcomed the report of the Delegated Powers Committee, and we have tabled amendments to implement it. In the light of the technical flaws of Amendments Nos. 85 and 102, the assurances that I have given on the other amendments, and the more important difficulties of principle with Amendment No. 109, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment and support those in my name.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I think that I am the only member of the Committee on Delegated Powers in the Chamber this evening. We are gratified
636
that the Government should have acceded to various suggestions that we drew to the attention of the House. I am conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, is unhappy that we did not go further. I may be speaking out of turn in the absence of any of my colleagues, but we rather pride ourselves on living to a regularity of precedent, in terms of our recommendations. We concentrate entirely on procedure and not on policy. It is always gratifying when, almost invariably, the Government accept our recommendations. That may be in part because of the manner in which we conduct ourselves. Were we constantly to go further, we might find more of our recommendations rejected.
Lord Skelmersdale: The Committee will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke for his speech as the only member of the Delegated Powers Committee currently in the Chamber. However, my argument was that the Government had accepted the recommendations of that committee only in part. I will read very carefully what the noble Baroness has said; no doubt she and others will read what I have said, in conjunction with the report of the Select Committee. At this time of night, I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Civil Partnership Bill [H.L.]
  (Fourth Day)
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): Before proceedings begin, I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the Stationery Office has printed continuation numbers for the long amendments on the Marshalled List—for instance, on page 10—as Members of the Committee requested last week. In addition, the Government have prepared an informal document showing the Bill including all the government amendments, copies of which are available from the Attendant at the door.
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos) moved Amendment No. 61AW:
  Before Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "DISPUTES BETWEEN CIVIL PARTNERS ABOUT PROPERTY
  (1) In any question between the civil partners in a civil partnership as to title to or possession of property, either civil partner may apply by summons or otherwise in a summary way to—

  (a) the High Court, or

  (b) a county court.

  (2) On such an application, the court may make such order with respect to the property as it thinks fit (including an order for the sale of the property).
  (3) Rules of court made for the purposes of this section may confer jurisdiction on county courts whatever the situation or value of the property in dispute."
  The noble Baroness said: Before I speak to this group of nine amendments I should say to the Committee that at Thursday's sitting it was generally agreed that it would be helpful if we could find a way to put the amendments relating to Northern Ireland in a new format to facilitate the Committee's consideration of them. It was also suggested that the Government provide further explanatory material on the amendments. We have attempted to do this. I should like to put on record my thanks to the officials who worked very hard to produce the material that was requested by the Committee.
  separate version of Part 4 with the amendments incorporated, making it easier to see how the proposed amendments fit into existing provisions for Northern Ireland, has been produced. However, I make clear to the Committee that this is not an official version but a draft intended to aid Members of the Committee in
  GC 240
  discussion. We have also produced a revised set of draft Explanatory Notes to accompany those amendments and a supplementary document noting the purpose and effect of each amendment. I hope that noble Lords will find these documents helpful in assisting our deliberations this afternoon.
  Turning to the amendments, this group of nine amendments make provision in Northern Ireland in connection with civil partnership which is comparable to the provision made for England and Wales by Chapter 3 of Part 2 as well as Schedules 4, 5, 6 and 7. They cover a wide range of legislative provision that sets out the rights and responsibilities of civil partners during the civil partnership, on its dissolution and after the death of one of the civil partners.
  I will speak in some detail on this group and the following groups of amendments, as I did on Thursday. I hope that the Committee will find it useful in following the debate. I have taken heed of the request of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, and will indicate page numbers in the Marshalled List as I proceed.
  Amendments Nos. 61AW and 61AX on page 38 enable civil partners to refer disputes over property to court using a summary procedure. The first of these amendments allows these disputes to be resolved in the High Court or a county court. The second of these amendments extends the availability of this jurisdiction of the court to situations where the civil partner no longer has the money or property in possession. In these cases the court has the same powers to make orders as if the property or money in question was still in the hands of the civil partner, including the power to order one civil partner to pay to the other a sum of money as appropriate. We discussed similar provisions in relation to Clauses 64 and 65 on 13 May.
  Amendment No. 61AY on page 39 extends to civil partners and their children the protections under Northern Ireland law currently available to spouses and children in respect of the proceeds of life assurance policies. As in Clause 67 for England and Wales and Clause 127 in Scotland, this is a necessary provision to ensure that surviving civil partners and their children are treated in the same way as spouses and the children of a married couple for the purposes of life assurance policies which have been expressly taken out for their benefit.
  Amendments Nos. 61AZ, on page 39, and 63A, on page 70, are concerned with the disposition of the estate of civil partners who have died. Amendment No. 63AZ contains a clause introducing Amendment No. 63A which amends existing legislation in Northern Ireland in relation to the effect of the formation or dissolution of a civil partnership on the will of a civil partner. Where a person has made a will, that will is revoked by the formation of a civil partnership, it being expected that the testator would have wished to make fresh provision. Similarly, the dissolution of a civil partnership will have the effect of revoking the will insofar as it concerns any disposition made in favour of the former civil partner. I hope that

  GC 241
  given the supplementary material that we have provided, any further questions that the Committee may have on that are past us.
  Amendment No. 63A also deals comprehensively with the rights of surviving civil partners to a share of the deceased's estate under the intestacy rules and inheritance legislation.
  Amendments Nos. 61 BA, on page 39, 63B, on page 80, 63C, on page 117 and 63D, on page 141 establish a system of financial relief in Northern Ireland for civil partners and children of their family following the breakdown of the civil partnership. Amendment No. 61 BA inserts a new clause introducing the schedules contained in the three subsequent amendments.
  Amendment No. 63B inserts a new schedule which deals with the adjustment of the finances and property rights of civil partners when a civil partnership is brought to an end. Amendment No. 63C sets out a system of financial relief that will be available in the magistrates' courts tier. This will enable civil partners to apply for maintenance themselves and for children of the family in the same way as parties to a marriage.
  Amendment No. 63D inserts a new schedule containing provisions for financial relief in Northern Ireland after a civil partnership has been dissolved or annulled or the civil partners have been legally separated in a country outside the British Isles.
  The provision made by these four amendments replicates existing arrangements for the financial arrangements between married couples whose marriage has ended, either within or outside Northern Ireland.
  The nine amendments in this group amend or replicate existing provision in Northern Ireland law applying to married couples and their property and finances. They raise no new issues of principle for the Bill. I beg to move
  Baroness O'Cathain: I tell the Leader of the House that I will not be long, but wish, first, to thank her very much and, indeed, through her, her officials, because it must have been some task to make some sense out of this matter. Although we have not had much time to look at the amendments—I have only just received most of them—the results have been useful.
  Secondly, the noble Baroness started by saying that the new amendments are comparable to the amendments for England and Wales, which is fine. But are they identical? If they are only comparable there may be some areas which the Minister could highlight. Could someone write to let us know if there are any differences? We have largely been examining the England and Wales provisions and if these new amendments are identical there will not be much more work to do.
  Baroness Amos: With respect to "identical" or "comparable", they will be different—or differently worded—only where Northern Ireland legislation is different. The reason that I use the word "comparable" concerning Northern Ireland legislation is that I have
  GC 242
  sought, as I go through, to highlight those places where it is different, because I know that the Committee would want to know. But in the majority of instances, where there is a slight difference, it will be because the orders or legislation in Northern Ireland are slightly different.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: May I also thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, her team and Ministers more generally for what is a departure from anything that I have ever known before in the decade for which I have belonged to the House? I very much hope that what is being done on this occasion may be considered as a possible example for what could be done again. It has always seemed to me strange that the way in which we deal with amendments makes it extremely difficult, even for lawyers, who have the sad task of reading such things, to be able to mate the proposed amendments to the text of a Bill. The beauty of what has been done here is that, in an informal document, we have the entire relevant parts of the Bill dealing with Northern Ireland in a way that does not require us to go back and forth to the Marshalled List.
  The other thing that is important is to have the notes on the amendments, which Ministers themselves have, which means that we have an update on the Explanatory Notes. One problem about the way in which we normally deal with law-making is that although we normally have good Explanatory Notes on the Bill, we do not always get Explanatory Notes on amendments, especially government amendments. Funnily enough, that does not apply where the Joint Committee on Human Rights is involved, which is able, to some extent, to get some of the material in its area updated.
  That is admirable, and enables us to see what is being proposed as a whole. As far as I can see, we are not establishing any different principles in the Northern Ireland part of the Bill—as the noble Baroness said, all we are doing, on my reading, is to change the nomenclature to suit Northern Ireland legislation. On that basis, the amendments, and others like them, are not controversial; they mirror what we have already scrutinised. I repeat my great gratitude for the labour that has been done and my hope that it may be considered to be a precedent set for the future.
  Lord Alli: I, too, thank my noble friend the Leader of the House and her officials for the extremely helpful and thorough notes. They certainly helped me this morning to run through the amendments in some detail and to consider them more carefully. I wonder whether my noble friend could also pass on my thanks to my noble friend Lord Filkin for his helpful letter about the work being done concerning unmarried same-sex couples.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Not same-sex couples.
  Lord Alli: Sorry—co-habiting couples, both same-sex and of opposite sex. We asked for that and his response is most encouraging.
  Baroness Amos: First, I thank members of the Committee for recognising the hard work that officials

  GC 243
  have done. I tell the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that one way in which I managed to persuade parliamentary counsel that this work could be done informally by officials was by promising that I was not setting a precedent. So the noble Lord's words are not especially helpful in that respect. I repeat that this was an informal exercise; it does not set a precedent—although I absolutely recognise the helpfulness of it to the Committee. I should like to retain a degree of flexibility in how we handle Committee stages of Bills, especially when there is a large volume of government amendments, as in this case. It will, of course, depend on work load. I should like to endorse the fact that the principles are not different, they are the same. I also thank my noble friend Lord Alli, with respect to his comments about my noble friend Lord Filkin.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  3.45 p.m.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61AX to 61BA:
  Before Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION (DISPUTES BETWEEN CIVIL PARTNERS ABOUT PROPERTY) WHERE PROPERTY NOT IN POSSESSION ETC.
  (1) The right of a civil partner ("A") to make an application under section (Disputes between civil partners about property) includes the right to make such an application where A claims that the other civil partner ("B") has had in his possession or under his control—

  (a) money to which, or to a share of which, A was beneficially entitled, or

  (b) property (other than money) to which, or to an interest in which, A was beneficially entitled,

  and that either the money or other property has ceased to be in B's possession or under B's control or that A does not know whether it is still in B's possession or under B's control.
  (2) For the purposes of subsection ( I )(a) it does not matter whether A is beneficially entitled to the money or share—

  (a) because it represents the proceeds of property to which, or to an interest in which, A was beneficially entitled, or

  (b) for any other reason.

  (3) Subsections (4) and (5) apply if, on such an application being made, the court is satisfied that B—

  (a) has had in his possession or under his control money or other property as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b), and

  (b) has not made to A, in respect of that money or other property, such payment or disposition as would have been just and equitable in the circumstances.

  (4) The power of the court to make orders under section (Disputes between civil partners about property) includes power to order B to pay to A—

  (a) in a case falling within subsection (1)(a), such sum in respect of the money to which the application relates, or A's share of it, as the court considers appropriate, or

  (b) in a case falling within subsection (1)(b), such sum in respect of the value of the property to which the application relates, or A's interest in it, as the court considers appropriate.

  (5) If it appears to the court that there is any property which—

  (a) represents the whole or part of the money or property, and

  (b) is property in respect of which an order could (apart from this section) have been made under section (Disputes between civil partners about property),
  GC 244
  the court may (either instead of or as well as making an order in accordance with subsection (4)) make any order which it could (apart from this section) have made under section (Disputes between civil partners about property).

  (6) Any power of the court which is exercisable on an application under section (Disputes between civil partners about property) is exercisable in relation to an application made under that section as extended by this section."
  Before Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "ASSURANCE POLICY BY CIVIL PARTNER FOR BENEFIT OF OTHER CIVIL PARTNER ETC.
  Section 4 of the Law Reform (Husband and Wife) Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (c.23 (N.I.)) (money payable under policy of life assurance or endowment not to form part of the estate of the insured) applies in relation to a policy of life assurance or endowment—

  (a) effected by a civil partner on his own life, and

  (b) expressed to be for the benefit of his civil partner, or of his children, or of his civil partner and children, or any of them,

  as it applies in relation to a policy of life assurance or endowment effected by a husband and expressed to be for the benefit of his wife, or of his children, or of his wife and children, or of any of them."
  Before Clause 149, insert the following new clause
  "WILLS, ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES AND FAMILY PROVISION
  Schedule (Wills, administration of estates and family provision: Northern Ireland) amends enactments relating to wills, administration of estates and family provision so that they apply in relation to civil partnerships as they apply in relation to marriage."
  Before Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "FINANCIAL RELIEF FOR CIVIL PARTNERS AND CHILDREN OF FAMILY
  (1) Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) makes provision for financial relief in connection with civil partnerships that corresponds to the provision made for financial relief in connection with marriages by Part 3 of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1045 (N.I. 15)).
  (2) Any rule of law under which any provision of Part 3 of the 1978 Order is interpreted as applying to dissolution of a marriage on the ground of presumed death is to be treated as applying (with any necessary modifications) in relation to the corresponding provision of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland).
  (3) Schedule (Financial relief in court of summary jurisdiction etc.: Northern Ireland) makes provision for financial relief in connection with civil partnerships that corresponds to provision made for financial relief in connection with marriages by the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S. I. 1980/ 563 (N.I. 5)).
  (4) Schedule (Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership) makes provision for financial relief in Northern Ireland after a civil partnership has been dissolved or annulled, or civil partners have been legally separated, in a country outside the British Islands."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61 BB:
  Before Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "CIVIL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS UNENFORCEABLE
  (1) A civil partnership agreement does not under the law of Northern Ireland have effect as a contract giving rise to legal rights.
  (2) No action lies in Northern Ireland for breach of a civil partnership agreement, whatever the law applicable to the agreement.

  GC 245
  (3) In this section and section (Property where civil partnership agreement is terminated) "civil partnership agreement" means an agreement between two people—

  (a) to register as civil partners of each other—

  (i) in Northern Ireland (under Part 4),

  (ii) in England and Wales (under Part 2),

  (iii) in Scotland (under Part 3), or

  (iv) outside the United Kingdom under an Order in Council made under Chapter 1 of Part 5 (registration at British consulates etc. or by armed forces personnel), or

  (b) to enter into an overseas relationship.

  (4) This section applies in relation to civil partnership agreements whether entered into before or after this section comes into force, but does not affect any action commenced before it comes into force."
  The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 61BB, which is on page 40, and Amendment No. 61BC, on page 41, make provision for Northern Ireland comparable to Clauses 70 and 71 of Part 2 of the Bill, dealing with England and Wales.
  Amendment No. 61 BB provides that agreements to register as civil partners will not be enforceable and no right of action will arise if such an agreement is broken. This provision corresponds to the current Northern Ireland law on engaged couples.
  Amendment No. 61BC introduces a provision which would apply where a civil partnership agreement is terminated but a dispute arises between the couple over property. The new procedures under Amendment No. 61AW and 61AX, dealing with disputes between civil partners, which we have just agreed, will be available to parties who have terminated a civil partnership agreement. This amendment matches existing Northern Ireland provision relating to disputes between formerly engaged couples. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61 BC:
  Before Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "PROPERTY WHERE CIVIL PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT IS TERMINATED
  (1) This section applies if a civil partnership agreement is terminated.
  (2) Sections (Disputes between civil partners about property) and (Applications under section ( Disputes between civil partners about property) where property not in possession etc.) (disputes between civil partners about property) apply to any dispute between, or claim by, one of the parties in relation to property in which either or both had a beneficial interest while the agreement was in force, as if the parties were civil partners of each other.
  (3) An application made under section (Disputes between civil partners about property) or (Applications under section ( Disputes between civil partners about property) where property not in possession etc.) by virtue of subsection (2) must be made within 3 years of the termination of the agreement.
  (4) A party to a civil partnership agreement who makes a gift of property to the other party on the condition (express or implied) that it is to be returned if the agreement is terminated is not prevented from recovering the property merely because of his having terminated the agreement."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 149 [Further provision for Northern Ireland]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 149 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Monson: We have not quite left Northern Ireland yet. This seems an opportune moment to raise a general question in respect of the Province and its legislation. I apologise if it was touched upon last Thursday, but I was otherwise occupied for most of the day.
  If the Northern Ireland Assembly were ever to reconvene, would it have the power, if it so chose, to amend or repeal the legislation in so far as it embraces Northern Ireland? It may never so choose, but it would he interesting to know whether it would have that power.
  Baroness Amos: The Northern Ireland Assembly would have that power on the issues which were within its remit.
  I am going to confuse the Committee, because I did this last week in opposing clause stand part. I wish to oppose Clause 149 standing part of the Bill.
  Clause 149 is a common clause appearing in Westminster legislation, which needs to be replicated in whole or in part for Northern Ireland. The clause permits an Order in Council under the schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000 to make further provision for civil partnership in Northern Ireland. It was necessary to include that clause in the Bill on introduction for drafting reasons in order to ensure that it was technically correct. However, now that we have the necessary additional clauses and schedules for Northern Ireland being added to the Bill, Clause 149 is no longer necessary. That is why I oppose Clause 149 stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 149 negatived.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61 BD:
  After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, CHILDREN OF THE FAMILY AND RELATIVES
  (1) Amend the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)) ("the 1995 Order") as follows.
  (2) In Article 2(2) (interpretation). for the definition of "child of the family" in relation to the parties to a marriage, substitute—
  ""child of the family", in relation to parties to a marriage, or to two people who are civil partners of each other, means—

  (a) a child of both of them, and

  (b) any other child, other than a child placed with them as foster parents by an authority or voluntary organisation, who has been treated by both of them as a child of their family."

  (3) In the definition of "relative" in Article 2(2), for "by affinity)" substitute "by marriage or civil partnership)".
  (4) In Article 7(1C) (acquisition of parental responsibility by step-parent), after "is married to" insert ", or a civil partner of,"."
  The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 61BD and 61BE on page 42 and Amendments Nos. 61BF, 61BG and 61BH on page 43 add five new clauses to Part 4 of the Bill. They deal with matters relating to children. The five new clauses would amend certain

  GC 247
  family law legislation in Northern Ireland in much the same way as is done in Chapter 5 of Part 2 of the Bill, which has already been debated.
  The amendments take account of the important role that civil partners will play in children's lives. "Child of the family" will be redefined to include children who are treated as children of the family by civil partners. Civil partners will be able to obtain parental responsibility for children of their civil partner by court order or by agreement of all those who have parental responsibility for that child.
  Those amendments also allow civil partners to apply for residence and contact orders in respect of a child of the family, in the same way as parties to a marriage. That will ensure that a child who has formed a close attachment to a civil partner who is not his or her parent can continue to benefit from that bond even if the relationship between the civil partners has ended. When hearing an application of this nature, the court will obviously take into account whether a residence or contact order is in the best interests of the child in question.
  Those amendments also allow a civil partner to be liable for financially maintaining a child whom he or she has treated as a child of the family. That will enable the court to make orders for periodical payments to be made from one civil partner to the other or to a child of the family or to a particular person for the benefit of the child. That will not affect the responsibility of the biological parent to maintain his or her child.
  Those amendments also contain a safeguard for a civil partner who appoints his or her civil partner to act as a guardian for his or her children. That appointment will be revoked if the civil partnership is subsequently dissolved or annulled, unless a contrary intention is shown in the appointment.
  Finally, Amendment No. 61BH makes minor and consequential amendments to adoption legislation in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
  Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I am looking at subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in government Amendment No. 61BD, which states that a,
  "'child of the family', in relation to parties to a marriage, or to two people who are civil partners of each other, means—
  (a) a child of both of them".
  That is not really applicable in this case. One might want to say "a child of either of them", but I query the words,
  "a child of both of them",
  in that particular context. Apart from anything else, it seems to be extraordinarily bad English. Would the noble Baroness care to comment?.
  Baroness Amos: I think that that is in relation to civil partners being guardians to the child, for example, as well as whether the biological parent of the child is one of the civil partners.
  Baroness O'Cathain: Perhaps I can follow that up: I wonder whether it would be anything to do with the Gender Recognition Bill?
  Baroness Amos: No, it does not relate to the Gender Recognition Bill at all. As I said, the provision relates to both marriage and civil partners.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Perhaps I can follow up the question of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about the impact of the devolution scheme. It arises on all these amendments and is a question that goes as much to the Scottish as to the Northern Irish provisions. I understand the answer that has been given by the Leader of the House, which is that it all depends upon whether a matter falls within those matters that are devolved. Obviously, that has to be tackled to some extent on a provision by provision basis, according to the subject matter.
  However, if it would not be too much trouble, it would be helpful if the Government would at some point spell out the brief principles that would apply in deciding whether a matter falls within those that are devolved and are capable of being legislated upon by the Northern Ireland Assembly, when it is restored, or by the Scottish Parliament, or whether they are matters that are controlled entirely by the Westminster Parliament and are therefore not capable of amendment.
  I can see that at the moment one imponderable would be that under the devolution scheme both the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament are constrained in their law-making powers by the Human Rights Act and by the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, if it would be unjustifiably discriminatory to treat homosexual people in Northern Ireland less favourably than homosexual people in the rest of the United Kingdom, that would be a constraint upon the ability of the Assembly to amend, even if, on the face of it, the amending power seemed to fall within the devolution scheme. I do not wish to detain the Committee in any detail on it, but it seems to me that, in view of the understandable sensitivities in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and to a lesser extent in Wales—a lesser extent because they do not have the same law-making powers—it would be helpful if we could have a short explanation at some convenient moment. If not now, then can we please have it on some future occasion, just for the record?
  Baroness Amos: I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and we can set out those areas of responsibility that fall to the devolved administrations and those that fall to Westminster. It would be more difficult to set out those areas where, for example, the Assembly or the Scottish Parliament may feel that they want to challenge responsibility and which may end up in a court of law. On the basis of the devolution settlements for Northern Ireland and Scotland, we would be able to set out those areas that fall to Westminster or to Belfast or Edinburgh. The Committee will know, for example, that immigration falls to Westminster, as does responsibility for

  GC 249
  elections. Other areas—for example, social security—fall to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I can set that out in very broad terms in writing to the Committee.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I would be very grateful if it could be applied in the context of the Bill so that one has some idea of the fuller answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
  4 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: My attention has just been drawn to the fact that on page 19 of the consultation document, which all Members of the Committee may not have in front of them, are set out transferred, reserved and accepted matters. However, I shall write to noble Lords on that point.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61BE to 61BH:
  After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "GUARDIANSHIP
  In Article 161 of the 1995 Order (revocation of appointment), after paragraph (7) insert—
  "(8) An appointment under paragraph (1) or (2) of Article 160 (including one made in an unrevoked will) is revoked if—

  (a) the civil partnership of the person who made the appointment is dissolved or annulled, and

  (b) the person appointed is his former civil partner.

  (9) Paragraph (8) is subject to a contrary intention appearing from the appointment.
  (10) In paragraph (8) "dissolved or annulled" means—

  (a) dissolved by a dissolution order or annulled by a nullity order under Part 4 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, or

  (b) dissolved or annulled in any country or territory outside Northern Ireland by a dissolution or annulment which is entitled to recognition in Northern Ireland by virtue of Chapter 3 of Part 5 of that Act.""

  After Clause 149, insert the following new clause
  "ENTITLEMENT TO APPLY FOR RESIDENCE OR CONTACT ORDER
  In Article 10(5) of the 1995 Order (persons entitled to apply for residence or contact order), after sub-paragraph (a) insert—
  "(aa) any civil partner in a civil partnership (whether or not subsisting) in relation to whom the child is a child of the family;"."
  After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "FINANCIAL PROVISION FOR CHILDREN
  (1) Amend Schedule 1 to the 1995 Order (financial provision for children) as follows.
  (2) For paragraph 1(2) (extended meaning of "parent") substitute—
  "(2) In this Schedule, except paragraphs 3 and 17, "parent" includes—

  (a) any party to a marriage (whether or not subsisting) in relation to whom the child concerned is a child of the family, and

  (b) any civil partner in a civil partnership (whether or not subsisting) in relation to whom the child concerned is a child of the family;

  and for this purpose any reference to either parent or both parents shall be read as a reference to any parent of his and to all of his parents."
  GC 250
  (3) In paragraph 3(6) (meaning of "periodical payments order"), after paragraph (d) insert—

  "(e) Part 1 or 7 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or county court etc.) to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (financial relief in the High Court or county court etc.);

  (f) Schedule (Financial relief in court of summary jurisdiction etc.: Northern Ireland) to the 2004 Act (financial relief in court of summary jurisdiction etc.);".

  (4) In paragraph 17(2) (person with whom a child lives or is to live), after "husband or wife" insert "or civil partner"."
  After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "ADOPTION
  (1) Amend the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/2203 (N.I. 22)) as follows.
  (2) In Article 2 (interpretation), in the definition of "relative" in paragraph (2), for "affinity" substitute "marriage or civil partnership".
  (3) In Article 12 (adoption orders), in paragraph (5), after "married" insert "or who is or has been a civil partner".
  (4) In Article 15 (adoption by one person), in paragraph (1)(a), after "is not married" insert "or a civil partner".
  (5) In Article 33 (meaning of "protected child"), in paragraph (3)(g), after "marriage" insert "or forming a civil partnership".
  (6) In Article 40 (status conferred by adoption), in paragraph (3)(a), after "1984" insert "or for the purposes of Schedule 12 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
  (7) In Article 54 (disclosure of birth records of adopted children), in paragraph (2)—

  (a) after "intending to be married" insert "or to form a civil partnership";

  (b) for "the person whom he intends to marry" substitute "the intended spouse or civil partner";

  (c) after "1984" insert "or Schedule 12 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".

  (8) In Article 54A (Adoption Contact Register), in paragraph (I 3)(a), for "or marriage" substitute ", marriage or civil partnership"."
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61 BJ:
  After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "FALSE STATEMENTS ETC. WITH REFERENCE TO CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS
  (1) Amend Article 8 of the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1714 (N.I. 19)) (false statements etc. with reference to marriage) as follows.
  (2) After paragraph (1) insert—
  "(1A) Any person who—

  (a) for the purpose of procuring the formation of a civil partnership or a document mentioned in paragraph (1B)—

  (i) makes or signs a declaration required under Part 4 or 5 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004; or

  (ii) gives a notice or certificate required under Part 4 or 5 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004,

  knowing that the declaration, notice or certificate is false;

  GC 251

  (b) for the purpose of a record being made in any register relating to civil partnerships—

  (i) makes a statement as to any information which is required to be registered under Part 4 or 5 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004; or

  (ii) causes such a statement to be made,

  knowing that the statement is false;

  (c) forbids the issue of a document mentioned in paragraph (1B)(a) or (b) by representing himself to be a person whose consent to a civil partnership between a child and another person is required under Part 4 or 5 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, knowing the representation to be false,

  shall be guilty of an offence.
  (1B) The documents are—

  (a) a civil partnership schedule;

  (b) a document required by an Order in Council under section 150 or 151 as an authority for two people to register as civil partners of each other;

  (c) a certificate of no impediment under section 175."

  (3) In paragraph (2), after "paragraph (1)" insert "or (1A)".
  (4) In the heading to Article 8, after "marriage" insert "or civil partnership"."
  The noble Baroness said: We are nearing the end of the government amendments adding new clauses and schedules for Northern Ireland. I am grateful to Members of the Committee for their patience. This group of amendments contains two schedules. I shall proceed carefully to ensure that we are all able to understand the purpose of each amendment. This group corresponds to Chapter 6 of Part 2. We have already debated those provisions and these amendments raise no new policy issues.
  Amendment No. 61BJ on page 44 deals with false statements made in connection with civil partnership. It does so by amending the Perjury (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, creating offences comparable to those which would apply to false statements made in connection with the procurement of a marriage.
  Amendment No. 61BM on page 45 amends the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 and enables civil partners and former civil partners to make claims under that legislation in the same way as spouses and former spouses can at present. This amendment matches in identical terms the provisions in Clause 80 dealing with the relevant legislation applying in England and Wales.
  Amendments Nos. 61BK on page 45 and 63E on page 155 deal with housing and tenancy succession in Northern Ireland and amend various pieces of existing legislation. Amendment No. 61BK is a new clause introducing the schedule moved by Amendment No. 63E. The Committee will see that Schedule 8, dealing with these matters in England and Wales, is significantly bigger than its corresponding schedule in Amendment No. 63E. I should like to assure the Committee that this does not imply that civil partners would have any fewer rights to succeed to tenancies in Northern Ireland than their counterparts in England and Wales—here I point out a significant difference to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—merely that the
  GC 252
  different organisation of the provision of social housing in Northern Ireland entails the need for fewer pieces of legislation. There are also specific pieces of legislation amended in Schedule 8 for England and Wales which have no direct counterparts in Northern Ireland, due largely to the different history of property ownership and its legislative regulation. That is one of the areas where there is a big difference.
  Finally, Amendments Nos. 61BL on page 45 and 63F on page 159 deal with the protection to be afforded to civil partners under relevant Northern Ireland legislation dealing with occupation of the family home and protection from domestic violence. Amendment No. 61BL is the new clause introducing the schedule in Amendment No. 63F.
  I point out one significant difference between the legislation in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. As yet, legislation on family homes and domestic violence in Northern Ireland does not cater for same-sex cohabitees, as does the legislation here. The Government hope that that will be remedied within this Session. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendments Nos. 61BK to 61BM:
  After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "HOUSING AND TENANCIES
  Schedule (Housing and tenancies: Northern Ireland) amends certain enactments relating to housing and tenancies."
  After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "FAMILY HOMES AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
  Schedule (Family homes and domestic violence) amends the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1071 (N.I. 6)) and related enactments so that they apply in relation to civil partnerships as they apply in relation to marriages."
  After Clause 149, insert the following new clause—
  "FATAL ACCIDENTS CLAIMS
  (1) Amend the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977/1251 (N.I. 18)) as follows.
  (2) In Article 2(2) (meaning of "dependant"), after subparagraph (a) insert—
  "(aa) the civil partner or former civil partner of the deceased;".
  (3) After sub-paragraph (f) of Article 2(2) insert—
  "(fa) any person (not being a child of the deceased) who, in the case of any civil partnership in which the deceased was at any time a civil partner, was treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to that civil partnership;".
  (4) After Article 2(2A) insert—
  "(2B) The reference to the former civil partner of the deceased in paragraph (2)(aa) includes a reference to a person whose civil partnership with the deceased has been annulled as well as a person whose civil partnership with the deceased has been dissolved."
  (5) In Article 2(3)(b), for "by affinity" substitute "by marriage or civil partnership".
  (6) In Article 3A(2) (persons for whose benefit claim for bereavement damages may be made)—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (a), after "wife or husband" insert "or civil partner", and

  GC 253

  (b) in sub-paragraph (b), after "was never married" insert "or a civil partner"."

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 150 [Registration at British consulates etc.]:
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61 BN:
  Page 73, line 40, leave out "and 165(1)(c)(i)" and insert ", 162(c), 164(ab), 165(1)(c)(i) and (3)(c)(i), (Proceedings for dissolution, separation or nullity order)(1)(c)(i) and (2)(c)(i), (Proceedings for presumption of death order)(c) and (Applications for declarations as to validity etc.)(b) and section 1(3)(c)(i) of the Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act 1977 (c. 27)"
  The noble Baroness said: This group of amendments serves two purposes. First, Amendments Nos. 65A and 65B on page 51, Amendments Nos. 65L and 65M on pages 56 and 57, Amendments Nos. 65N, 65P and 65Q on page 58 and Amendments Nos. 65S and 65T on page 65 continue the package of Northern Ireland provisions which we are adding to the Bill.
  While the main provisions for Northern Ireland appear in Part 4, additional provisions are needed in Chapter 3 of Part 5 to set out the jurisdiction of the courts in Northern Ireland. At present, the chapter only covers courts in England, Wales and Scotland. We are therefore making minor changes to Clause 159 to ensure that the regulations under that clause can apply in Northern Ireland, subject to the appropriate procedures.
  In addition, new clauses are inserted after Clause 157 to provide for the jurisdiction of courts in Northern Ireland, mirroring Clauses 160 to 164 in England and Wales. There is also a small technical change to Clause 178, consequential on the fees provision inserted by an earlier government amendment to Part 4. Clause 178, as amended, will ensure that this fees provision works correctly in relation to things done by, or on behalf of, the Registrar General for Northern Ireland, under an Order in Council made under Part 5.
  Secondly, Amendments Nos. 65C to 65K, which are all on pages 53 to 55, and Amendment No. 96A ensure that the courts in all parts of the UK have the jurisdiction they need to hear applications concerning civil partnerships registered in that part of the UK for dissolution, nullity or separation orders, presumption of death orders and declarations as to validity, even where neither party is domiciled in the United Kingdom.
  The Bill as introduced provided this jurisdiction only in the case of applications for a dissolution or separation order, and in England and Wales in nullity cases. But it is important that civil partners who registered in the UK can gain access to the courts in that part of the UK for all these applications, provided the court considers it in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction. The new provisions being inserted for Northern Ireland ensure a similar result there.
  The provision of a residual jurisdiction for UK courts to hear cases concerning civil partnerships registered in the UK is important because civil partners who register in the UK may subsequently move to a country or territory where civil partnerships
  GC 254
  are not recognised. As a result, the local courts would have no power to make decisions affecting the civil partnership. If the couple were no longer domiciled in the UK, the UK courts would have no jurisdiction. The couple would be left with nowhere they could go to obtain a valid dissolution or decision on the validity of their civil partnership.
  The approach we have taken ensures that cases are not brought back to the UK courts without good reason. The inclusion of an "interests of justice" test allows the UK courts to consider whether they provide the most convenient forum or whether, on the contrary, the matter can appropriately be decided in another legal jurisdiction.
  If the couple are domiciled in a country where the local courts have full power to decide the matter, it is unlikely that the UK courts would be prepared to assume jurisdiction and hear the case. These provisions give the courts a residual jurisdiction to hear the matter where they consider it to be in the interests of justice to do so.
  The consequential amendments to Clauses 150 and 151 ensure that, for the purposes of this residual jurisdiction, a civil partnership formed outside the UK under an Order in Council will be treated as if the parties had registered as civil partners in the part of the UK determined in accordance with the Order in Council. I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: These provisions seem to us to be entirely fit for the purpose for which they have been introduced. They deal with difficult and important issues of primary international law, about foreign recognition and jurisdiction and so on, in a way that mirrors what happens elsewhere in our family law jurisdictions. May I just ask for confirmation that, in relation both to the Northern Ireland judiciary and legal profession and also to the other senior judiciaries and legal professions of Scotland, England and Wales, there was consultation about these provisions before they were introduced? If not, what is the position?
  Baroness Amos: My understanding is that there has not been consultation on these matters. However, we did not anticipate any difficulties with the judiciary with respect to these matters.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am grateful. I am not suggesting that there would be any difficulty; I just wondered whether there had been. I cannot see any particular reason why there needs to be, since this is essentially simply and coherently adding to the jurisdiction that already exists.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 150, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 151 [Registration by armed forces personnel]:
  Baroness Amos Baroness Amos moved Amendment No. 61 BP:
  Page 74, line 29, leave out "and 165(1)(c)(i)" and insert ", 162(c), 164(ab), 165(1)(c)(i) and (3)(c)(i), (Proceedings for dissolution, separation or nullity order)(1)(c)(i) and (2)(c)(i), (Proceedings for presumption of death order)(c) and (Applications for declarations as to validity etc.)(b) and section 1(3)(c)(i) of the Presumption of Death (Scotland) Act 1977 (c. 27)"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 151, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 152 [Meaning of "overseas relationship"]:
  [Amendment No. 62 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 152 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Clause 152—which I hope we are about to decide should stand part of the Bill — is obviously a particularly important one at the current time when so much is on the move in other countries. I think that it is important to say that today is an historic day, certainly in Massachusetts where gay and lesbian marriages are being celebrated. Those who live in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and elsewhere around the world will be particularly interested in this clause and other related clauses. This provision is plainly a very important element as those people need to know where they will stand if they come and settle, for example, in this country. So this provision is most welcome. I am very glad that no amendment is being moved to the clause and that there seems to be no opposition to it.
  Clause 152 agreed to.
  4.15 p.m.
  Clause 153 [Specified relationships]:
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 75, line 12, leave out subsections (2) to (6).
  The noble Lord said: This is a brief probing amendment to Clause 153, proposing to leave out subsections (2) to (6). We tabled it simply to ask why the Government are treating amendments to specified relationships in different ways.
  Clause 153 defines "specified relationships" for overseas relations that are to be treated as civil partners. The clause as currently drafted would allow the Secretary of State to change Schedule 14, the schedule setting out the meaning of overseas relationships, for the purposes of this part of the Bill. I believe that it is a quite large power to allow the Secretary of State to change that by diktat. It is what I think has always been defined as a Henry VIII power in that he is being given power to amend legislation. While,
  "amending the description of a relationship, or … omitting a relationship"—
  as provided in subsection (5)(a) and (b)—is quite rightly subject, with this Henry VIII power, to the affirmative procedure, adding a relationship, as in subsection (2)(a), is not. I should be very interested to know whether the Government can explain why that is not to be done by the affirmative procedure whereas the others are.
  I think that we are all well aware of the vast numbers of negative statutory instruments that pass weekly and monthly through the House. I am also sure that most noble Lords will accept that we possibly do not give them all the scrutiny they necessarily deserve, unless we happen to have the joy of sitting on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
  It is very important that when we come to a matter as important as a relationship under Schedule 14, it should not be done by a negative instrument. It would be more appropriate for it to be done by an affirmative procedure. I should be very interested to know the Government's reasoning why some of these bits of Clause 153 are dealt with by an affirmative order and some by a negative one. I beg to move.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: For the reasons I had begun to outline, it is obviously very important that people living overseas in established relationships should know how those relationships are to be recognised or not recognised within the United Kingdom. I think that I have already raised the point—in correspondence, and perhaps even in a Question for Written Answer—that Schedule 14 as it stands, on page 207 of the Bill, is much more restrictive in the countries and the territories that it specifies than was the provision outlined originally in the White Paper. As I understand the position, that is because the Government wished to have necessary flexibility as they could look at the changing laws and practices in those countries and decide which of them would come within Schedule 14 and which would not.
  We can take the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as an example to serve for all since today happens to be the day when the new process begins; men and women are marrying under the present law in Massachusetts. It is possible that an attempt will be made to change it—if the constitution of Massachusetts is amended in two years' time—to turn them into civil partners, as I understand it, rather than into married persons. That seems to be one possible outcome of a political controversy that is happening in Massachusetts.
  If John and James, or Mary and Elizabeth, "marry" under the prevailing law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, they will need to know what the consequence of that will be if they come to settle in, for example, this country. While they are living in the United States, at the moment, because of something called the Defence of Marriage Act—a federal Act — they will have virtually no rights in most other states or under federal law. They will be gravely disadvantaged, and even if they are civil partners they will be left with shrunken rights. So for those European and Commonwealth countries that are taking the step that we are taking, the recognition under this provision of the Bill and Schedule 14 is of enormous consequence. Obviously, it requires clarity—reasonable legal certainty—because they may decide to change their positions as a result of their advice about what our law now provides.
  As it is now drafted, Clause 153 is not objectionable. I note that the consent of the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland must be obtained before any order is made that shows proper deference to the devolved administrations. I do not think that that needs affirmative resolution. Indeed, that would be detrimental because it is important that civil partners across the world should be protected sooner rather than later once the Bill comes into force.

  GC 257
  Frankly, I am not sure of the competence of even us as parliamentarians to be able to judge questions of foreign law that have to be looked into in exercising that power. I hope that I do not offend anyone in suggesting that that may be the case. However, I should be grateful for greater clarity about how the powers are to be exercised and by what criteria that would be decided. To take my Massachusetts example, when that kind of evolving situation is occurring, at what point, in what manner and by what procedure will Ministers take a decision to include or exclude those within that jurisdiction under Section 153 as a specified relationship? It may be that a full answer again cannot be given today, but the fullest possible answer should be given at some point while the Bill is in this House.
  Baroness Crawley: I hope that the following explanation will help to answer the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I shall turn to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in a moment.
  The clause introduces Schedule 14, which lists the specified relationships that can be treated as civil partnerships if the other requirements of this chapter are met. Schedule 14 ensures transparency for the users of the legislation by providing certainty for individual couples, government departments and private-sector bodies, such as pension groups and employers, about whether a particular kind of overseas relationship may in principle be treated as a civil partnership. The clause also gives the Secretary of State power to amend Schedule 14—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henley—by secondary legislation, which this amendment seeks to remove.
  In order to ensure that the list of specified relationships keeps pace with the likely introduction of new kinds of same-sex partnerships or marriage in other countries in future, it is necessary to include such a power. The law in this area is developing quickly. It would not be practicable to use primary legislation for each amendment that may be needed to the schedule. The removal of a power to add to or to delete from the list risks the creation of legislation that is relevant for only a short period of time. We clearly need the flexibility in the Bill to take account of future changes around the world. As I said earlier, those changes are happening very rapidly.
  We recognise that an order made using this power, which would have the effect of removing or amending one of the specified relationships contained in the schedule, should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and the clause provides accordingly. That is because such an order might involve a reduction in the scope of recognition of overseas relationships and might involve amending a provision approved by Parliament during the passage of the Bill. It is anticipated that the power would rarely be exercised in this way, but it is necessary in case a partnership scheme in another country were repealed or amended or a court judgment fundamentally
  GC 258
  changed the nature of an overseas relationship in a way which made its treatment as a civil partnership in the UK inappropriate.
  However, it is not considered appropriate to require affirmative resolution for any exercise of the power that merely adds new foreign relationships to the list. Such additions would not raise any new issue of principle for Parliament to consider, but would simply be applying the approach taken by the Bill to new forms of relationship. The content of Schedule 14 already gives a good indication of the kinds of relationships that might be added in future. These are all relationships which are considered to meet the general conditions laid out in Clause 154, in that they all involve exclusive same-sex relationships that are registered, are of indeterminate duration and result in the parties being treated as a couple or as married. Requiring a debate on every such addition or amendment would be unduly onerous. Accordingly, an order of this kind would be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
  Since recognition of foreign relationships is a devolved matter, I must add that the clause requires that any orders made must have the consent of the Scottish Ministers and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  I will take a moment to answer one or two of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He asked why Schedule 14 does not include all the relationships outlined in the consultation document. Tables 1 and 2 of the consultation document Civil Partnership provided information about a wide range of partnership schemes in other countries for comparative purposes. We do not feel that it is appropriate for all these relationships to be listed in Schedule 14 of the Bill. In some cases this is because the overseas relationship in question does not meet one or more of the general conditions in Clause 154 that I spoke about; for example, because it does not involve registration of the partnership.
  In other cases it was decided not to include a relationship in Schedule 14 until further research had been completed. Officials continue to gather information on relationships in other countries and territories in order to determine whether they should be added to the list contained in Schedule 14. There will be a continual need to update this list as new kinds of relationships come into effect in other countries. Clause 153 of the Bill allows for the Schedule to be amended by subordinate legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to the Massachusetts case. As noble Lords will know, Massachusetts was not originally included in Schedule 14 because the relevant ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Goodridge case allowed the legislature 180 days to implement the ruling opening marriage to same-sex couples.
  Although it is the case that from today same-sex couples should be able to marry in Massachusetts, we know that legislators in the state are continuing, as the

  GC 259
  noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said, to attempt to overturn the court's decision by seeking to amend the state constitution to outlaw gay marriage. But we will obviously continue to await further developments on that particular state.
  Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked what criteria the Government would apply in deciding what to add to the list. The contents of Schedule 14 already provide a good indication of the kinds of relationships that might be added in future. These are all relationships that meet those general conditions. They are the key to the criteria—the general conditions set out in Clause 154—in that they all involve exclusive same-sex relationships that are registered, are of indeterminate duration and result in the parties being treated as a couple or as married. I hope that has answered the questions.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. I wish to make clear that I was not demanding primary legislation to make amendments to Schedule 14. That would be ridiculous. What I was intrigued by was why subsection (2)(a) would be dealt with by negative order and paragraphs (b) and (c) by affirmative orders.
  Having said that I am not demanding primary legislation, I am also not pushing for affirmative regulations where they are inappropriate. Particularly those of us who have been Ministers know that Ministers often concede an affirmative order where originally a negative order has been proposed, because it often makes a nice little concession during the course of the passage of a Bill. As a result we often have slightly too many affirmative orders coming before the House. For example, a few years ago I remember a whole string of "paralytic shellfish" orders. I am sure that they were all the result of some hapless Minister—it cannot have been me, because I was never in that department—conceding some affirmative orders, just to make a problem go away. I am not seeking affirmative regulations just for the sake of it, but that procedure has been offered for subsections (2)(b) and (c) and not for paragraph (a).
  Obviously, it cannot be purely a question of the time needed to deal with these matters and the speed with which they can be processed, because, as the Minister made clear in Clause 153(3), consultations will take place with the Scotland Office and the Department of Finance and Personnel, which I take to relate to Northern Ireland. Therefore, matters cannot move ahead that quickly. Those consultations would take place, whether the matter relates to paragraphs (a), (b) or (c).
  Is it correct that the reason why it is proposed to leave paragraph (a) subject to negative resolution and paragraphs (b) and (c) affirmative, is that paragraph (a) simply relates to adding another country? So, if one looks at Schedule 14, at the bottom of that list, one could at some point add "United States of America: Massachusetts"—although I am not clear exactly when that state would need to be added as we know
  GC 260
  that something has happened today, but, given the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, further matters have to be dealt with by the Massachusetts legislature. One could go on adding countries to the list, as and when appropriate, simply by means of negative orders that would have to lie before the House for a number of days. However, paragraphs (b) and (c), which amend a description or omit a relationship, would still need affirmative regulations. I hope that the Minister can deal with that—I might then be in a position to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Before the noble Lord seeks to withdraw his amendment I should like to raise one or two points. First, I am satisfied by the Minister's explanation of the reasons for differentiating between the affirmative procedure and the negative procedure. That seems to be a coherent distinction.
  I wonder whether I could ask the Minister to take the Massachusetts example to serve for all, because I am troubled by a kind of analogy. Some years ago, I introduced a Bill into the House because, under the Jewish religion, there was a curiosity about Orthodox marriages and Orthodox divorces that led to the so-called "chained wives" problem. According to one interpretation of the Book of Deuteronomy, unless there was writing by both, the unfortunate Jewish wife could not obtain a divorce. Luckily, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and then the present Government came to the rescue, and we managed to free them. That was an example of a limping marriage. Here I am worried about an example of a limping non-recognition situation arising. Let me explain exactly what I mean.
  Anyone of the same sex who "marries" today in Massachusetts has a valid marriage under Massachusetts law unless and until that is altered by the Massachusetts legislature by amendment to the constitution. As I understand it, that amendment cannot take place anyway, even if there were enough support for it, for two years. Let us assume that this Bill is enacted and brought into force in less than two years from now, which I would anticipate is the position. Let us assume that a couple have been "married" validly under the law of Massachusetts at the time this Bill comes into force but that the Massachusetts legislature is taking steps which may turn it into a civil partnership, or lawyers are brought in and horrible constitutional challenges are made on one side or the other which could go on for years and years. Meanwhile, the couple who have "married" want to come to this country and want to know whether they will be recognised if and when they come.
  I take it that the fact that "marrying" would not be a disqualification under this provision or the schedule. In other words, I take it that there will not be a problem about labelling and the fact that it is called marriage, not a civil partnership or civil union. That seems to follow from what the Minister has said. It cannot make any difference to the substance of the matter. That is quite important.

  GC 261
  Secondly, I hope that there could be reassurance that when ministerial discretion is exercised by subordinate legislation to add, let us say, the Massachusetts relationship, Ministers will not be deterred by the prospect of some future change in Massachusetts law that attempts to be retrospective, or some future litigation which could, hypothetically, last for 10 years. Meanwhile, this ageing couple—gay or lesbian partners—are left in limbo while Ministers are deferring a decision. That is what I meant when I said that the general approach to the matter is important.
  I quite agree that one has to have this power, and it is a beneficent power. However, I suggest that it needs to be used and not deferred indefinitely in such a situation, as a matter of simple humanity for the couple. It may be that that long question cannot be answered today, but I think that it is very important and will need to be answered during the passage of the Bill.
  Lord Alli: The Minister seemed to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that with regard to the Massachusetts case, whether or not they were added to the schedule was dependent on an assessment by Ministers about whether those marriages would remain legal after the action taken by the legislative body. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that that would be an unfortunate consequence; if such marriages are currently legal, I assume that we would recognise them as such. If they were deemed illegal or if the status were changed, we would then re-examine them at the point at which the status was changed as opposed to making an assessment of the outcome of the deliberations of a court or another sovereign body.
  Baroness Crawley: I shall first deal with the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. If Massachusetts is not listed right now, for whatever reason—it could well be because of the complexity of the way in which the law is being studied by the legislature in that state and because of the outcome of any federal moves—that does not necessarily prevent a couple being recognised because one then looks at the general conditions and compares them with the Massachusetts situation. Not being in Schedule 14 does not prevent a couple in a recognised partnership seeking to have their partnership recognised under the general conditions of Clause 154.
  Lord Alli: I am confused because the noble Baroness qualified the first part of her answer by saying "for whatever reason" and giving as examples where there may be legal difficulties or where legal actions are taking place. Where my confusion lies is that I assume that if something is legal, as gay marriage is in Massachusetts from today, until it becomes illegal it should be treated as something that meets the criteria and should go in the list. I would assume that if it is
  GC 262
  challenged one would have to wait until the outcome of the challenge before Ministers could reassess, rather than forecasting the result of a challenge.
  Lord Henley: Before the noble Baroness answers that question, I will add to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has been asking as I have got rather confused. I will use Massachusetts as an example, as it is in the news. If Ministers chose to add Massachusetts to the list, they will do that quite simply by the negative procedure. But if, in due course, Massachusetts is taken out of the list by the state itself, do Ministers then have to come back to Parliament and use the affirmative procedure to omit under subsection 2(c)?
  Baroness Crawley: Yes.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I think that the Minister was telling us that it is not crucial to fall within the specified relationship because of the general conditions. But I could be completely wrong. Clause 152 states:
  "an overseas relationship is a relationship which … (a) is either a specified relationship or a relationship which meets the general conditions",
  so I agree that it can be one or the other. But then it says:
  "(b) is registered (whether before or after the passing of this Act) in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, by two people … who under the relevant law are of the same sex at the time when they do so, and … neither of whom is already a civil partner or lawfully married".
  As I read that, one is eligible either if one falls with a country or territory that has been specified, or if one falls within the general conditions where the country has not been specified but one has to have been registered in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom at the relevant time. So the real question, to take the Massachusetts example, is whether the Government understand the reference in Clause 152(1)(b) to:
  "is registered … in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom",
  as applying to a gay or lesbian couple who register their marriage today in Massachusetts. If the answer to that is yes and that provided that they satisfy the general conditions they will be recognised, it matters a little less whether a country is in the list as it simply concerns a matter of simplicity. I would be very grateful for clarity on that.
  Baroness Crawley: As we are talking about events that have happened today, obviously we are moving along cautiously. If the partnership is legal in Massachusetts, it is recognised as a civil partnership here if it meets the general conditions in Clause 154. I hope that that makes it clearer.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: So it would not matter if President Bush—if he is re-elected—seeks an amendment to the federal constitution that would retrospectively seek to avoid all of that, and so forth?
  Baroness Crawley: I understand that that is correct.
  Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: Perhaps that could be clarified. I am slightly disturbed by the terms of Clause 154; it states that the general conditions are that, "under the relevant law", all the particulars that follow have to be part of the law. It may be that in a particular jurisdiction, the general conditions are contained within the law but extend further. Can one make an exception by simply saying that the particular relationship would meet the general conditions? Or is the Minister saying that the relevant law has to contain all the conditions under Clause 154?
  Clause 152 seems to he the sense of how this is dealt with. It is either a specified relationship as Parliament has said, which we recognise, or it is a relevant law in which the relationship that is to be accorded the right to be registered in that jurisdiction meets the general conditions as set out in Clause 154.
  I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. He is referring to individual partners who may, within their own particular conditions, meet what is set out in Clause 154. But that does not appear to be enough as regards Clause 152. It requires that the registering jurisdiction has to be law, which simply complies with Clause 154. That is how I read it, but I may be wrong. I should be grateful if the Minister could express a view on that.
  Baroness Crawley: I have advice that the noble Lord's interpretation is correct. No doubt, we shall all read Hansard tomorrow.
  Lord Lester of Herne Hill: In that case, I do not know what that really means in practice. It seems that it is more complicated. When the Bill becomes law, if "the relevant law", which is Massachusetts law, recognises that the couple have the capacity to enter into the relationship and at that date meet all the necessary requirements to ensure the formal validity of the relationship, on referring back to Clause 152(1 )(b)(i)—which states that two people,
  "under the relevant law are of the same sex at the time when they do so, and
  (ii) neither of whom is already a civil partner or lawfully married—
  the reference to "relevant law" does not seem to add any significant problem. The answers already given by the Minister will continue to apply. Any future change in the relevant law of a retrospective kind, whether by legislation or judicial interpretation, will not defeat the effect of the registration of the "marriage". I hope that that also meets with the agreement of officials.
  Baroness Crawley: They are looking slightly dazed. Perhaps I could reply to the noble Lord in writing to clear up that point.
  GC 264
  The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked why we should not use the affirmative procedure in all cases. As a former member of the usual channels, the noble Lord will know that the business of the House would become extremely jammed and clogged up if, as we expect, we would need to use this provision on many occasions as the law develops rapidly around the world. We consider that it would be unduly onerous on the House to have to use that procedure in each case. For the noble Lord's information I add that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise any concerns about the level of parliamentary approval proposed.
  Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for those remarks. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, for his intervention which seemed not to bring the appropriate clarity but to bring even greater confusion, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I start by asking the noble Baroness whether she will copy both myself and the noble and learned Lord into the correspondence she intends to have with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, so that we can achieve the same clarity as she is offering to the noble Lord.
  As I said earlier, I am not in the business of trying to get affirmative regulations for the sake of affirmative regulations. The noble Baroness said that I was a former member of the usual channels. Even before I was a member of the usual channels, I believe that I was warned by members of the usual channels, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who was a member of the usual channels for many years, that possibly one of the worst arguments ever to put before the opposition in terms of trying to persuade them not to have affirmative regulations was to suggest that it would clog up the business. I suggest that if I return to the matter at a later stage the noble Baroness will come up with a slightly better argument than merely clogging up the business.
  I myself said earlier on that I did not want to clog up the business and that was why I mentioned paralytic shellfish orders. I hope that the noble Baroness will give slightly greater thought to the matter, but with that for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 153 agreed to.
  Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendments Nos. 63A to 63F:
  Before Schedule 14, insert the following new schedule—
  WILLS, ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES AND FAMILY PROVISION: NORTHERN IRELAND

  PART 1

    WILLS
    1 Amend the Wills and Administration Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1994 (S.I. 1994/1899 (N.I. 13)) as follows.
    2 In Article 4(1) (will made by person under 18 invalid unless he is or has been married), for "married" substitute '"a spouse or civil partner".
    3 In Article 8(1) and (3) (avoidance of gifts to attesting witnesses and their spouses), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
    4 In Article 9 (witnessing by creditor), after "spouse", insert "or civil partner".
    5 After Article 13 insert—
    "13A EFFECT OF CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
    (1) Subject to paragraphs (2) to (6), a will is revoked by the formation of a civil partnership between the testator and another person.
    (2) A disposition in a will in exercise of a power of appointment takes effect despite the formation of a subsequent civil partnership between the testator and another person unless the property so appointed would in default of appointment pass to the testator's personal representatives.
    (3) If it appears from a will—

    (a) that at the time it was made the testator was expecting to form a civil partnership with a particular person, and

    (b) that he intended that the will should not be revoked by the formation of the civil partnership,

    the will is not revoked by its formation.
    (4) Paragraphs (5) and (6) apply if it appears from a will—

    (a) that at the time it was made the testator was expecting to form a civil partnership with a particular person, and

    (b) that he intended that a gift in the will should not be revoked by the formation of the civil partnership.

    (5) The gift takes effect despite the formation of the civil partnership.
    (6) Any other gift in the will also takes effect, unless it appears from the will that the testator intended the gift to be revoked by the formation of the civil partnership.
    13B EFFECT OF DISSOLUTION OR ANNULMENT OF CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
    (1) This Article applies if, after a testator has made a will—

    (a) a court of civil jurisdiction in Northern Ireland dissolves his civil partnership or makes a nullity order in respect of it, or

    (b) his civil partnership is dissolved or annulled and the dissolution or annulment is entitled to recognition in Northern Ireland under Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004.

    (2) Subject to any contrary intention appearing from the will—

    (a) provisions of the will appointing executors or trustees or conferring a power of appointment, if they appoint or confer the power on the former civil partner, take effect as if the former civil partner had died on the date on which the civil partnership is dissolved or annulled, and

    (b) except as provided in paragraph (3), any property comprising or included in a gift to the former civil partner passes as if the former civil partner had died on that date.

    (3) Where property comprising or included in a gift to the former civil partner is a share of residue, the will takes effect as if the gift of the residue were to the other person or persons entitled to it (and, if more than one, in such shares as to preserve the ratio of their former shares), to the exclusion of the former civil partner.
    (4) Paragraph (2)(b) does not affect any right of the former civil partner to apply for financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/924 (N.I. 8))."
    6 In Article 14 (revocation), in paragraph (1)(a), after "Article 12 (marriage)" insert "or Article 13A (civil partnership)".
    7 (1) Amend Article 23 (presumption as to effect of gift to spouses) as follows.
    (2) After "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
    (3) In the heading to Article 23, after "spouses" insert "or civil partners".
    8 In Article 27(3) (construction and effect of references to failure of issue), after "married" insert "or formed a civil partnership".

  PART 2
    ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES AND FAMILY PROVISION

      Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955 (c. 24 ( N.I.))
      9 (1) Amend section 6A (spouse dying within 28 days of intestate) as follows.
      (2) After "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
      (3) In the sidenote to section 6A, after "Spouse" insert "or civil partner".
      10 (1) Amend section 7 (rights of surviving spouse) as follows.
      (2) After "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
      (3) In subsection (7), after "husband" insert ", or of section (Effect of separation order) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
      (4) In the sidenote to section 7, after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
      11 In section 8 (rights of issue), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
      12 In section 9 (rights of parents), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
      13 In section 10 (rights of brothers and sisters and their issue), after "spouse" (in both places) insert "or civil partner".
      14 In section 11 (rights of next-of-kin), in subsection (1) after "neither spouse" insert "nor civil partner".
      15 In section 38 (power to appoint trustees of infant's property), in subsection (5) after "marries" insert ", or forms a civil partnership,".

      Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/924 ( N.I. 8))
      16 (1) Amend Article 2 (interpretation) as follows.
      (2) In paragraph (2), after the definition of "child" insert—
      ""civil partnership proceedings county court" has the same meaning as in the Civil Partnership Act 2004;".
      (3) In that paragraph, in the definition of "former wife" and "former husband", for ""former wife" or "former husband"" substitute ""former spouse"".
      (4) In that paragraph, before that definition insert—
      ""former civil partner" means a person whose civil partnership with the deceased was during the lifetime of the deceased either—

      (a) dissolved or annulled by an order made under the law of any part of the United Kingdom or the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, or

      (b) dissolved or annulled in any country or territory outside the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man by a dissolution or annulment which is entitled to be recognised as valid by the law of Northern Ireland;".

      (5) In that paragraph, in the definition of "reasonable financial provision", after paragraph (a) insert—
      "(aa) in the case of an application made by virtue of Article 3(1)(a) by the civil partner of the deceased (except where, at the date of death, a separation order under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was in force in relation to the civil partnership and the separation was continuing), means such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a civil partner to receive, whether or not that provision is required for his or her maintenance;".
      (6) In paragraph (5)—

      (a) before "wife" insert "spouse,", and

      (b) in sub-paragraph (b), for "entered into a later marriage" substitute "formed a subsequent marriage or civil partnership".

      (7) For paragraph (6) substitute—
      "(5A) For the purposes of this Order any reference to a civil partner shall be treated as including a reference to a person who in good faith formed a void civil partnership with the deceased unless either—

      (a) the civil partnership between the deceased and that person was dissolved or annulled during the lifetime of the deceased and the dissolution or annulment is recognised by the law of Northern Ireland, or

      (b) that person has during the lifetime of the deceased formed a subsequent civil partnership or marriage.

      (6) Any reference in this Order to the formation of, or to a person who has formed, a subsequent marriage or civil partnership includes (as the case may be) a reference to the formation of, or to a person who has formed, a marriage or civil partnership which is by law void or voidable.
      (6A) The formation of a marriage or civil partnership shall be treated for the purposes of this Order as the formation of a subsequent marriage or civil partnership, in relation to either of the spouses or civil partners, notwithstanding that the previous marriage or civil partnership of that spouse or civil partner was void or voidable."
      17 (1) Amend Article 3 (application for financial provision from deceased person's estate) as follows.
      (2) For paragraph (1)(a) and (b) (application may be made by spouse or by former spouse who has not remarried) substitute—
      "(a) the spouse or civil partner of the deceased;

      (b) a former spouse or former civil partner of the deceased, but not one who has formed a subsequent marriage or civil partnership;".

      (3) In paragraph (1)(d) (application may be made by child of the family), after "marriage" (in each place) insert "or civil partnership".
      18 In Article 4(1) (orders which may be made on an application), after sub-paragraph (f) insert—
      "(g) an order varying any settlement made—

      (i) during the subsistence of a civil partnership formed by the deceased, or

      (ii) in anticipation of the formation of a civil partnership by the deceased,

      on the civil partners (including such a settlement made by will), the variation being for the benefit of the surviving civil partner, or any child of both the civil partners, or any person who was treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to that civil partnership."
      19 (1) Amend Article 5(2) (application by spouse or former spouse: matters to which court is to have regard) as follows.
      (2) For the words from the beginning to "or (b)" substitute—
      "This paragraph applies, without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph (1), where an application for an order under Article 4 is made by virtue of Article 3(1)(a) or (b)."
      (3) The words from "the court shall, in addition" to the end of sub-paragraph (b) shall become a second sentence of the paragraph and, in sub-paragraph (a) of the sentence so formed, after "duration of the marriage" insert "or civil partnership".
      (4) The words from "in the case of an application by the wife or husband" to the end shall become a third sentence of the paragraph, omitting the immediately preceding "and"
      (5)At the end insert the following sentence—
      "In the case of an application by the civil partner of the deceased, the court shall also, unless at the date of the death a separation order under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was in force and the separation was continuing, have regard to the provision which the applicant might reasonably have expected to receive if on the day on which the deceased died the civil partnership, instead of being terminated by death, had been terminated by a dissolution order."
      20 (1) In Article 8(3) and (10) (variation etc. of orders which cease on occurrence of specified event other than remarriage of former spouse), for "(other than the remarriage of a former wife or former husband)" substitute "(other than the formation of a subsequent marriage or civil partnership by a former spouse or former civil partner)".
      (2) In Article 8(9), for "or (f)" substitute "(f) or (g)".
      21 After Article 16 insert—
      "16A PROVISION AS TO CASES WHERE NO FINANCIAL RELIEF WAS GRANTED IN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE DISSOLUTION ETC. OF A CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
      (1) Paragraph (2) applies where—

      (a) a dissolution order, nullity order, separation order or presumption of death order has been made under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in relation to a civil partnership,

      (b) one of the civil partners dies within twelve months from the date on which the order is made, and

      (c) either—

      (i) an application for a financial provision order under Part 1 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) to that Act or a property adjustment order under Part 2 of that Schedule has not been made by the other civil partner, or

      (ii) such an application has been made but the proceedings on the application have not been determined at the time of the death of the deceased.

      (2) If an application for an order under Article 4 is made by the surviving civil partner, the court shall, notwithstanding anything in Article 3 or 5, have power, if it thinks it just to do so, to treat the surviving civil partner as if the order mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) had not been made.
      (3) This Article shall not apply in relation to a separation order unless at the date of the death of the deceased the separation order was in force and the separation was continuing."
      22 After Article 17 insert—
      "17ZA RESTRICTION IMPOSED IN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE DISSOLUTION ETC. OF A CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ON APPLICATION UNDER THIS ORDER
      (1) On making a dissolution order, nullity order, separation order or presumption of death order under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, or at any time after making such an order, the High Court or a civil partnership proceedings county court, if it considers it just to do so, may, on the application of either of the civil partners, order that the other civil partner shall not on the death of the applicant be entitled to apply for an order under Article 4.
      (2) In the case of a dissolution order, nullity order or presumption of death order ("the main order") an order may be made under paragraph (1) before (as well as after) the main order is made final, but if made before the main order is made final it shall not take effect unless the main order is made final.
      (3) Where an order under paragraph (1) made in connection with a dissolution order, nullity order or presumption of death order has come into force with respect to a civil partner, then, on

      GC 269
      the death of the other civil partner, the court shall not entertain any application for an order under Article 4 made by the surviving civil partner.
      (4) Where an order under paragraph (1) made in connection with a separation order has come into force with respect to a civil partner, then, if the other civil partner dies while the separation order is in force and the separation is continuing, the court shall not entertain any application for an order under Article 4 made by the surviving civil partner."
      23 After Article 17A insert—
      "17B RESTRICTION IMPOSED IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SCHEDULE (FINANCIAL RELIEF IN NORTHERN IRELAND AFTER OVERSEAS DISSOLUTION ETC. OF A CIVIL PARTNERSHIP) TO THE CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT 2004 ON APPLICATION UNDER THIS ORDER
      (1) On making an order under paragraph 9 of Schedule (Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership) to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (orders for financial provision, property adjustment and pension-sharing following overseas dissolution etc. of civil partnership) the High Court, if it considers it just to do so, may, on the application of either of the civil partners, order that the other civil partner shall not on the death of the applicant be entitled to apply for an order under Article 4.
      (2) Where an order under paragraph (1) has been made with respect to one of the civil partners in a case where a civil partnership has been dissolved or annulled, then, on the death of the other civil partner, the court shall not entertain an application under Article 4 made by the surviving civil partner.
      (3) Where an order under paragraph (1) has been made with respect to one of the civil partners in a case where civil partners have been legally separated, then, if the other civil partner dies while the legal separation is in force, the court shall not entertain an application under Article 4 made by the surviving civil partner."
      24 In Article 18(1) (power to vary secured periodical payments orders)—

      (a) after "Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978" insert "or Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) to the Civil Partnership Act 2004", and

      (b) after "that Order" insert "or Part 9 of that Schedule".

      25 In Article 19(4) (meaning of "maintenance agreement")—

      (a) for "entered into a marriage" substitute "formed a marriage or civil partnership",

      (b) after "of the parties to that marriage" insert "or of the civil partners", and

      (c) after "marriage" (in the third and fourth places) insert "or civil partnership".

      26 After Article 20 insert—
      "20A AVAILABILITY OF COURT'S POWERS UNDER THIS ORDER IN APPLICATIONS UNDER PARAGRAPHS 45 AND 48 OF SCHEDULE (FINANCIAL RELIEF IN THE HIGH COURT OR A COUNTY COURT ETC.: NORTHERN IRELAND) TO THE CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT 2004
      (1) Where—

      (a) a person against whom a secured periodical payments order was made under Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 has died and an application is made under paragraph 45 of that Schedule for the variation or discharge of that order or for the revival of the operation of any suspended provision of the order, or

      (b) a party to a maintenance agreement within the meaning of Part 11 of that Schedule has died, the agreement being one which provides for the continuation of payments under the agreement after the death of one of the parties,
      GC 270
      and an application is made under paragraph 58 of that Schedule for the alteration of the agreement under paragraph 54 of that Schedule,

      the court to which the application is made under paragraph 45 or 58 shall have power to direct that the application shall be deemed to have been accompanied by an application for an order under Article 4.
      (2) Where the court to which an application is made under paragraph 45 or 58 gives a direction under paragraph (1), that court shall have power—

      (a) to make any order which the court would have had power to make under the provisions of this Order if the application under paragraph 45 or 58 had been made jointly with an application for an order under Article 4; and

      (b) to give such consequential directions as may be necessary for enabling it to exercise any of the powers available to it under this Order in the case of an application for an order under Article 4.

      (3) Where an order made under Article 17ZA(1) is in force with respect to a civil partner, a direction shall not be given under paragraph (1) with respect to any application made under paragraph 45 or 58 by that civil partner on the death of the other civil partner."
      27 (1) Amend Article 21 (effect, duration and form of orders) as follows.
      (2) In paragraph (2)(a), for "former husband or former wife" substitute "former spouse or former civil partner".
      (3) In paragraph (2), after sub-paragraph (b) insert "or
      "(c) an applicant who was the civil partner of the deceased in a case where, at the date of death, a separation order under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 was in force in relation to their civil partnership and the separation was continuing,".
      (4) In that paragraph, in the words after sub-paragraph (b), for "on the remarriage of the applicant" onwards substitute "on the formation by the applicant of a subsequent marriage or civil partnership, except in relation to any arrears due under the order on the date of the formation of the subsequent marriage or civil partnership.""
      Before Schedule 14, insert the following new schedule—
      FINANCIAL RELIEF IN THE HIGH COURT OR A COUNTY COURT ETC.: NORTHERN IRELAND

  PART 1
    FINANCIAL PROVISION IN CONNECTION WITH DISSOLUTION, NULLITY OR SEPARATION

      Circumstances in which orders under this Part may be made
      1(1) The court may make any one or more of the orders set out in paragraph 2(1)—

      (a) on making a dissolution, nullity or separation order, or

      (b) at any time afterwards.

      (2) The court may make any one or more of the orders set out in paragraph 2(1)(d), (e) and (f)—

      (a) in proceedings for a dissolution, nullity or separation order, before making the order;

      (b) if proceedings for a dissolution, nullity or separation order are dismissed after the beginning of the trial, either straightaway or within a reasonable period after the dismissal.

      (3) The power of the court to make an order under subparagraph (1) or (2)(a) in favour of a child of the family is exercisable from time to time.
      (4) If the court makes an order in favour of a child under subparagraph (2)(b), it may from time to time make a further order in the child's favour of any of the kinds set out in paragraph 2(1)(d), (e) or (f).
      (5) If the court makes an order under sub-paragraph (1), (2) or (4), it may give such consequential directions as it thinks fit for giving effect to the order (including directions requiring the disposal of any property).

      The orders: periodical and secured periodical payments and lump sums
      2 (1) The orders are—

      (a) an order that either civil partner must make to the other such periodical payments for such term as may be specified;

      (b) an order that either civil partner must secure to the other, to the satisfaction of the court, such periodical payments for such term as may be specified;

      (c) an order that either civil partner must pay to the other such lump sum or sums as may be specified;

      (d) an order that one of the civil partners must make—

      (i) to such person as may be specified for the benefit of a child of the family, or

      (ii) to a child of the family, such periodical payments for such term as may be specified;

      (e) an order that one of the civil partners must secure—

      (i) to such person as may be specified for the benefit of a child of the family, or

      (ii) to a child of the family,

      (2) "Specified" means specified in the order.

      Particular provision that may be made by lump sum orders
      3 (1) An order under this Part requiring one civil partner to pay the other a lump sum may be made for the purpose of enabling the other civil partner to meet any liabilities or expenses reasonably incurred by the other in maintaining—

      (a) himself or herself, or

      (b) a child of the family,

      before making an application for an order under this Part in his or her favour.
      (2) An order under this Part requiring a lump sum to be paid to or for the benefit of a child of the family may be made for the purpose of enabling any liabilities or expenses reasonably incurred by or for the benefit of the child before making an application for an order under this Part to be met.
      (3) An order under this Part for the payment of a lump sum may—

      (a) provide for its payment by instalments of such amount as may be specified, and

      (b) require the payment of the instalments to be secured to the satisfaction of the court.

      (4) Sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) do not restrict the powers to make the orders set out in paragraph 2(1)(c) and (1).
      (5) If the court—

      (a) makes an order under this Part for the payment of a lump sum, and

      (b) directs that—

      (i) payment of the sum or any part of it is to be deferred, or

      (ii) the sum or any part of it is to be paid by instalments, it may provide for the deferred amount or the instalments to carry interest at such rate as may be specified from such date as may be specified until the date when payment of it is due

      (6) A date specified under sub-paragraph (5) must not be earlier than the date of the order.
      (7) "Specified" means specified in the order.

      When orders under this Part may take effect
      4 (1) If an order is made under paragraph 2(1)(a), (b) or (c) on or after making a dissolution or nullity order, neither the order nor any settlement made in pursuance of it takes effect unless the dissolution or nullity order has been made final.
      (2) This paragraph does not affect the power of the court to give a direction under paragraph 63 (settlement of instrument by conveyancing counsel).

      Restrictions on making of orders under this Part
      5 The power to make an order under paragraph 2(1)(d), (e) or (f) is subject to paragraph 36(1) and (5) (restrictions on orders in favour of children who have reached 18).
  PART 2
    PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT ON OR AFTER DISSOLUTION, NULLITY OR SEPARATION

      Circumstances in which property adjustment orders may be made
      6 (1) The court may make one or more property adjustment orders—

      (a) on making a dissolution, nullity or separation order, or

      (b) at any time afterwards.

      (2) In this Schedule "property adjustment order" means a property adjustment order under this Part.

      Property adjustment orders
      7 (1) The property adjustment orders are—

      (a) an order that one of the civil partners must transfer such property as may be specified, being property to which he is entitled—

      (i) to the other civil partner,

      (ii) to a child of the family, or

      (iii) to such person as may be specified for the benefit of a child of the family;

      (b) an order that a settlement of such property as may be specified, being property to which one of the civil partners is entitled, be made to the satisfaction of the court for the benefit of—

      (i) the other civil partner and the children of the family, or

      (ii) either or any of them;

      (c) an order varying for the benefit of—

      (i) the civil partners and the children of the family, or

      (ii) either or any of them, a relevant settlement;

      (d) an order extinguishing or reducing the interest of either of the civil partners under a relevant settlement.

      (2) The court may make a property adjustment order under sub-paragraph (1)(c) even though there are no children of the family.
      (3) If the court makes a property adjustment order, it may give such consequential directions as it thinks fit for giving effect to the order (including directions requiring the making of any payments or the disposal of any property).
      (4) In this paragraph—
      "entitled" means entitled in possession or reversion,
      "relevant settlement" means, in relation to a civil partnership, a settlement made, during its subsistence or in anticipation of its formation, on the civil partners including one made by will or codicil, but not including one in the form of a pension arrangement (within the meaning of Part 3), and
      "specified" means specified in the order.

      When property adjustment orders may take effect
      8 (1) If a property adjustment order is made on or after making a dissolution or nullity order, neither the property adjustment order nor any settlement made under it takes effect unless the dissolution or nullity order has been made final.
      (2) This paragraph does not affect the power to give a direction under paragraph 63 (settlement of instrument by conveyancing counsel).

      Restrictions on making property adjustment orders
      9 The power to make a property adjustment order under paragraph 7(1)(a) is subject to paragraph 36(1) and (5) (restrictions on making orders in favour of children who have reached 18).
  PART 3
    PENSION SHARING ORDERS ON OR AFTER DISSOLUTION OR NULLITY ORDER

      Circumstances in which pension sharing orders may be made
      10 (1) The court may make a pension sharing order—

      (a) on making a dissolution or nullity order, or

      (b) at any time afterwards.

      (2) In this Schedule "pension sharing order" means a pension sharing order under this Part.

      Pension sharing orders
      11 (1) A pension sharing order is an order which—

      (a) provides that one civil partner's—

      (i) shareable rights under a specified pension arrangement, or

      (ii) shareable state scheme rights, are to be subject to pension sharing for the benefit of the other civil partner, and

      (b) specifies the percentage value to be transferred.

      (2) Shareable rights under a pension arrangement are rights in relation to which pension sharing is available under—

      (a) Chapter 1 of Part 5 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/3147 (N.I. 11)), or

      (b) Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (c.30).

      (3) Shareable state scheme rights are rights in relation to which pension sharing is available under—

      (a) Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the 1999 Order, or

      (b) Chapter 2 of Part 4 of the 1999 Act.

      (4) In this Part "pension arrangement" means—

      (a) an occupational pension scheme,

      (b) a personal pension scheme,

      (c) a retirement annuity contract,

      GC 274

      (d) an annuity or insurance policy purchased, or transferred, for the purpose of giving effect to rights under—

      (i) an occupational pension scheme, or

      (ii) a personal pension scheme, and

      (e) an annuity purchased, or entered into, for the purpose of discharging liability in respect of a pension credit under—

      (i) Article 26(1)(b) of the 1999 Order, or

      (ii) section 29(1)(b) of the 1999 Act.

      (5) In sub-paragraph (4)—
      "occupational pension scheme" has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (c. 49);
      "personal pension scheme" has the same meaning as in the 1993 Act;
      "retirement annuity contract" means a contract or scheme approved under Chapter 3 of Part 14 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (c.1).

      Pension sharing orders: apportionment of charges
      12 If a pension sharing order relates to rights under a pension arrangement, the court may include in the order provision about the apportionment between the civil partners of any charge under—

      (a) Article 38 of the 1999 Order (charges in respect of pension sharing costs), or

      (b) section 41 of the 1999 Act.

      Restrictions on making of pension sharing orders
      13 (1) A pension sharing order may not be made in relation to a pension arrangement which—

      (a) is the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the civil partnership, or

      (b) has been the subject of pension sharing between the civil partners.

      (2) A pension sharing order may not be made in relation to shareable state scheme rights if—

      (a) such rights are the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the civil partnership, or

      (b) such rights have been the subject of pension sharing between the civil partners.

      (3) A pension sharing order may not be made in relation to the rights of a person under a pension arrangement if there is in force a requirement imposed by virtue of Part 5 which relates to benefits or future benefits to which that person is entitled under the pension arrangement.

      When pension sharing orders may take effect
      14 (1) A pension sharing order is not to take effect unless the dissolution or nullity order on or after which it is made has been made final.
      (2) No pension sharing order may be made so as to take effect before the end of such period after the making of the order as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.
      (3) The power to make regulations under sub-paragraph (2) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
      (4) Regulations under sub-paragraph (2) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in the same manner as a statutory instrument; and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies accordingly.

  PART 4
    MATTERS TO WHICH COURT IS TO HAVE REGARD UNDER PARTS 1 TO 3

      General
      15 The court in deciding—

      (a) whether to exercise its powers under—

      (i) Part 1 (financial provision on dissolution etc.),

      (ii) Part 2 (property adjustment orders), or

      (iii) any provision of Part 3 (pension sharing orders) other than paragraph 12 (apportionment of charges), and

      (b) if so, in what way, must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, giving first consideration to the welfare, while under 18, of any child of the family who has not reached 18.

      Particular matters to be taken into account when exercising powers in relation to civil partners
      16 (1) This paragraph applies to the exercise by the court in relation to a civil partner of its powers under—

      (a) Part 1 (financial provision on dissolution etc.) by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(a), (b) or (c),

      (b) Part 2 (property adjustment orders), or

      (c) Part 3 (pension sharing orders).

      (2) The court must in particular have regard to—

      (a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each civil partner—

      (i) has, or

      (ii) is likely to have in the foreseeable future, including, in the case of earning capacity, any increase in that capacity which it would in the opinion of the court be reasonable to expect the civil partner to take steps to acquire;

      (b) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each civil partner has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

      (c) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the civil partnership;

      (d) the age of each civil partner and the duration of the civil partnership;

      (e) any physical or mental disability of either of the civil partners;

      (f) the contributions which each civil partner has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family;

      (g) the conduct of each civil partner, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it;

      (h) in the case of proceedings for a dissolution or nullity order, the value to each civil partner of any benefit which, because of the dissolution or annulment of the civil partnership, that civil partner will lose the chance of acquiring.

      Particular matters to be taken into account when exercising powers in relation to children
      17 (1) This paragraph applies to the exercise by the court in relation to a child of the family of its powers under—

      (a) Part 1 (financial provision on dissolution etc.) by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(d), (e) or (f), or

      (b) Part 2 (property adjustment orders).

      (2) The court must in particular have regard to—

      (a) the financial needs of the child;

      (b) the income, earning capacity (if any), property and other financial resources of the child;

      (c) any physical or mental disability of the child;

      (d) the way in which the child was being and in which the civil partners expected the child to be educated or trained;

      (e) the considerations mentioned in relation to the civil partners in paragraph 16(2)(a), (b), (c) and (e).

      (3) In relation to the exercise of any of those powers against a civil partner ("A") in favour of a child of the family who is not A's child, the court must also have regard to—

      (a) whether A has assumed any responsibility for the child's maintenance,

      (b) if so, the extent to which, and the basis upon which, A assumed such responsibility and the length of time for which A discharged such responsibility;

      (c) whether in assuming and discharging such responsibility A did so knowing that the child was not A's child;
      (d) the liability of any other person to maintain the child.

      Terminating considerations
      18 (1) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) apply if, on or after the making of a dissolution or nullity order, the court decides to exercise its powers under—

      (a) Part 1 (financial provision on dissolution etc.) by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(a), (b) or (c),

      (b) Part 2 (property adjustment orders), or

      (c) Part 3 (pension sharing orders), in favour of one of the civil partners.

      (2) The court must consider whether it would be appropriate to exercise those powers in such a way that the financial obligations of each civil partner towards the other will be terminated as soon after the making of the dissolution or nullity order as the court considers just and reasonable.
      (3) If the court decides to make—

      (a) a periodical payments order, or

      (b) a secured periodical payments order,

      in favour of one of the civil partners ("A"), it must in particular consider whether it would be appropriate to require the payments to be made or secured only for such term as would in its opinion be sufficient to enable A to adjust without undue hardship to the termination of A's financial dependence on the other civil partner.
      (4) If—

      (a) on or after the making of a dissolution or nullity order, an application is made by one of the civil partners for a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order in that civil partner's favour, but

      (b) the court considers that no continuing obligation should be imposed on either civil partner to make or secure periodical payments in favour of the other, the court may dismiss the application with a direction that the applicant is not entitled to make any future application in relation to that civil partnership for an order under Part 1 by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(a) or (b).

  PART 5
    MAKING OF PART 1 ORDERS HAVING REGARD TO PENSION BENEFITS

      Pension benefits to be included in matters to which court is to have regard
      19 (1) The matters to which the court is to have regard under paragraph 16(2)(a) include any pension benefits under a pension arrangement or by way of pension which a civil partner has or is likely to have; and, accordingly, in relation to any pension benefits paragraph 16(2)(a)(ii) has effect as if "in the foreseeable future" were omitted.
      (2) The matters to which the court is to have regard under paragraph 16(2)(h) include any pension benefits which, because of the making of a dissolution or nullity order, a civil partner will lose the chance of acquiring.
      (3) "Pension benefits" means—

      (a) benefits under a pension arrangement, or

      (b) benefits by way of pension (whether under a pension arrangement or not).

      Provisions applying where pension benefits taken into account in decision to make Part I order
      20 (1) This paragraph applies if, having regard to any benefits under a pension arrangement, the court decides to make an order under Part 1.
      (2) To the extent to which the Part 1 order is made having regard to any benefits under a pension arrangement, it may require the person responsible for the pension arrangement, if at any time any payment in respect of any benefits under the arrangement becomes due to the civil partner with pension rights, to make a payment for the benefit of the other civil partner.
      (3) The Part 1 order must express the amount of any payment required to be made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) as a percentage of the payment which becomes due to the civil partner with pension rights.
      (4) Any such payment by the person responsible for the arrangement—

      (a) discharges so much of his liability to the civil partner with pension rights as corresponds to the amount of the payment, and

      (b) is to be treated for all purposes as a payment made by the civil partner with pension rights in or towards the discharge of that civil partner's liability under the order.

      (5) If the civil partner with pension rights has a right of commutation under the arrangement, the Part 1 order may require that civil partner to exercise it to any extent.
      (6) This paragraph applies to any payment due in consequence of commutation in pursuance of the Part 1 order as it applies to other payments in respect of benefits under the arrangement.
      (7) The power conferred by sub-paragraph (5) may not be exercised for the purpose of commuting a benefit payable to the civil partner with pension rights to a benefit payable to the other civil partner.
      (8) The powers conferred by sub-paragraphs (2) and (5) may not be exercised in relation to a pension arrangement which—

      (a) is the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the civil partnership, or

      (b) has been the subject of pension sharing between the civil partners.

      Pensions: lump sums
      21 (1) This paragraph applies if the benefits which the civil partner with pension rights has or is likely to have under a pension arrangement include any lump sum payable in respect of that civil partner's death.
      (2) The court's power under Part 1 to order a civil partner to pay a lump sum to the other civil partner includes the power to make by the order any of the provision in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5).
      (3) If the person responsible for the pension arrangement has power to determine the person to whom the sum, or any part of it, is to be paid, the court may require him to pay the whole or part of that sum, when it becomes due, to the other civil partner.
      (4) If the civil partner with pension rights has power to nominate the person to whom the sum, or any part of it, is to be paid, the court may require the civil partner with pension rights to nominate the other civil partner in respect of the whole or part of that sum.
      (5) In any other case, the court may require the person responsible for the pension arrangement in question to pay the whole or part of that sum, when it becomes due, for the benefit of the other civil partner instead of to the person to whom, apart from the order, it would be paid.
      (6) Any payment by the person responsible for the arrangement under an order made under Part 1 made by virtue of this paragraph discharges so much of his liability in respect of the civil partner with pension rights as corresponds to the amount of the payment.
      (7) The powers conferred by this paragraph may not be exercised in relation to a pension arrangement which—

      (a) is the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the civil partnership, or

      (b) has been the subject of pension sharing between the civil partners.

      Pensions: supplementary
      22 If—

      (a) a Part 1 order made by virtue of paragraph 20 or 21 imposes any requirement on the person responsible for a pension arrangement ("the first arrangement"),

      (b) the civil partner with pension rights acquires rights under another pension arrangement ("the new arrangement") which are derived (directly or indirectly) from the whole of that civil partner's rights under the first arrangement, and

      (c) the person responsible for the new arrangement has been given notice in accordance with regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, the Part 1 order has effect as if it had been made instead in respect of the person responsible for the new arrangement.

      Regulations
      23 (1) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations—

      (a) make provision, in relation to any provision of paragraphs 20 or 21 which authorises the court making a Part 1 order to require the person responsible for a pension arrangement to make a payment for the benefit of the other civil partner, as to—

      (i) the person to whom, and

      (ii) the terms on which, the payment is to be made;

      (b) make provision, in relation to payment under a mistaken belief as to the continuation in force of a provision included by virtue of paragraph 20 or 21 in a Part 1 order, about the rights or liabilities of the payer, the payee or the person to whom the payment was due;

      (c) require notices to be given in respect of changes of circumstances relevant to Part 1 orders which include provision made by virtue of paragraphs 20 and 21;

      (d) make provision for the person responsible for a pension arrangement to be discharged in prescribed circumstances from a requirement imposed by virtue of paragraph 20 or 21;

      (e) make provision about calculation and verification in relation to the valuation of—

      (i) benefits under a pension arrangement, or

      (ii) shareable state scheme rights (within the meaning of paragraph 11(3)), for the purposes of the court's functions in connection with the exercise of any of its powers under this Schedule.

      (2) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1)(e) may include—

      (a) provision for calculation or verification in accordance with guidance from time to time prepared by a prescribed person, and

      (b) provision by reference to regulations under Article 27 or 46(4) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (S.I. 1999/3147 (N.I. 11)).

      (3) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may make different provision for different cases.
      (4) 'The power to make regulations under this paragraph is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.J. 12)).
      (5) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in the same manner as a statutory instrument; and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies accordingly.
      (6) "Prescribed" means prescribed by regulations.

      Interpretation of provisions relating to pensions
      24 (1) In this Part "the civil partner with pension rights" means the civil partner who has or is likely to have benefits under a pension arrangement.
      (2) In this Part "pension arrangement" has the same meaning as in Part 3.
      (3) In this Part, references to the person responsible for a pension arrangement are to be read in accordance with Article 23 of the 1999 Order.

    PART 6

      MAINTENANCE PENDING OUTCOME OF DISSOLUTION, NULLITY OR SEPARATION PROCEEDINGS
      25 On an application for a dissolution, nullity or separation order, the court may make an order requiring either civil partner to make to the other for the other's maintenance such periodical payments for such term—

      (a) beginning no earlier than the date on which the application was made, and

      (b) ending with the date on which the proceedings are determined, as the court thinks reasonable.

  PART 7
    FAILURE TO MAINTAIN: FINANCIAL PROVISION (AND INTERIM ORDERS)

      Circumstances in which orders under this Part may be made
      26 (1) Either civil partner in a subsisting civil partnership may apply to the court for an order under this Part on the ground that the other civil partner ("the respondent")—

      (a) has failed to provide reasonable maintenance for the applicant, or

      (b) has failed to provide, or to make a proper contribution towards, reasonable maintenance for any child of the family.

      (2) The court must not entertain an application under this paragraph unless—

      (a) the applicant or the respondent is domiciled in Northern Ireland on the date of the application,

      (b) the applicant has been habitually resident there throughout the period of 1 year ending with that date, or

      (c) the respondent is resident there on that date.

      (3) If, on an application under this paragraph, it appears to the court that—

      (a) the applicant or any child of the family to whom the application relates is in immediate need of financial assistance, but

      GC 280

      (b) it is not yet possible to determine what order, if any, should be made on the application, the court may make an interim order.

      (4) If, on an application under this paragraph, the applicant satisfies the court of a ground mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), the court may make one or more of the orders set out in paragraph 28.

      Interim orders
      27 An interim order is an order requiring the respondent to make to the applicant, until the determination of the application, such periodical payments as the court thinks reasonable.

      Orders that may be made where failure to maintain established
      28 (1) The orders are—

      (a) an order that the respondent must make to the applicant such periodical payments for such term as may he specified;

      (b) an order that the respondent must secure to the applicant, to the satisfaction of the court, such periodical payments for such term as may he specified;

      (c) an order that the respondent must pay to the applicant such lump sum as may be specified;

      (d) an order that the respondent must make such periodical payments for such term as may be specified—

      (i) to such person as may be specified, for the benefit of the child to whom the application relates, or

      (ii) to the child to whom the application relates;

      (e) an order that the respondent must secure—

      (i) to such person as may be specified for the benefit of the child to whom the application relates, or

      (ii) to the child to whom the application relates, to the satisfaction of the court, such periodical payments for such term as may be specified;

      (f) an order that the respondent must pay such lump sum as may be specified—

      (i) to such person as may be specified for the benefit of the child to whom the application relates, or

      (ii) to the child to whom the application relates.

      (2) In this Part "specified" means specified in the order.

      Particular provision that may be made by lump sum orders
      29 (1) An order under this Part for the payment of a lump sum may be made for the purpose of enabling any liabilities or expenses reasonably incurred in maintaining the applicant or any child of the family to whom the application relates before the making of the application to be met.
      (2) An order under this Part for the payment of a lump sum may—

      (a) provide for its payment by instalments of such amount as may be specified, and

      (b) require the payment of the instalments to be secured to the satisfaction of the court.

      (3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not restrict the power to make an order by virtue of paragraph 28(1)(c) or (f).

      Matters to which the court is to have regard on application under paragraph 26(1)(a)
      30 (1) This paragraph applies if an application under paragraph 26 is made on the ground mentioned in paragraph 26(1)(a).
      (2) In deciding—

      (a) whether the respondent has failed to provide reasonable maintenance for the applicant, and

      (b) what order, if any, to make under this Part in favour of the applicant, the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case including the matters mentioned in paragraph 16(2).

      (3) If an application is also made under paragraph 26 in respect of a child of the family who has not reached 18, the court must give first consideration to the welfare of the child while under 18.
      (4) Paragraph 16(2)(c) has effect as if for the reference in it to the breakdown of the civil partnership there were substituted a reference to the failure to provide reasonable maintenance for the applicant.

      Matters to which the court is to have regard on application under paragraph 26(1)(b)
      31 (1) This paragraph applies if an application under paragraph 26 is made on the ground mentioned in paragraph 26(1)(b).
      (2) In deciding—

      (a) whether the respondent has failed to provide, or to make a proper contribution towards, reasonable maintenance for the child of the family to whom the application relates, and

      (b) what order, if any, to make under this Part in favour of the child, the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case.

      (3) Those circumstances include—

      (a) the matters mentioned in paragraph 17(2)(a) to (e), and

      (b) if the child of the family to whom the application relates is not the child of the respondent, the matters mentioned in paragraph 17(3).

      (4) Paragraph 16(2)(c) (as it applies by virtue of paragraph 17(2)(e)) has effect as if for the reference in it to the breakdown of the civil partnership there were substituted a reference to—

      (a) the failure to provide, or

      (b) the failure to make a proper contribution towards, reasonable maintenance for the child of the family to whom the application relates.

      Restrictions on making orders under this Part
      32 The power to make an order under paragraph 28(1)(d), (e) or (f) is subject to paragraph 36(1) and (5) (restrictions on orders in favour of children who have reached 18).
  COMMENCEMENT OF CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS AND DURATION OF CERTAIN ORDERS

    Commencement of proceedings for ancillary relief, etc.
    33 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if an application for a dissolution, nullity or separation order has been made.
    (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), proceedings for—

    (a) an order under Part 1 (financial provision on dissolution etc.),

    (b) a property adjustment order, or

    (c) an order under Part 6 (maintenance pending outcome of dissolution, nullity or separation proceedings), may be begun (subject to and in accordance with rules of court), at any time after the presentation of the application.

    (3) Rules of court may provide, in such cases as may be prescribed by the rules that—

    (a) an application for any such relief as is mentioned in subparagraph (2) must be made in the application or defence, and

    (b) an application for any such relief which—

    (i) is not so made, or

    (ii) is not made until after the end of such period following the presentation of the application or filing of the defence as may be so prescribed, may be made only with the leave of the court.

    Duration of periodical and secured periodical payments orders for a civil partner
    34 (1) The court may specify in a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order in favour of a civil partner such term as it thinks fit, except that the term must not—

    (a) begin before the date of the making of an application for the order, or

    (b) extend beyond the limits given in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).

    (2) The limits in the case of a periodical payments order are—

    (a) the death of either civil partner;

    (b) where the order is made on or after the making of a dissolution or nullity order, the formation of a subsequent civil partnership or marriage by the civil partner in whose favour the order is made.

    (3) The limits in the case of a secured periodical payments order are—

    (a) the death of the civil partner in whose favour the order is made;

    (b) where the order is made on or after the making of a dissolution or nullity order, the formation of a subsequent civil partnership or marriage by the civil partner in whose favour the order is made.

    (4) In the case of an order made on or after the making of a dissolution or nullity order, sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) are subject to paragraphs 18(3) and 44(4).
    (5) If a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order in favour of a civil partner is made on or after the making of a dissolution or nullity order, the court may direct that that civil partner is not entitled to apply under paragraph 38 for the extension of the term specified in the order.
    (6) If—

    (a) a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order in favour of a civil partner is made otherwise than on or after the making of a dissolution or nullity order, and

    (b) the civil partnership is subsequently dissolved or annulled but the order continues in force,

    (7) the order ceases to have effect (regardless of anything in it) on the formation of a subsequent civil partnership or marriage by that civil partner, except in relation to any arrears due under it on the date of its formation.

    Subsequent civil partnership or marriage
    35 If after the making of a dissolution or nullity order one of the civil partners forms a subsequent civil partnership or marriage, that civil partner is not entitled to apply, by reference to the dissolution or nullity order, for—

    (a) an order under Part 1 in that civil partner's favour, or

    (b) a property adjustment order, against the other civil partner in the dissolved or annulled civil partnership.

    Duration of continuing orders in favour of children, and age limit on making certain orders in their favour
    36 (1) Subject to paragraph (5)—

    (a) no order under Part 1,

    (b) no property adjustment order made by virtue of paragraph 7(1)(a) (transfer of property), and

    (c) no order made under Part 7 (failure to maintain) by virtue of paragraph 28, is to be made in favour of a child who has reached 18.

    (2) The term to be specified in a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order in favour of a child may begin with—

    (a) the date of the making of an application for the order or a later date, or

    (b) a date ascertained in accordance with sub-paragraph (7) or (8).

    (3) The term to be specified in such an order—

    (a) must not in the first instance extend beyond the date of the birthday of the child next following the child's reaching the upper limit of the compulsory school age unless the court considers that in the circumstances of the case the welfare of the child requires that it should extend to a later date, and

    (b) must not in any event, subject to sub-paragraph (5), extend beyond the date of the child's 18th birthday.

    (4) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) "compulsory school age" has the meaning given in Article 46 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/594 (N.I. 3)).
    (5) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (3)(b) do not apply in the case of a child, if it appears to the court that—

    (a) the child is, or will be, or, if an order were made without complying with either or both of those provisions, would be—

    (i) receiving instruction at an educational establishment, or

    (ii) undergoing training for a trade, profession or vocation, whether or not the child also is, will be or would be in gainful employment, or

    (b) there are special circumstances which justify the making of an order without complying with either or both of sub-paragraphs (1) and (3)(b).

    (6) A periodical payments order in favour of a child, regardless of anything in the order, ceases to have effect on the death of the person liable to make payments under the order, except in relation to any arrears due under the order on the date of the death.
    (7) If—

    (a) a maintenance calculation ("the current calculation") is in force with respect to a child, and

    (b) an application is made under this Schedule for a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order in favour of that child before the end of 6 months beginning with the making of the current calculation, the term to be specified in any such order made on that application may be expressed to begin on, or at any time after, the earliest permitted date.

    (8) "The earliest permitted date" is whichever is the later of—

    (a) the date 6 months before the application is made, or

    (b) the date on which the current calculation took effect or, where successive maintenance calculations have been continuously in force with respect to a child, on which the first of those calculations took effect.

    (9) If—

    (a) a maintenance calculation ceases to have effect by or under any provision of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (SI 1991/2628 (N.I. 23)), and

    GC 284

    (b) an application is made, before the end of 6 months beginning with the relevant date, for a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order in favour of a child with respect to whom that maintenance calculation was in force immediately before it ceased to have effect, the term to be specified in any such order made on that application may begin with the date on which that maintenance calculation ceased to have effect or any later date.

    (10) "The relevant date" means the date on which the maintenance calculation ceased to have effect.
    (11) In this Schedule "maintenance calculation" has the same meaning as it has in the 1991 Order.

  PART 9
    VARIATION, DISCHARGE ETC. OF CERTAIN ORDERS FOR FINANCIAL RELIEF

      Orders etc. to which this Part applies
      37 (1) This Part applies to the following orders—

      (a) a periodical payments order under Part 1 (financial provision on dissolution etc.) or Part 7 (failure to maintain);

      (b) a secured periodical payments order under Par I or 7;

      (c) an order under Part 6 (maintenance pending outcome of dissolution proceedings etc.);

      (d) an interim order under Part 7;

      (e) an order made under Part 1 by virtue of paragraph 3(3) or under Part 7 by virtue of paragraph 29(2) (lump sum by instalments);

      (f) a deferred order made under Part 1 by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(c) (lump sum for civil partner) which includes provision made by virtue of—

      (i) paragraph 20(2), or

      (ii) paragraph 21, (provision in respect of pension rights);

      (g) a property adjustment order made on or after the making of a separation order by virtue of paragraph 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) (order for settlement or variation of settlement);

      (h) a pension sharing order made before the dissolution or nullity order has been made final.

      (2) If the court has made an order referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(f)(ii), this Part ceases to apply to the order on the death of either of the civil partners.
      (3) The powers exercisable by the court under this Part in relation to an order are also exercisable in relation to any instrument executed in pursuance of the order.

      Powers to vary, discharge, suspend or revive order
      38 (1) If the court has made an order to which this Part applies, it may—

      (a) vary or discharge the order,

      (b) suspend any provision of it temporarily, or

      (c) revive the operation of any provision so suspended.

      (2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the provisions of this Part and paragraph 34(5).

      Power to remit arrears
      39 (1) If the court has made an order referred to in paragraph 37(1)(a), (b), (c) or (d), it may remit the payment of any arrears due under the order or under any part of the order.
      (2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the provisions of this Part.

      Variation etc. of periodical or secured periodical payments orders made in cases of failure to maintain
      40 (1) An application for the variation under paragraph 38 of a periodical payments order or secured periodical payments order made under Part 7 in favour of a child may, if the child has reached 16, be made by the child himself.
      (2) Sub-paragraph (3) applies if a periodical payments order made in favour of a child under Part 7 ceases to have effect—

      (a) on the date on which the child reaches 16, or

      (b) at any time after that date but before or on the date on which the child reaches 18.

      (3) If, on an application made to the court for an order under this sub-paragraph, it appears to the court that—

      (a) the child is, will be or, if an order were made under this sub-paragraph, would be—

      (i) receiving instruction at an educational establishment, or

      (ii) undergoing training for a trade, profession or vocation, whether or not the child also is, will be or would be in gainful employment, or

      (b) there are special circumstances which justify the making of an order under this sub-paragraph, the court may by order revive the order mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) from a date specified by it.

      (4) The date specified under sub-paragraph (3) must not be earlier than the date of the application under that sub-paragraph.
      (5) If under sub-paragraph (3) the court revives an order it may exercise its power under paragraph 38 in relation to the revived order.

      Variation etc. of property adjustment and pension sharing orders
      41 The court must not exercise the powers conferred by this Part in relation to a property adjustment order falling within paragraph 7(1)(b), (c) or (d) (order for settlement or for variation of settlement) except on an application made in proceedings—

      (a) for the rescission of the separation order by reference to which the property adjustment order was made, or

      (b) for a dissolution order in relation to the civil partnership.

      42 (1) In relation to a pension sharing order which is made at a time before the dissolution or nullity order has been made final—

      (a) the powers conferred by this Part (by virtue of paragraph 37(1)(h)) may be exercised

      (i) only on an application made before the pension sharing order has or, but for paragraph (b), would have taken effect, and

      (ii) only if, at the time when the application is made, the dissolution or nullity order has not been made final, and

      (b) an application made in accordance with paragraph (a) prevents the pension sharing order from taking effect before the application has been dealt with.

      (2) No variation of a pension sharing order is to be made so as to take effect before the order is made final.
      (3) The variation of a pension sharing order prevents the order taking effect before the end of such period after the making of the variation as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Lord Chancellor.
      (4) The power to make regulations under sub-paragraph (3) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
      (5) Regulations under sub-paragraph (3) are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in the same manner as a statutory instrument; and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies accordingly.
      43 (1) No property adjustment order or pension sharing order may be made on an application for the variation of a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order made (whether in favour of a civil partner or in favour of a child of the family) under Part 1.
      (2) No order for the payment of a lump sum may be made on an application for the variation of a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order in favour of a civil partner (whether made under Part 1 or 7).

      Matters to which court is to have regard in exercising powers under this Part
      44 (1) In exercising the powers conferred by this Part the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, giving first consideration to the welfare, while under 18, of any child of the family who has not reached 18.
      (2) The circumstances of the case include, in particular, any change in any of the matters to which the court was required to have regard when making the order to which the application relates.
      (3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies in the case of—

      (a) a periodical payments order, or

      (b) a secured periodical payments order,

      made on or after the making of a dissolution or nullity order.
      (4) The court must consider whether in all the circumstances, and after having regard to any such change, it would be appropriate to vary the order so that payments under the order are required—

      (a) to be made, or

      (b) to be secured,

      only for such further period as will in the opinion of the court be sufficient to enable the civil partner in whose favour the order was made to adjust without undue hardship to the termination of those payments.
      (5) If the civil partner against whom the order was made has died, the circumstances of the case also include the changed circumstances resulting from that civil partner's death.

      Variation of secured periodical payments order where person liable has died
      45 (1) This paragraph applies if the person liable to make payments under a secured periodical payments order has died.
      (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), an application under this Part relating to the order may be made by—

      (a) the person entitled to payments under the periodical payments order, or

      (b) the personal representatives of the deceased person.

      (3) No such application may be made without the leave of the court after the end of 6 months from the date on which representation in regard to the estate of that person is first taken out.
      (4) The personal representatives of the person who has died are not liable for having distributed any part of the estate of the deceased after the end of the 6 month period on the ground that they ought to have taken into account the possibility that the court might allow an application under this paragraph to be made after that period by the person entitled to payments under the order.
      (5) Sub-paragraph (4) does not affect any power to recover any part of the estate so distributed arising by virtue of the making of an order in pursuance of this paragraph.
      (6) In considering for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) the question when representation was first taken out a grant limited to part of the estate is to be disregarded unless a grant limited to the remainder of the estate has previously been made or is made at the same time.

      Power to direct when variation etc. is to take effect
      46 (1) If the court, in exercise of its powers under this Part, decides—

      (a) to vary, or

      (b) to discharge,

      a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order, it may direct that the variation or discharge is not to take effect until the end of such period as may be specified.
      (2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to paragraph 34(1) and (6).
      47 (1) If—

      (a) a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order in favour of more than one child ("the order") is in force,

      (b) the order requires payments specified in it to be made to or for the benefit of more than one child without apportioning those payments between them,

      (c) a maintenance calculation ("the calculation") is made with respect to one or more, but not all, of the children with respect to whom those payments are to be made, and

      (d) an application is made, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date on which the calculation was made, for the variation or discharge of the order,

      the court may, in exercise of its powers under this Part to vary or discharge the order, direct that the variation or discharge is to take effect from the date on which the calculation took effect or any later date.
      (2) If—

      (a) an order ("the child order") of a kind prescribed for the purposes of Article 12(1) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/2628 (N.I. 23)) is affected by a maintenance calculation,

      (b) on the date on which the child order became so affected there was in force a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order ("the civil partner's order") in favour of a civil partner having the care of the child in whose favour the child order was made, and

      (c) an application is made, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date on which the maintenance calculation was made, for the civil partner's order to be varied or discharged,

      the court may, in exercise of its powers under this Part to vary or discharge the civil partner's order, direct that the variation or discharge is to take effect from the date on which the child order became so affected or any later date.
      (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), an order is affected if it ceases to have effect or is modified by or under Article 12 of the 1991 Order.
      (4) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not affect any other power of the court to direct that the variation or discharge of an order under this Part is to take effect from a date earlier than that on which the order for variation or discharge was made.

  PART 10
    ARREARS AND REPAYMENTS

      Payment of certain arrears unenforceable without the leave of the court
      48 (1) This paragraph applies if any arrears are due under—

      (a) an order under Part 1 (financial provision on dissolution etc.),

      (b) an order under Part 6 (maintenance pending outcome of dissolution, nullity or separation proceedings), or

      (c) an interim order under Part 7 (failure to maintain),

      and the arrears became due more than 12 months before proceedings to enforce the payment of them are begun.
      (2) A person is not entitled to enforce through the court the payment of the arrears without the leave of that court.
      (3) The court hearing an application for the grant of leave under this paragraph may—

      (a) refuse leave,

      (b) grant leave subject to such restrictions and conditions (including conditions as to the allowing of time for payment or the making of payment by instalments) as that court thinks proper, or

      (c) remit the payment of the arrears or of any part of them.

      Orders for repayment in certain cases of sums paid under certain orders
      49 (1) This paragraph applies if—

      (a) a person ("R") is entitled to receive payments under an order listed in sub-paragraph (4), and

      (b) R's circumstances or the circumstances of the person ("P") liable to make payments under the order have changed since the order was made, or the circumstances have changed as a result of P's death.

      (2) The orders are—.

      (a) any order under Part 6 (maintenance pending outcome of dissolution, nullity or separation proceedings);

      (b) any interim order under Part 7;

      (c) any periodical payments order;

      (d) any secured periodical payments order.

      (3) P or P's personal representatives may (subject to sub-paragraph (7)) apply for an order under this paragraph against R or R's personal representatives.
      (4) If it appears to the court that, because of the changed circumstances or P's death, the amount received by R in respect of a relevant period exceeds the amount which P or P's personal representatives should have been required to pay, it may order the respondent to the application to pay to the applicant such sum, not exceeding the amount of the excess, as it thinks just.
      (5) "Relevant period" means a period after the circumstances changed or (as the case may be) after P's death.
      (6) An order under this paragraph for the payment of any sum may provide for the payment of that sum by instalments of an amount specified in the order.
      (7) An application under this paragraph—

      (a) may be made in proceedings in the High Court for—

      (i) the variation or discharge of the order listed in subparagraph (2), or

      (ii) leave to enforce, or the enforcement of, the payment of arrears under that order, but

      (b) if not made in such proceedings, must be made to a county court;

      and accordingly references in this paragraph to the court are references to the High Court or a county court (whether a civil partnership proceedings county court or not), as the circumstances require.
      (8) The jurisdiction conferred on a county court by this paragraph is exercisable even though, because of the amount claimed in the application, the jurisdiction would not but for this sub-paragraph be exercisable by a county court.

      Orders for repayment after cessation of order because of subsequent civil partnership etc.
      50 (1) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) apply if—

      (a) a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order in favour of a civil partner ("R") has ceased to have effect because of the formation of a subsequent civil partnership or marriage by R, and

      (b) the person liable to make payments under the order ("p") (or P's personal representatives) has made payments in accordance with it in respect of a relevant period in the mistaken belief that the order was still subsisting.

      (2) "Relevant period" means a period after the date of the formation of the civil partnership or marriage.
      (3) P (or P's personal representatives) is not entitled to bring proceedings in respect of a cause of action arising out of the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) against R (or R's personal representatives).
      (4) But, on an application under this paragraph by P (or P's personal representatives) against R (or R's personal representatives), the court—

      (a) may order the respondent to pay to the applicant a sum equal to the amount of the payments made in respect of the relevant period, or

      (b) if it appears to the court that it would be unjust to make that order, may—

      (i) order the respondent to pay to the applicant such lesser sum as it thinks fit, or

      (ii) dismiss the application.

      (5) An order under this paragraph for the payment of any sum may provide for the payment of that sum by instalments of such amount as may be specified in the order.
      (6) An application under this paragraph—

      (a) may be made in proceedings in the High Court for leave to enforce, or the enforcement of, payment of arrears under the order in question, but

      (b) if not made in such proceedings, must be made to a county court;

      and accordingly references in this paragraph to the court are references to the High Court or a county court (whether a civil partnership proceedings county court or not), as the circumstances require.
      (7) The jurisdiction conferred on a county court by this paragraph is exercisable even though, because of the amount claimed in the application, the jurisdiction would not but for this sub-paragraph be exercisable by a county court.
      (8) Subject to sub-paragraph (9), the collecting officer of a court of summary jurisdiction to whom any payments under a payments order, or under an attachment of earnings order made to secure payments under a payments order, are required to be made is not liable—

      (a) for any act done by him in pursuance of the payments order after the date on which that order ceased to have effect because of the formation of a subsequent civil partnership or marriage by R, or

      (b) for any act done by him after that date in accordance with any statutory provision specifying how payments made to him in compliance with the attachment of earnings order are to be dealt with.

      (9) Sub-paragraph (8) applies if (and only if) the act—

      (a) was one which the officer would have been under a duty to do had the payments order not ceased to have effect, and

      (b) was done before notice in writing of the formation of the civil partnership or marriage, was given to him by or on behalf of R, P, or R or P's personal representatives.

      (10) In this paragraph—
      "collecting officer" means the officer mentioned in section 15(2) of the Maintenance and Affiliation Orders Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (c. 35) or Article 85(2) of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26));
      "statutory provision" has the meaning given by section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (1954 c. 33 (N.I.)).

  PART 11
    CONSENT ORDERS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS

      Consent orders for financial relief
      51 (1) Regardless of anything in the preceding provisions of this Schedule, on an application for a consent order for financial relief, the court may, unless it has reason to think that there are other circumstances into which it ought to inquire, make an order in the terms agreed on the basis only of such information supplied with the application as is required by rules of court.
      (2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies to an application for a consent order varying or discharging an order for financial relief as it applies to an application for an order for financial relief.
      (3) In this paragraph—
      "consent order", in relation to an application for an order, means an order in the terms applied for to which the respondent agrees;
      "order for financial relief- means an order under any of Parts 1, 2, 3 and 7.

      Meaning of "maintenance agreement" and "financial arrangements"
      52 (1) In this Part "maintenance agreement" means any written agreement between the civil partners in a civil partnership which—

      (a) is made during the continuance or after the dissolution or annulment of the civil partnership and contains financial arrangements, or

      (b) is a separation agreement which contains no financial arrangements but is made in a case where no other agreement in writing between the civil partners contains financial arrangements.

      (2) In this Part "financial arrangements" means provisions governing the rights and liabilities towards one another when living separately of the civil partners in a civil partnership (including a civil partnership which has been dissolved or annulled) in respect of—

      (a) the making or securing of payments, or

      (b) the disposition or use of any property,

      including such rights and liabilities with respect to the maintenance or education of a child (whether or not a child of the family).
      (3) "Education" includes training.

      Validity of maintenance agreements
      53 If a maintenance agreement includes a provision purporting to restrict any right to apply to a court for an order containing financial arrangements—

      (a) that provision is void, but

      (b) any other financial arrangements contained in the agreement—

      (i) are not void or unenforceable as a result, and

      (ii) unless void or unenforceable for any other reason, are (subject to paragraphs 54 and 58) binding on the parties to the agreement.

      Alteration of agreements by court during lives of parties
      54 (1) Either party to a maintenance agreement may apply to the court or, subject to sub-paragraph (6), to a court of summary jurisdiction for an order under this paragraph if—

      (a) the maintenance agreement is for the time being subsisting, and

      (b) each of the parties to the agreement is for the time being domiciled or resident in Northern Ireland.

      (2) The court may make an order under this paragraph if it is satisfied that—

      (a) because of a change in the circumstances in the light of which—

      (i) any financial arrangements contained in the agreement were made, or

      (ii) financial arrangements were omitted from it, the agreement should be altered so as to make different financial arrangements or so as to contain financial arrangements, or

      (b) that the agreement does not contain proper financial arrangements with respect to any child of the family.

      (3) In sub-paragraph (2)(a) the reference to a change in the circumstances includes a change foreseen by the parties when making the agreement.
      (4) An order under this paragraph may make such alterations in the agreement—

      (a) by varying or revoking any financial arrangements contained in it, or

      (b) by inserting in it financial arrangements for the benefit of one of the parties to the agreement or of a child of the family,

      as appear to the court to be just having regard to all the circumstances, including, if relevant, the matters mentioned in paragraph 17(3).
      (5) The effect of the order is that the agreement is to be treated as if any alteration made by the order had been made by agreement between the partners and for valuable consideration.
      (6) The power to make an order under this paragraph is subject to paragraphs 55 and 56.

      Restrictions on applications to and orders by courts of summary jurisdiction under paragraph 54
      55 (1) A court of summary jurisdiction must not entertain an application under paragraph 54(1) unless—

      (a) both the parties to the agreement are resident in Northern Ireland, and

      (b) the court acts for a petty sessions district included in the county court division in which at least one of the parties is resident.

      (2) A court of summary jurisdiction must not make any order on such an application other than—

      (a) if the agreement includes no provision for periodical payments by either of the parties, an order inserting provision for the making by one of the parties of periodical payments for the maintenance of—

      (i) the other party, or

      (ii) any child of the family;

      (b) if the agreement includes provision for the making by one of the parties of periodical payments, an order increasing or reducing the rate of, or terminating, any of those payments.

      Provisions relating to periodical and secured periodical payments: duration
      56 (1) If a court decides to make an order under paragraph 54 altering an agreement—

      (a) by inserting provision for the making or securing by one of the parties to the agreement of periodical payments for the maintenance of the other party, or

      (b) by increasing the rate of the periodical payments which the agreement provides shall be made by one of the parties for the maintenance of the other,

      GC 292
      it may specify such term as it thinks fit as the term for which the payments or, as the case may be, the additional payments attributable to the increase are to be made under the altered agreement, except that the term must not extend beyond the limits in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3).
      (2) The limits if the payments are not to be secured are—

      (a) the death of either of the parties to the agreement, or

      (b) the formation of a subsequent civil partnership or marriage by the party to whom the payments are to be made.

      (3) The limits if the payments are to be secured are—

      (a) the death of the party to whom the payments are to be made, or

      (b) the formation of a subsequent civil partnership or marriage by that party.

      (4) Sub-paragraph (5) applies if a court decides to make an order under paragraph 54 altering an agreement by—

      (a) inserting provision for the making or securing by one of the parties to the agreement of periodical payments for the maintenance of a child of the family, or

      (b) increasing the rate of the periodical payments which the agreement provides shall be made or secured by one of the parties for the maintenance of such a child.

      (5) The court, in deciding the term for which under the agreement as altered by the order the payments, or the additional payments attributable to the increase, are to be made or secured for the benefit of the child, must apply paragraph 36(2) to (5) (age limits) as if the order in question were a periodical payments or secured periodical payments order in favour of the child.

      Saving
      57 Nothing in paragraphs 53 or 56 affects—

      (a) any power of a court before which any proceedings between the parties to a maintenance agreement are brought under any other enactment (including a provision of this Schedule) to make an order containing financial arrangements, or

      (b) any right of either party to apply for such an order in such proceedings.

      Alteration of agreements by court after death of one party
      58 (1) This paragraph applies if—

      (a) a maintenance agreement provides for the continuation of payments under the agreement after the death of one of the parties, and

      (b) that party ("A") dies domiciled in Northern Ireland.

      (2) Subject to sub-paragraphs (4) and (5), the surviving party or A's personal representatives may apply to the High Court or a county court for an order under paragraph 54 and accordingly, for the purposes of this paragraph, any reference in that paragraph to the court includes a reference to a county court (whether a civil partnership proceedings county court or not).
      (3) If a maintenance agreement is altered by a court on an application made under sub-paragraph (2), the same consequences follow as if the alteration had been made immediately before the death by agreement between the parties and for valuable consideration.
      (4) An application under this paragraph may not, without the leave of the High Court or a county court, be made after the end of 6 months from the date on which representation in regard to A's estate is first taken out.
      (5) A county court has jurisdiction under this paragraph only if it is shown to the satisfaction of the court that, at the relevant date, the property included in A's net estate did not exceed £15,000 in value.
      (6) A's personal representatives are not liable for having distributed any part of A's estate after the end of the 6 month period on the ground that they ought to have taken into account the possibility that a court might allow an application by virtue of this paragraph to be made by the surviving party after that period.
      (7) Sub-paragraph (6) does not affect any power to recover any part of the estate so distributed arising by virtue of the making of an order in pursuance of this paragraph.
      (8) Paragraph 45(6) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) as it applies for the purposes of paragraph 45(3).
      (9) In sub-paragraph (5)—
      "the property included in A's net estate" means all property of which A had power to dispose by will, otherwise than by virtue of a special power of appointment, less the amount of A's funeral, testamentary and administration expenses, debts and liabilities, including any inheritance tax payable out of A's estate on A's death;
      "relevant date" means the date of A's death.

  PART 12
    MISCELLANEOUS AND SUPPLEMENTARY

      Avoidance of transactions intended to prevent or reduce financial relief
      59 (1) This paragraph applies if proceedings for relief ("financial relief') are brought by one person ("A") against another ("B") under Part 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 or 9 (other than paragraph 45(2)), or paragraph 54.
      (2) If the court is satisfied, on an application by A, that B is, with the intention of defeating A's claim for financial relief, about to—

      (a) make any disposition, or

      (b) transfer out of the jurisdiction or otherwise deal with any property,

      it may make such order as it thinks fit for restraining B from doing so or otherwise for protecting the claim.
      (3) If the court is satisfied, on an application by A, that—

      (a) B has, with the intention of defeating A's claim for financial relief, made a reviewable disposition, and

      (b) if the disposition were set aside, financial relief or different financial relief would be granted to A,

      it may make an order setting aside the disposition.
      (4) If the court is satisfied, on an application by A in a case where an order has been obtained by A against B under any of the provisions mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), that B has, with the intention of defeating A's claim for financial relief, made a reviewable disposition, it may make an order setting aside the disposition.
      (5) An application for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) must be made in the proceedings for the financial relief in question.
      (6) If the court makes an order under sub-paragraph (3) or (4) setting aside a disposition it must give such consequential directions as it thinks fit for giving effect to the order (including directions requiring the making of any payments or the disposal of any property).
      60 (1) Any reference in paragraph 59 to defeating A's claim for financial relief is to—

      (a) preventing financial relief from being granted to A, or to A for the benefit of a child of the family,

      (b) reducing the amount of any financial relief which might be so granted, or

      (c) frustrating or impeding the enforcement of any order which might be or has been made at A's instance under any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph 59(1).

      (2) In paragraph 59 and this paragraph "disposition"—

      (a) does not include any provision contained in a will or codicil, but

      (b) subject to paragraph (a), includes any conveyance, assurance or gift of property of any description (whether made by an instrument or otherwise).

      (3) Any disposition made by B (whether before or after the commencement of the proceedings for financial relief) is a reviewable disposition for the purposes of paragraph 59(3) and (4) unless it was made—

      (a) for valuable consideration (other than formation of a civil partnership), and

      (b) to a person who, at the time of the disposition, acted in relation to it in good faith and without notice of any intention on B's part to defeat A's claim for financial relief.

      (4) If an application is made under paragraph 59 with respect to a disposition which took place less than 3 years before the date of the application or with respect to a disposition or other dealing with property which is about to take place and the court is satisfied—

      (a) in a case falling within paragraph 59(2) or (3), that the disposition or other dealing would (apart from paragraph 59) have the consequence of defeating A's claim for financial relief, or

      (b) in a case falling within paragraph 59(4), that the disposition has had the consequence of defeating A's claim for financial relief,

      it is presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that the person who disposed of or is about to dispose of or deal with the property did so or, as the case may be, is about to do so, with the intention of defeating A's claim for financial relief.
      61 (1) An order under paragraph 59(2), to the extent that it restrains B from making a disposition of any land in Northern Ireland which is specified in the order—

      (a) creates on the land a statutory charge, and

      (b) subject to section 88 of the 1970 Act (statutory charge to be void against purchaser in certain circumstances), renders liable to be set aside by the court at the instance of A any disposition of the land in contravention of the order.

      (2) In this paragraph and paragraph 62—
      "disposition" has the same meaning as in paragraphs 59 and 60;
      "1970 Act" means the Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 18 (N.I.));
      "statutory charge" has the same meaning as in the 1970 Act.
      (3) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1)(b) or section 88(1) of the 1970 Act affects any power of the court to set aside a disposition under paragraph 59(3) or (4).
      62 (1) The registration of a statutory charge created under paragraph 61(1)(a) shall be effective until—

      (a) the expiration of 1 year from the date of its registration or of the last renewal of its registration, unless the registration is renewed or further renewed before the expiration of that period, or

      (b) the court orders that it is to cease to have effect.

      (2) When the registration ceases to have effect the Registrar of Titles may cancel it.
      (3) Nothing in this paragraph affects any provision of section 91 of the 1970 Act (cancellation and modification of statutory charges).
      (4) An application for the renewal, under sub-paragraph (1)(a), of the registration of a charge may be made in the same manner as the application for the original registration.

      Direction for settlement of instrument for securing payments or effecting property adjustment
      63 (1) This paragraph applies if the court decides to make—

      (a) an order under Part 1 or 7 requiring any payments to be secured, or

      (b) a property adjustment order,

      or if it gives directions for the disposal of any property.
      (2) The court may direct that the matter he referred to a conveyancing counsel appointed by the court for him to settle a proper instrument to be executed by all necessary parties.
      (3) If the order referred to in sub-paragraph (1) is to be made in proceedings for a dissolution, nullity or separation order, the court may, if it thinks fit, defer the making of the dissolution, nullity or separation order until the instrument has been duly executed.

      Settlement, etc., made in compliance with a property adjustment order may he avoided on bankruptcy of settlor
      64 The fact that—

      (a) a settlement, or

      (b) a transfer of property,

      had to be made in order to comply with a property adjustment order does not prevent the settlement or transfer from being a transaction in respect of which an order may be made under Article 312 or 313 of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/2405 (N.I. 19)) (transfers at an undervalue and preferences).

      Payments, etc., under order made in favour of person suffering from mental disorder
      65 (1) This paragraph applies if—

      (a) the court makes an order under this Schedule requiring—

      (i) payments (including a lump sum payment) to be made, or

      (ii) property to be transferred, to a civil partner, and

      (b) the court is satisfied that the person in whose favour the order is made is incapable, because of mental disorder, of managing and administering his or her property and affairs.

      (2) "Mental disorder" has the same meaning as in the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/595 (N.I. 4)).
      (3) Subject to any order, direction or authority made or given in relation to that person under Part 8 of the 1986 Order, the court may order the payments to be made, or as the case may be, the property to be transferred, to such persons having charge of that person as the court may direct.

      Appeals relating to pension sharing orders which have taken effect
      66 (1) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) apply if an appeal against a pension sharing order is begun on or after the day on which the order takes effect.
      (2) If the pension sharing order relates to a person's rights under a pension arrangement, the appeal court may not set aside or vary the order if the person responsible for the pension arrangement has acted to his detriment in reliance on the order taking effect.
      (3) If the pension sharing order relates to a person's shareable state scheme rights, the appeal court may not set aside or vary the order if the Department for Social Development has acted to its detriment in reliance on the taking effect of the order.
      (4) In determining for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) or (3) whether a person or the Department has acted to his or its detriment in reliance on the taking effect of the order, the appeal court may disregard any detriment which in its opinion is insignificant.
      (5) Where sub-paragraph (2) or (3) applies, the appeal court may make such further orders (including one or more pension sharing orders) as it thinks fit for the purpose of putting the parties in the position it considers appropriate.
      (6) Paragraph 14 only applies to a pension sharing order under this paragraph if the decision of the appeal court can itself be the subject of an appeal.
      (7) In sub-paragraph (2), the reference to the person responsible for the pension arrangement is to be read in accordance with paragraph 24(3).

      Interpretation
      67 (1) References in this Schedule to—

      (a) periodical payments orders,

      (b) secured periodical payments orders, and

      (c) orders for the payment of a lump sum,

      are references to such of the orders that may be made under Parts 1 and 7 (other than interim orders) as are relevant in the context of the reference in question.
      (2) In this Schedule "child of the family", in relation to two people who are the civil partners of each other, means—

      (a) a child of both of them, and

      (b) any other child, other than a child placed with the civil partners as foster parents by an authority or a voluntary organisation, who has been treated by both the civil partners as a child of their family.

      (3) In sub-paragraph (2) "authority" and "voluntary organisation" have the same meaning as in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)).
      (4) References in this Schedule to a subsequent civil partnership include a civil partnership which is by law void or voidable.
      (5) References in this Schedule to a subsequent marriage include a marriage which is by law void or voidable."
      Before Schedule 14, insert the following new schedule—

  FINANCIAL RELIEF IN COURT OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION ETC.: NORTHERN IRELAND
    PART 1
      FAILURE TO MAINTAIN ETC.: FINANCIAL PROVISION

        Circumstances in which orders made under this Part may be made
        1 (1) On an application to it by one of the civil partners, the court may make any one or more of the orders set out in paragraph 2 if it is satisfied that the other civil partner—

        (a) has failed to provide reasonable maintenance for the applicant,

        (b) has failed to provide, or to make a proper contribution towards, reasonable maintenance for any child of the family,

        (c) has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent, or

        (d) has deserted the applicant.

        (2) The power of the court under sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the following provisions of this Schedule.

        The orders: periodical and secured periodical payments and lump sums
        2 (1) The orders are—

        (a) an order that the respondent must make to the applicant such periodical payments for such term as may be specified;

        (b) an order that the respondent must pay to the applicant such lump sum as may be specified;

        (c) an order that the respondent must make—

        (i) to the applicant for the benefit of a child of the family to whom the application relates, or

        (ii) to a child of the family to whom the application relates, such periodical payments for such term as may be specified;

        (d) an order that the respondent must pay such lump sum as may be specified—

        (i) to the applicant for the benefit of a child of the family to whom the application relates, or

        GC 297

        (ii) to a child of the family to whom the application relates.

        (2) The amount of a lump sum specified under sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (d) must not exceed—

        (a) £1,000, or

        (b) such larger amount as the Lord Chancellor may from time to time by order fix for the purposes of this sub-paragraph.

        (3) The power to make an order under sub-paragraph (2) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
        (4) An order under sub-paragraph (2) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in the same manner as a statutory instrument; and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies accordingly.
        (5) "Specified" means specified in the order.

        Particular provision that may be made by lump sum orders
        3 (1) An order under this Part for the payment of a lump sum may be made for the purpose of enabling any liability or expenses reasonably incurred in maintaining the applicant or any child of the family to whom the application relates before the making of the order to be met.
        (2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not restrict the power to make the orders set out in paragraph 2(1)(b) and (d).

        Matters to which court is to have regard in exercising its powers under this Part - general
        4 If an application is made for an order under this Part, the court, in deciding—

        (a) whether to exercise its powers under this Part, and

        (b) if so, in what way,

        must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, giving first consideration to the welfare while under 18 of any child of the family who has not reached 18.

        Particular matters to be taken into account when exercising powers in relation to civil partners
        5 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to the exercise by the court of its power to make an order by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(a) or (b).
        (2) The court must in particular have regard to—

        (a) the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each civil partner—

        (i) has, or

        (ii) is likely to have in the foreseeable future,

        including, in the case of earning capacity, any increase in that capacity which it would in the opinion of the court be reasonable to expect the civil partner to take steps to acquire;

        (b) the financial needs, obligations and responsibilities which each civil partner has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;

        (c) the standard of living enjoyed by the civil partners before the occurrence of the conduct which is alleged as the ground of the application;

        (d) the age of each civil partner and the duration of the civil partnership;

        (e) any physical or mental disability of either civil partner;

        (f) the contributions which each civil partner has made or is likely in the foreseeable future to make to the welfare of the family, including any contribution by looking after the home or caring for the family;

        GC 298

        (g) the conduct of each civil partner, if that conduct is such that it would in the opinion of the court be inequitable to disregard it.

        Particular matters to be taken into account when exercising powers in relation to children
        6 (1) This paragraph applies in relation to the exercise by the court of its power to make an order by virtue of paragraph 2(1)(c) or (d).
        (2) The court must in particular have regard to—

        (a) the financial needs of the child;

        (b) the income, earning capacity (if any), property and other financial resources of the child;

        (c) any physical or mental disability of the child;

        (d) the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the occurrence of the conduct which is alleged as the ground of the application;

        (e) the way in which the child was being and in which the civil partners expected the child to be educated or trained;

        (f) the considerations mentioned in relation to the civil partners in paragraph 5(2)(a) and (b).

        (3) In relation to the exercise of its power to make an order in favour of a child of the family who is not the respondent's child, the court must also have regard to—

        (a) whether the respondent has assumed any responsibility for the child's maintenance,

        (b) if so, the extent to which, and the basis on which, the respondent assumed that responsibility and the length of time during which the respondent discharged that responsibility;

        (c) whether in assuming and discharging that responsibility the respondent did so knowing that the child was not the respondent's child;

        (d) the liability of any other person to maintain the child.

        Reconciliation
        7 (1) If before the hearing of any evidence in proceedings on an application for an order under this Part a statement is made to the court by or on behalf of the civil partners showing a possibility of reconciliation between them, the court must adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit.
        (2) If at any stage of the proceedings on an application for an order under this Part it appears to the court that there is a reasonable possibility of a reconciliation between the civil partners, the court may adjourn the proceedings for such period as it thinks fit to enable attempts to be made to effect a reconciliation.
        (3) If the court adjourns any proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) or (2), it may request that—

        (a) a suitably qualified person acting under arrangements made by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, or

        (b) any other person, willing and able to do so and acceptable to both parties, whom the court may appoint,

        should attempt to effect a reconciliation between the civil partners.
        (4) If any such request is made, the person—

        (a) must report in writing to the court whether the attempt has been successful, but

        (b) must not include in the report any other information.

        (5) The powers conferred by this paragraph are additional to any other power of the court to adjourn proceedings.

        Refusal of order in case more suitable for High Court
        8 (1) If on hearing an application for an order under this Part a court of summary jurisdiction is of the opinion that any of the matters in question between the civil partners would be more suitably dealt with by the High Court, the court of summary jurisdiction must refuse to make any order on the application.
        (2) No appeal lies from a refusal under sub-paragraph (1).
        (3) But, in any proceedings in the High Court relating to or comprising the same subject matter as an application in respect of which a court of summary jurisdiction has refused to make any order, the High Court may order the application to be reheard and determined by a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the same petty sessions district as the court which refused to make any order.

    PART 2
      ORDERS FOR AGREED FINANCIAL PROVISION

        Orders for payments which have been agreed by the parties
        9 (1) Either civil partner may apply to the court for an order under this Part on the ground that that civil partner or the other civil partner has agreed to make such financial provision as may be specified in the application.
        (2) On such an application or on a request under paragraph 14, the court may order that the applicant or the respondent (as the case may be) is to make the financial provision specified in the application or request, if—

        (a) it is satisfied that the applicant or the respondent (as the case may be) has agreed in writing to make that provision, and

        (b) it has no reason to think that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.

        (3) Sub-paragraph (2) is subject to paragraph 12.
        (4) The making of an order under this Part ("Part 2 order") does not prevent the making of an order under Part 1 ("Part 1 order") on a subsequent application for a Part 1 order.
        (5) On the making of a Part 2 order, the Part 1 order ceases to have effect.
        (6) Sub-paragraph (5) does not affect the power of the court under Part 6 to revoke the Part 1 order.

        Meaning of "financial provision" and of references to specified financial provision
        10 (1) In this Part "financial provision" means any one or more of the following—

        (a) the making of periodical payments by one civil partner to the other;

        (b) the payment of a lump sum by one civil partner to the other;

        (c) the making of periodical payments by one civil partner to a child of the family or to the other civil partner for the benefit of such a child;

        (d) the payment by one party of a lump sum to a child of the family or to the other civil partner for the benefit of such a child.

        (2) Any reference in this Part to the financial provision specified in an application under this Part or a request under paragraph 14 or specified by the court is a reference—

        (a) to the type of provision specified in the application or request or by the court,

        (b) to the amount so specified as the amount of any payment to be made under the application or order, and

        (c) in the case of periodical payments, to the term so specified as the term for which the payments are to be made.

        Evidence to be produced where respondent not present etc.
        11 (1) This paragraph applies if the respondent—

        (a) is not present, or

        (b) is not represented by counsel or a solicitor,

        at the hearing of an application for an order under this Part.
        (2) The court must not make an order under this Part unless there is produced to it such evidence as may be prescribed by rules of court of—

        (a) the consent of the respondent to the making of the order,

        (b) the financial resources of the respondent, and

        GC 300

        (c) if the financial provision specified in the application includes or consists of provision in respect of a child of the family to be made by the applicant to the respondent for the benefit of the child or to the child, the financial resources of the child.

        Exercise of powers in relation to children
        12 (1) This paragraph applies if the financial provision specified in an application under this Part or a request under paragraph 14—

        (a) includes, or

        (b) consists of,

        provision in respect of a child of the family.
        (2) The court must not make an order under this Part unless it considers that the provision which the applicant or the respondent (as the case may be) has agreed to make in respect of the child provides for, or makes a proper contribution towards, the financial needs of the child.

        Power to make alternative orders
        13 (1) This paragraph applies if on an application under this Part or a request under paragraph 14 the court decides—

        (a) that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to make an order for the making of the financial provision specified in the application or request, or

        (b) that any financial provision which the applicant or the respondent (as the case may be) has agreed to make in respect of a child of the family does not provide for, or make a proper contribution towards, the financial needs of that child.

        (2) If the court is of the opinion—

        (a) that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice to make an order for the making of some other financial provision specified by the court, and

        (b) that, in so far as that other financial provision contains any provision for a child of the family, it provides for, or makes a proper contribution towards, the financial needs of that child,

        then, if both the civil partners agree, the court may order the applicant or the respondent (as the case may be) is to make that other financial provision.

        Request for order under this Part in proceedings under Part 1
        14 (1) On an application for an order under Part 1, both civil partners may, before the determination of the application, request the court to make an order under this Part that the applicant or the respondent (as the case may be) is to make the financial provision specified in the request.
        (2) If an order is made under this Part on a request under this paragraph the application for the Part 1 order is to be treated as if it had been withdrawn.
        (3) In any of the following provisions of this Schedule —

        (a) references to an application for an order under this Part include a request under this paragraph, and

        (b) references to an applicant or respondent, in relation to any such request, are to the applicant or respondent in relation to the pending application under Part 1.

    PART 3
      ORDERS OF COURT WHERE CIVIL PARTNERS LIVING APART BY AGREEMENT

        Powers of court where civil partners are living apart by agreement
        15 (1) If—

        (a) the civil partners have been living apart for a continuous period exceeding 3 months, neither civil partner having deserted the other, and

        (b) one of the civil partners has been making periodical payments for the benefit of the other civil partner or of a child of the family,

        GC 301
        the other civil partner may apply to the court for an order under this Part.
        (2) An application made under sub-paragraph (1) must specify the total amount of the payments made by the respondent during the period of 3 months immediately preceding the date of the making of the application.
        (3) If on an application for an order under this Part the court is satisfied that the respondent has made the payments specified in the application, the court may make one or both of the orders set out in paragraph 16.
        (4) Sub-paragraph (3) is subject to the provisions of this Schedule.

        The orders that may be made under this Part
        16 (1) The orders are—

        (a) an order that the respondent is to make to the applicant such periodical payments for such term as may be specified;

        (b) an order that the respondent is to make—

        (i) to the applicant for the benefit of a child of the family to whom the application relates, or

        (ii) to a child of the family to whom the application relates, such periodical payments for such term as may be specified.

        (2) "Specified" means specified in the order.

        Restrictions on orders under this Part
        17 The court in the exercise of its powers under this Part must not require—

        (a) the respondent to make payments whose total amount during any period of 3 months exceeds the total amount paid by him for the benefit of—

        (i) the applicant, or

        (ii) a child of the family,

        during the period of 3 months immediately preceding the date of the making of the application;

        (b) the respondent to make payments to or for the benefit of any person which exceed in amount the payments which the court considers that it would have required the respondent to make to or for the benefit of that person on an application under Part 1;

        (c) payments to be made to or for the benefit of a child of the family who is not the respondent's child, unless the court considers that it would have made an order in favour of that child on an application under Part 1.

        Relationship with powers under Part 1
        18 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if on an application under this Part the court considers that the orders which it has the power to make under this Part—

        (a) would not provide reasonable maintenance for the applicant, or

        (b) if the application relates to a child of the family, would not provide, or make a proper contribution towards, reasonable maintenance for that child.

        (2) The court—

        (a) must refuse to make an order under this Part, but

        (b) may treat the application as if it were an application for an order under Part 1.

        Matters to be taken into consideration
        19 Paragraphs 4 to 6 apply in relation to an application for an order under this Part as they apply in relation to an application for an order under Part 1, subject to the modification that for the
        GC 302
        reference in paragraph 5(2)(c) to the occurrence of the conduct which is alleged as the ground of the application substitute a reference to the living apart of the civil partners.

    PART 4
      INTERIM ORDERS

        Circumstances in which interim orders may be made
        20 (1) This paragraph applies if an application has been made for an order under Part 1, 2 or 3.
        (2) The court may make an interim order—

        (a) at any time before making a final order on, or dismissing, the application, or

        (b) on refusing (under paragraph 8) to make an order on the application.

        (3) The High Court may make an interim order on ordering the application to be reheard by a court (after the refusal of an order under paragraph 8).
        (4) The county court may make an interim order on an appeal from the order made by the court on the application at any time before making a final order on, or dismissing, an appeal made by virtue of paragraph 46.
        (5) Not more than one interim order may be made with respect to an application for an order under Part 1, 2 or 3.
        (6) Sub-paragraph (5) does not affect the power of a court to make an interim order on a further application under Part 1, 2 or 3.

        Meaning of interim order
        21 (1) An interim order is an order requiring the respondent to make such periodical payments as the court thinks reasonable—

        (a) to the applicant,

        (b) to any child of the family who is under 18, or

        (c) to the applicant for the benefit of such a child.

        (2) In relation to an interim order in respect of an application for an order under Part 2 by the civil partner who has agreed to make the financial provision specified in the application, subparagraph (1) applies as if—

        (a) the reference to the respondent were a reference to the applicant, and

        (b) the references to the applicant were references to the respondent.

        When interim order may start
        22 (1) An interim order may provide for payments to be made from such date as the court may specify, except that the date must not be earlier than the date of the making of the application for an order under Part 1, 2 or 3.
        (2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to paragraph 27(10) and (11).

        Payments which can be treated as having been paid on account
        23 (1) If an order under Part 1, 2 or 3 made by the county court on an appeal from the court provides for payments to be made from a date earlier than the date of the making of the order, the interim order may provide that payments made by the respondent under an order made by the court are to be treated, to such extent and in such manner as may be provided by the interim order, as having been paid on account of any payment provided for by the interim order.
        (2) In relation to an interim order in respect of an application for an order under Part 2 by the civil partner who has agreed to make the financial provision specified in the application, subparagraph (1) applies as if the reference to the respondent were a reference to the applicant.

        When interim order ceases to have effect
        24 (1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), an interim order made on an application for an order under Part 1, 2 or 3 ceases to have effect on the earliest of the following dates—

        (a) the date, if any, specified for the purpose in the interim order;

        GC 303

        (b) the date on which the period of 14 weeks from the date of the making of the interim order ends;

        (c) the date on which the court either makes a final order on, or dismisses, the application, or, where the interim order was made by a county court on an appeal, the date on which that court either makes a final order on, or dismisses, the appeal.

        (2) If an interim order made under this Part would, but for this sub-paragraph, cease to have effect under sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b)—

        (a) the court which made the order, or

        (b) in the case of an interim order made by the High Court, the court by which the application for an order under Part I, 2 or 3 is to be reheard,

        may by order provide that the interim order is to continue in force for a further period.
        (3) An order continued in force under sub-paragraph (2) ceases to have effect on the earliest of the following dates—

        (a) the date, if any, specified for the purpose in the order continuing it;

        (b) the date on which ends the period of 14 weeks from—

        (i) the date of the making of the order continuing it, or

        (ii) if more than one such order has been made with respect to the application, the date of the making of the first such order;

        (c) the date on which the court either makes a final order on, or dismisses, the application, or, where the interim order was made by a county court on an appeal, the date on which that court either makes a final order on, or dismisses, the appeal.

        Supplementary
        25 An interim order made by the High Court under paragraph 20(3) on ordering an application to be reheard by the court is to be treated for the purposes of—

        (a) its enforcement, and

        (b) Part 6 (variation etc. of orders),

        as if it were an order of the court (and not of the High Court).

    PART 5
      COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION OF ORDERS UNDER PARTS 1, 2 AND 3

        Duration of periodical payments order for a civil partner
        26 (1) The court may specify in a periodical payments order made under paragraph 2(1)(a) or Part 3 in favour of a civil partner such term as it thinks fit, except that the term must not—

        (a) begin before the date of the making of the application for the order, or

        (b) extend beyond the death of either of the civil partners.

        (2) If—

        (a) a periodical payments order is made under paragraph 2(1)(a) or Part 3 in favour of one of the civil partners, and

        (b) the civil partnership is subsequently dissolved or annulled but the order continues in force,

        the periodical payments order ceases to have effect (regardless of anything in it) on the formation of a subsequent civil partnership or marriage by that civil partner, except in relation to any arrears due under the order on the date of that event.
        (3) If a periodical payments order ceases to have effect by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) on the formation of a subsequent civil partnership or marriage by a person, that person must give notice of the subsequent civil partnership or marriage to the court.
        (4) Any person who without reasonable excuse fails to give notice as required by sub-paragraph (3) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

        Age limit on making orders for financial provision for children and duration of such orders
        27 (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (5), no order is to be made under paragraph 2(1)(c) or (d) or Part 3 in favour of a child who has reached 18.
        (2) The term to be specified in a periodical payments order made under paragraph 2(1)(c) or Part 3 in favour of a child may begin with—

        (a) the date of the making of an application for the order or a later date, or

        (b) a date ascertained in accordance with sub-paragraph (7) or (8).

        (3) The term to be specified in such an order—

        (a) must not in the first instance extend beyond the date of the birthday of the child next following his reaching the upper limit of the compulsory school age unless the court considers that in the circumstances of the case the welfare of the child requires that it should extend to a later date, and

        (b) must not in any event, subject to sub-paragraph (5), extend beyond the date of the child's 18th birthday.

        (4) In sub-paragraph (3)(a) "compulsory school age" has the meaning given in Article 46 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/594 (N.I.3)).
        (5) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (3)(b) do not apply in the case of a child if it appears to the court that—

        (a) the child is, or will be, or, if such an order were made without complying with either or both of those provisions, would be—

        (i) receiving instruction at an educational establishment, or

        (ii) undergoing training for a trade, profession or vocation,

        whether or not also the child is, will be or would be, in gainful employment, or

        (b) there are special circumstances which justify the making of the order without complying with either or both of sub-paragraphs (1) and (3)(b).

        (6) Any order made under paragraph 2(1)(c) or Part 3 in favour of a child, regardless of anything in the order, ceases to have effect on the death of the person liable to make payments under the order.
        (7) An order made under paragraph 2(1)(c) or Part 3 in favour of a child to whom sub-paragraph (5)(a)(i) applies ceases to have effect if the child ceases to receive instruction or undergo training as mentioned in sub-paragraph (5)(a)(i).
        (8) If an order made under paragraph 2(1)(c) or Part 3 ceases to have effect by virtue of an event mentioned in sub-paragraph (7), the person to whom the periodical payments are directed by the order to be made must give notice of the event to the court.
        (9) A person who without reasonable excuse fails to give notice as required by sub-paragraph (8) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
        (10) If—

        (a) a maintenance calculation ("current calculation") is in force with respect to a child, and

        (b) an application is made for an order under paragraph 2(1)(c) or Part 3 before the end of 6 months beginning with the making of the current calculation,

        GC 305
        the term to be specified in any such order made on that application may be expressed to begin on, or at any time after, the earliest permitted date.
        (11) "The earliest permitted date" is whichever is the later of—

        (a) the date 6 months before the application is made, or

        (b) the date on which the current calculation took effect or, where successive maintenance calculations have been continuously in force with respect to a child, on which the first of those calculations took effect.

        (12) If—

        (a) a maintenance calculation ceases to have effect by or under any provision of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/2628 (N.I. 23)), and

        (b) an application is made, before the end of 6 months beginning with the relevant date, for a periodical payments order under paragraph 2(1)(c) or Part 3 in favour of a child with respect to whom that maintenance calculation was in force immediately before it ceased to have effect,

        the term to be specified in any such order, or in any interim order under Part 4, made on that application, may begin with the relevant date or any later date.
        (13) "The relevant date" means the date on which the maintenance calculation ceased to have effect.
        (14) In this Schedule "maintenance calculation" means a calculation of maintenance made under the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 and includes, except in circumstances prescribed for the purposes of the definition of that expression in Article 2(2) of that Order, a default or interim maintenance decision within the meaning of that Order.

        Application of paragraphs 26 and 27 to Part 2 orders
        28 (1) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), paragraph 26 applies in relation to an order under Part 2 which requires periodical payments to be made to a civil partner for his own benefit as it applies in relation to an order under paragraph 2(1)(a).
        (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), paragraph 27 applies in relation to an order under Part 2 for the making of financial provision in respect of a child of the family as it applies in relation to an order under paragraph 2(1)(c) or (d).
        (3) If—

        (a) the court makes an order under Part 2 which contains provision for the making of periodical payments, and

        (b) by virtue of paragraph 14, an application for an order under Part I is treated as if it had been withdrawn,

        the term which may be specified under Part 2 as the term for which the payments are to be made may begin with the date of the making of the application for the order under Part 1 or any later date.

        Effect on certain orders of parties living together
        29 (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if periodical payments are required to be made to a civil partner (whether for the civil partner's own benefit or for the benefit of a child of the family)—

        (a) by an order made under Part 1 or 2, or

        (b) by an interim order made under Part 4 (otherwise than on an application under Part 3).

        (2) The order is enforceable even if—

        (a) the civil partners are living with each other at the date of the making of the order, or

        (b) if they are not living with each other at that date, they subsequently resume living with each other;

        but the order ceases to have effect if after that date the civil partners continue to live with each other, or resume living with each other, for a continuous period exceeding 6 months.
        (3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies if—

        (a) an order is made under Part 1 or 2 which requires periodical payments to be made to a child of the family, or

        (b) an interim order is made under Part 4 (otherwise than on an application under Part 3) which requires periodical payments to be made to a child of the family.

        (4) Unless the court otherwise directs, the order continues to have effect and is enforceable even if—

        (a) the civil partners are living with each other at the date of the making of the order, or

        (b) if they are not living with each other at that date, they subsequently resume living with each other.

        (5) An order made under Part 3, and any interim order made on an application for an order under that Part, ceases to have effect if the civil partners resume living with each other.
        (6) If an order made under this Schedule ceases to have effect under—

        (a) sub-paragraph (2) or (5), or

        (b) a direction given under sub-paragraph (4),

        the court may, on an application made by either civil partner, make an order declaring that the order ceased to have effect from such date as the court may specify.
        (7) If an order made under this Schedule ceases to have effect under sub-paragraph (2) or (5), the civil partners shall give notice of that fact to the court straight away.

    PART 6
      VARIATION ETC. OF ORDERS

        Power to vary, revoke, suspend or revive order
        30 (1) If the court has made an order for the making of periodical payments under Part 2 or 3, it may, on an application made under this Part—

        (a) vary or revoke the order,

        (b) suspend any provision of it temporarily, or

        (c) revive any provision so suspended,

        (2) If the court has made an order under Part 4, it may, on an application made under this Part—

        (a) vary or revoke the order,

        (b) suspend any provision of it temporarily, or

        (c) revive any provision so suspended,

        except that it may not by virtue of this sub-paragraph extend the period for which the order is in force.

        Powers to order lump sum on variation
        31 (1) If the court has made an order under paragraph 2(1)(a) or (c) for the making of periodical payments, it may, on an application made under this Part, make an order for the payment of a lump sum under paragraph 2(1)(b) or (d).
        (2) If the court has made an order under Part 2 for the making of periodical payments by a civil partner, it may, on an application made under this Part, make an order for the payment of a lump sum by that civil partner—

        (a) to the other civil partner, or

        (b) to a child of the family or to that other civil partner for the benefit of that child.

        (3) Where the court has power by virtue of this paragraph to make an order for the payment of a lump sum—

        (a) the amount of the lump sum must not exceed the maximum amount that may at that time be required to be paid under Part 1, but

        (b) the court may make an order for the payment of a lump sum not exceeding that amount even if the person required to pay it was required to pay a lump sum by a previous order under this Schedule.

        (4) Where—

        (a) the court has power by virtue of this paragraph to make an order for the payment of a lump sum, and

        (b) the respondent or the applicant (as the case may be) has agreed to pay a lump sum of an amount exceeding the maximum amount that may at that time be required to be paid under Part 1,

        the court may, regardless of sub-paragraph (3), make an order for the payment of a lump sum of that amount.

        Power to specify when order as varied is to take effect
        32 An order made under this Part which varies an order for the making of periodical payments may provide that the payments as so varied are to be made from such date as the court may specify, except that, subject to paragraph 33, the date must not be earlier than the date of the making of the application under this Part.
        33 (1) If—

        (a) there is in force an order ("the order")—

        (i) under paragraph 2(1)(c),

        (ii) under Part 2 making provision of a kind set out in paragraph 10(1)(c) (regardless of whether it makes provision of any other kind mentioned in paragraph 10(1)(c)),

        (iii) under paragraph 16(1)(b), or

        (iv) which is an interim order under Part 4 under which the payments are to be made to a child or to the applicant for the benefit of a child,

        (b) the order requires payments specified in it to be made to or for the benefit of more than one child without apportioning those payments between them,

        (c) a maintenance calculation ("the calculation") is made with respect to one or more, but not all, of the children with respect to whom those payments are to be made, and

        (d) an application is made, before the end of 6 months beginning with the date on which the calculation was made, for the variation or revocation of the order,

        the court may, in exercise of its powers under this Part to vary or revoke the order, direct that the variation or revocation is to take effect from the date on which the calculation took effect or any later date.
        (2) If—

        (a) an order ("the child order") of a kind prescribed for the purposes of Article 12(1) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/2628 (N.I. 23)) is affected by a maintenance calculation,

        (b) on the date on which the child order became so affected there was in force an order ("the civil partner's order")—

        (i) under paragraph 2(1)(a),

        (ii) under Part 2 making provision of a kind set out in paragraph 10(1)(a) (regardless of whether it makes provision of any other kind mentioned in paragraph 10(1)(a)),

        (iii) under paragraph 16(1)(a), or

        (iv) which is an interim order under Part 4 under which the payments are to be made to the applicant (otherwise than for the benefit of a child), and

        GC 308

        (c) an application is made, before the end of 6 months beginning with the date on which the maintenance calculation was made, for the civil partner's order to be varied or revoked,

        the court may, in exercise of its powers under this Part to vary or revoke the civil partner's order, direct that the variation or revocation is to take effect from the date on which the child order became so affected or any later date.
        (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), an order is affected if it ceases to have effect or is modified by or under Article 12 of the 1991 Order.

        Matters to which court is to have regard in exercising powers under this Part
        34 (1) In exercising the powers conferred by this Part the court must, so far as it appears to the court just to do so, give effect to any agreement which has been reached between the civil partners in relation to the application.
        (2) If—

        (a) there is no such agreement, or

        (b) the court decides not to give effect to the agreement,

        the court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, giving first consideration to the welfare while under 18 of any child of the family who has not reached 18.
        (3) Those circumstances include any change in any of the matters—

        (a) to which the court was required to have regard when making the order to which the application relates, or

        (b) in the case of an application for the variation or revocation of an order made under Part 2 or on an appeal, to which the court would have been required to have regard if that order had been made under Part 1.

        Variation of orders for periodical payments: further provisions
        35 (1) The power of the court under paragraphs 30 to 34 to vary an order for the making of periodical payments includes power, if the court is satisfied that payment has not been made in accordance with the order, to exercise one of its powers under Article 85(3)(a) to (d) of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26)).
        (2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to paragraph 37.
        36 (1) If—

        (a) a court of summary jurisdiction has made an order under this Schedule for the making of periodical payments, and

        (b) payments under the order are required to be made by any method of payment falling within Article 85(7) of the 1981 Order (standing order, etc.),

        an application may be made under this sub-paragraph to the clerk of petty sessions for the order to be varied as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2).
        (2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), if an application is made under sub-paragraph (1), the clerk, after—

        (a) serving written notice of the application on the respondent, and

        (b) allowing the respondent, within the period of 14 days from the date of the serving of that notice, an opportunity to make written representations,

        may vary the order to provide that payments under the order are to be made to the collecting officer.
        (3) The clerk may proceed with an application under subparagraph (1) even if the respondent has not received written notice of the application.
        (4) If an application has been made under sub-paragraph (1), the clerk may, if he considers it inappropriate to exercise his power under sub-paragraph (2), refer the matter to the court which, subject to paragraph 37, may vary the order by exercising one of its powers under Article 85(3)(a) to (d) of the 1981 Order.
        37 (1) Before varying the order by exercising one of its powers under Article 85(3)(a) to (d) of the 1981 Order, the court must have regard to any representations made by the parties to the application.
        (2) If the court does not propose to exercise its power under Article 85(3)(c), or (d) of the 1981 Order, the court must, unless upon representations expressly made in that behalf by the person to whom payments under the order are required to be made it is satisfied that it is undesirable to do so, exercise its power under Article 85(5)(b).
        38 (1) Article 85(5) of the 1981 Order (power of court to order that account be opened) applies for the purposes of paragraphs 35 and 36(4) as it applies for the purposes of Article 85.
        (2) None of the powers of the court, or of the clerk of petty sessions, conferred by paragraphs 35 to 37 and sub-paragraph (1) is exercisable in relation to an order under this Schedule for the making of periodical payments which is not a qualifying maintenance order (within the meaning of Article 85 of the 1981 Order).

        Persons who may apply under this Part.
        39 An application under paragraph 30, 31 or 36 may be made—

        (a) if it is for the variation or revocation of an order under Part 1, 2, 3 or 4 for periodical payments, by either civil partner, and

        (b) if it is for the variation of an order under paragraph 2(1)(c) or Part 2 or 3 for periodical payments to or in respect of a child, also by the child himself, if he has reached 16.

        Revival of orders for periodical payments
        40 (1) If an order made by the court under this Schedule for the making of periodical payments to or in respect of a child (other than an interim order) ceases to have effect—

        (a) on the date on which the child reaches 16, or

        (b) at any time after that date but before or on the date on which he reaches 18,

        the child may apply to the court for an order for its revival.
        (2) If on such an application it appears to the court that—

        (a) the child is, will be or (if an order were made under this sub-paragraph) would be receiving instruction at an educational establishment or undergoing training for a trade, profession or vocation, whether or not while in gainful employment, or

        (b) there are special circumstances which justify the making of an order under this sub-paragraph,

        the court may by order to revive the order from such date as the court may specify, not being earlier than the date of the making of the application.
        (3) Any order revived under this paragraph may be varied or revoked under paragraphs 30 to 34 in the same way as it could have been varied or revoked had it continued in being.

        Variation of instalments or remission of lump sum
        41 (1) If in the exercise of its powers under Article 97 of the 1981 Order the court orders that a lump sum required to be paid under this Schedule is to be paid by instalments, the court, on an application made by either the person liable to pay or the person entitled to receive that sum, may vary that order by varying—

        (a) the number of instalments payable,

        (b) the amount of any instalment payable, and

        (c) the date on which any instalment becomes payable.

        (2) On the hearing of a complaint for the enforcement, revocation, suspension or variation of an order under this Schedule which provides for the payment of a lump sum the court may remit the whole or any part of that sum.

        Supplementary provisions with respect to variation and revocation of orders
        42 The powers of a court of summary jurisdiction to revoke, suspend, revive or vary an order for the periodical payment of money and the power of the clerk of petty sessions to vary such an order under Article 86 of the 1981 Order do not apply in relation to an order made under this Schedule.
    PART 7
      ARREARS AND REPAYMENTS
        Enforcement etc. of orders for payment of money
        43 Article 36 of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/563 (N.I. 5)) applies in relation to orders under this Schedule as it applies in relation to orders under that Order.

        Orders for repayment after cessation of order because of subsequent civil partnership etc.
        44 (1) Sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) apply if—

        (a) an order made under paragraph 2(1)(a) or Part 2 or 3 has, under paragraph 26(2), ceased to have effect because of the formation of a subsequent civil partnership or marriage by the party ("R") in whose favour it was made, and

        (b) the person liable to make payments under the order ("P") made payments in accordance with it in respect of a relevant period in the mistaken belief that the order was still subsisting.

        (2) "Relevant period" means a period after the date of the formation of the subsequent civil partnership or marriage.
        (3) No proceedings in respect of a cause of action arising out of the circumstances mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) is maintainable by P (or P's personal representatives) against R (or R's personal representatives).
        (4) But on an application made under this paragraph by P (or P's personal representatives) against R (or R's personal representatives) the court—

        (a) may order the respondent to an application made under this paragraph to pay to the applicant a sum equal to the amount of the payments made in respect of the relevant period, or

        (b) if it appears to the court that it would be unjust to make that order, may—

        (i) order the respondent to pay to the applicant such lesser sum as it thinks fit, or

        (ii) dismiss the application.

        (5) An order under this paragraph for the payment of any sum may provide for the payment of that sum by instalments of such amount as may be specified in the order.
        (6) An application under this paragraph—

        (a) may be made in proceedings in the High Court for leave to enforce, or in proceedings in the High Court or a court of summary jurisdiction for the enforcement of, the payment of arrears under an order made under paragraph 2(1)(a) or Part 2 or 3, but

        (b) if not made in such proceedings, must be made to a county court,

        and accordingly references in this paragraph to the court are references to the High Court or a county court or a court of summary jurisdiction, as the circumstances require.
        (7) The jurisdiction conferred on a county court by this paragraph is exercisable by a county court even though, because of the amount claimed in an application under this paragraph, the jurisdiction would not but for this sub-paragraph be exercisable by a county court.
        (8) A person dissatisfied with an order made by a county court in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by this paragraph or with the dismissal of any application instituted by him under the provisions of this paragraph shall be entitled to appeal from the order or from the dismissal as if the order or dismissal had been made in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Part 3 of the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/397 (N.I. 3)) and the appeal brought under Part 6 of that Order, and Articles 61 (cases stated by county court judge) and 62 (cases stated by High Court on appeal from county court) of that Order shall apply accordingly.
        (9) Subject to sub-paragraph (10), the collecting officer of a court of summary jurisdiction to whom any payments under an order made under paragraph 2(1)(a) or Part 2 or 3, or under an attachment of earnings order made to secure payments under the first-mentioned order, are required to be made is not liable—

        (a) for any act done by him in pursuance of the first-mentioned order after the date on which that order or a provision of it ceased to have effect because of the formation of a subsequent civil partnership or marriage by the person entitled to payments under it, and

        (b) for any act done by him after that date in accordance with any statutory provision specifying how payments made to him in compliance with the attachment of earnings order are to be dealt with.

        (10) Sub-paragraph (9) applies if (but only if) the act—

        (a) was one which he would have been under a duty to do had the order under paragraph 2(1)(a) or Part 2 or 3 not ceased to have effect, and

        (b) was done before notice in writing of the formation of the subsequent civil partnership or marriage was given to him by or on behalf of—

        (i) the person entitled to payments under the order,

        (ii) the person liable to make payments under it, or

        (iii) the personal representatives of either of them.

        (11) In this paragraph—
        "collecting officer" means the officer mentioned in Article 85(2) or (3) of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26)), and
        "statutory provision" has the meaning given by section HO of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c.33(N.1,)).

    PART 8
      SUPPLEMENTARY

        Restrictions on making of orders under this Schedule: welfare of children
        45 If—

        (a) an application is made by a civil partner for an order under Part 1, 2 or 3, and

        (b) there is a child of the family who is under 18,

        the court must not dismiss or make a final order on the application until it has decided whether to exercise any of its powers under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)) with respect to the child.

        Application of certain provisions of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980
        46 Articles 30 to 35 of the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I. 1980/563 (N.I. 5)) apply in relation to an order under this Schedule relating to a civil partnership as they apply in relation to an order under that Order relating to a marriage.

        Interpretation
        47 (1) In this Schedule "child of the family", in relation to two people who are civil partners of each other, means—

        (a) a child of both of them, and

        (b) any other child, other than a child placed with them as foster parents by an authority or a voluntary organisation, who has been treated by both the civil partners as a child of their family.

        (2) In sub-paragraph (1) "authority" and "voluntary organisation" have the same meaning as in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)).
        (3) References in this Schedule to a subsequent civil partnership include a civil partnership which is by law void or voidable.
        (4) References in this Schedule to a subsequent marriage include a marriage which is by law void or voidable."
        Before Schedule 14, insert the following new schedule—
        FINANCIAL RELIEF IN NORTHERN IRELAND AFTER OVERSEAS DISSOLUTION ETC. OF A CIVIL PARTNERSHIP

    PART 1
      FINANCIAL RELIEF

        Part applies where civil partnership has been dissolved etc. overseas
        1 (1) This Part of this Schedule applies where—

        (a) a civil partnership has been dissolved or annulled, or the civil partners have been legally separated, by means of judicial or other proceedings in an overseas country, and

        (b) the dissolution, annulment or legal separation is entitled to be recognised as valid in Northern Ireland.

        (2) This Part of this Schedule applies even if the date of the dissolution, annulment or legal separation is earlier than the date on which the Part comes into force.
        (3) In this Schedule "overseas country" means a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
        (4) In this Part of this Schedule "child of the family". means;—

        (a) a child of both of the civil partners, and

        (b) any other child, other than a child placed with them as foster parents or by an authority or voluntary organisation, who has been treated by both the civil partners as a child of their family.

        (5) In sub-paragraph (4) "authority" and "voluntary organisation" have the same meaning as in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2)).

        Either civil partner may make application for financial relief
        2 (1) Either of the civil partners may make an application to the court for an order under paragraph 9 or 13.
        (2) The rights conferred by sub-paragraph (1) are subject to—

        (a) paragraph 3 (civil partner may not apply after forming subsequent civil partnership etc.), and

        (b) paragraph 4 (application may not be made until leave to make it has been granted).

        (3) An application for an order under paragraph 9 or 13 must be made in a manner prescribed by rules of court.

        No application after formation of subsequent civil partnership or marriage
        3 (1) If—

        (a) the civil partnership has been dissolved or annulled, and

        (b) after the dissolution or annulment, one of the civil partners forms a subsequent civil partnership or marriage,

        GC 313
        that civil partner shall not be entitled to make, in relation to the civil partnership, an application for an order under paragraph 9 Or 13.
        (2) The reference in sub-paragraph (1) to the forming of a subsequent civil partnership or marriage includes a reference to the forming of a civil partnership or marriage which is by law void or voidable.

        Leave of court required for making of application
        4 (1) No application for an order under paragraph 9 or 13 shall be made unless the leave of the court has been obtained in accordance with rules of court.
        (2) The court shall not grant leave under this paragraph unless it considers that there is substantial ground for the making of an application for such an order.
        (3) The court may grant leave under this paragraph notwithstanding that an order has been made by a court in a country outside Northern Ireland requiring the other civil partner to make any payment, or transfer any property, to the applicant or to a child of the family.
        (4) Leave under this paragraph may be granted subject to such conditions as the court thinks fit.

        Interim orders for maintenance
        5 (1) Where—

        (a) leave is granted under paragraph 4, and

        (b) it appears to the court that the civil partner who applied for leave, or any child of the family, is in immediate need of financial assistance,

        the court may, subject to sub-paragraph (4), make an interim order for maintenance.
        (2) An interim order for maintenance is one requiring the other civil partner to make—

        (a) to the applicant, or

        (b) to the child,

        such periodical payments as the court thinks reasonable for such term as the court thinks reasonable.
        (3) The term must be one—

        (a) beginning not earlier than the date of the grant of leave, and

        (b) ending with the date of the determination of the application made under the leave.

        (4) If it appears to the court that the court will, in the event of an application being made under the leave, have jurisdiction to entertain the application only under paragraph 7(4), the court shall not make an interim order under this paragraph.
        (5) An interim order under this paragraph may be made subject to such conditions as the court thinks fit.

        Paragraphs 7 and 8 apply where application made for relief under paragraph 9 or 13
        6 Paragraphs 7 and 8 apply where—

        (a) one of the civil partners has been granted leave under paragraph 4, and

        (b) acting under the leave, that civil partner makes an application for an order under paragraph 9 or 13.

        Jurisdiction of the court
        7 (1) The court shall have jurisdiction to entertain the application only if one or more of the following jurisdictional requirements is satisfied.
        (2) The first requirement is that either of the civil partners—

        (a) was domiciled in Northern Ireland on the date when the leave was applied for, or

        (b) was domiciled in Northern Ireland on the date when the dissolution, annulment or legal separation took effect in the overseas country in which it was obtained.

        (3) The second is that either of the civil partners—

        (a) was habitually resident in Northern Ireland throughout the period of one year ending with the date when the leave was applied for, or

        (b) was habitually resident in Northern Ireland throughout the period of one year ending with the date on which the dissolution, annulment or legal separation took effect in the overseas country in which it was obtained.

        (4) The third is that either or both of the civil partners had, at the date when the leave was applied for, a beneficial interest in possession in a dwelling-house situated in Northern Ireland which was at some time during the civil partnership a civil partnership home of the civil partners.
        (5) In sub-paragraph (4) "possession" includes receipt of, or the right to receive, rents and profits, but here "rent" does not include mortgage interest.

        Duty of the court to consider whether Northern Ireland is appropriate venue for application
        8 (1) Before deciding the application, the court must consider whether in all the circumstances of the case it would be appropriate for an order of the kind applied for to be made by a court in Northern Ireland.
        (2) If the court is not satisfied that it would be appropriate, the court shall dismiss the application.
        (3) The court must, in particular, have regard to the following matters—

        (a) the connection which the civil partners have with Northern Ireland;

        (b) the connection which the civil partners have with the country in which the civil partnership was dissolved or annulled or in which they were legally separated;

        (c) the connection which the civil partners have with any other country outside Northern Ireland;

        (d) any financial benefit which, in consequence of the dissolution, annulment or legal separation—

        (i) the applicant, or

        (ii) a child of the family, has received, or is likely to receive, by virtue of any agreement or the operation of the law of a country outside Northern Ireland;

        (e) in case where an order has been made by a court in a country outside Northern Ireland requiring the other civil partner—

        (i) to make any payment, or

        (ii) to transfer any property,

        for the benefit of the applicant or a child of the family, the financial relief given by the order and the extent to which the order has been complied with or is likely to be complied with;

        (f) any right which the applicant has, or has had, to apply for financial relief from the other civil partner under the law of any country outside Northern Ireland and, if the applicant has omitted to exercise that right, the reason for that omission;

        (g) the availability in Northern Ireland of any property in respect of which an order under this Schedule in favour of the applicant could be made;

        (h) the extent to which any order made under this Schedule is likely to be enforceable;

        (i) the length of time which has elapsed since the date of the dissolution, annulment or legal separation.

        Orders for financial provision, property adjustment and pension sharing
        9 (1) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) apply where one of the civil partners has made an application for an order under this paragraph.
        (2) If the civil partnership has been dissolved or annulled, the court may on the application make any one or more of the orders which it could make under Part 1, 2 or 3 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) (financial provision, property adjustment and pension sharing) if a dissolution order or nullity order had been made in respect of the civil partnership under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of this Act.
        (3) If the civil partners have been legally separated, the court may on the application make any one or more of the orders which it could make under Part 1 or 2 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) (financial provision and property adjustment) if a separation order had been made in respect of the civil partners under Chapter 2 of Part 4 of this Act.
        (4) The powers under sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) are subject to paragraph 11.

        Matters to which court is to have regard in exercising its powers under paragraph 9
        10 (1) The court, in deciding—

        (a) whether to exercise its powers under paragraph 9, and

        (b) if so, in what way,

        must act in accordance with this paragraph.
        (2) The court must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, giving first consideration to the welfare, while under 18, of any child of the family who has not reached 18.
        (3) The court, in exercising its powers under paragraph 9 in relation to one of the civil partners—

        (a) must in particular have regard to the matters mentioned in paragraph 16(2) of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland), and

        (b) shall be under duties corresponding to those imposed by sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 18 of that Schedule (duties to consider termination of financial obligations) where it decides to exercise under paragraph 9 powers corresponding to the powers referred to in those sub-paragraphs.

        (4) The matters to which the court is to have regard under subparagraph (3)(a)—

        (a) so far as relating to paragraph 16(2)(a) of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) (regard to be had to financial resources), include any benefits under a pension arrangement which either of the civil partners has or is likely to have (whether or not in the foreseeable future), and

        (b) so far as relating to paragraph 16(2)(h) of that Schedule (regard to be had to benefits that cease to be acquirable), include any benefits under a pension arrangement which, because of the dissolution or annulment of the civil partnership, one of the civil partners will lose the chance of acquiring.

        (5) The court, in exercising its powers under paragraph 9 in relation to a child of the family, must in particular have regard to the matters mentioned in paragraph 17(2) of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland).
        (6) The court, in exercising its powers under paragraph 9 against a civil partner ("A") in favour of a child of the family who is not A's child, must also have regard to the matters mentioned in paragraph 17(3) of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland).
        (7) Where an order has been made by a court outside Northern Ireland for—

        (a) the making of payments, or

        (b) the transfer of property,

        by one of the civil partners, the court in considering in accordance with this paragraph the financial resources of the other civil partner, or of a child of the family, shall have regard to the extent to which that order has been complied with or is likely to be complied with.
        (8) In this paragraph—

        (a) "pension arrangement" has the same meaning as in Part 3 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland), and

        (b) references to benefit under a pension arrangement include any benefits by way of pension, whether under a pension arrangement or not.

        Restriction of powers under paragraph 9 where jurisdiction depends on civil partnership home in Northern Ireland
        11 (1) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) apply where the court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for an order under paragraph 9 only because a dwelling-house which was a civil partnership home of the civil partners is situated in Northern Ireland.
        (2) The court may make under paragraph 9 any one or more of the following orders (but no other)—

        (a) an order that one of the civil partners shall pay to the other a specified lump sum;

        (b) an order that one of the civil partners shall pay to a child of the family, or to a specified person for the benefit of a child of the family, a specified lump sum;

        (c) an order that one of the civil partners shall transfer that civil partner's interest in the dwelling-house, or a specified part of that interest—

        (i) to the other,

        (ii) to a child of the family, or

        (iii) to a specified person for the benefit of a child of the family;

        (d) an order that a settlement of the interest of one of the civil partners in the dwelling-house, or a specified part of that interest, be made to the satisfaction of the court for the benefit of any one or more of—

        (i) the other civil partner and the children of the family, or

        (ii) either or any of them;

        (e) an order varying for the benefit of any one or more of—

        (i) the civil partners and the children of the family, or

        (ii) either or any of them,

        a relevant settlement so far as that settlement relates to an interest in the dwelling-house;

        (f) an order extinguishing or reducing the interest of either of the civil partners under a relevant settlement so far as that interest is an interest in the dwelling-house;

        (g) an order for the sale of the interest of one of the civil partners in the dwelling-house.

        (3) Where under paragraph 9 the court makes just one order for the payment of a lump sum by one of the civil partners, the amount of the lump sum must not exceed the amount specified in subparagraph (5).
        (4) Where under paragraph 9 the court makes two or more orders each of which is an order for the payment of a lump sum by the same civil partner, the total of the amounts of the lump sums must not exceed the amount specified in sub-paragraph (5).
        (5) That amount is—

        (a) if the interest of the paying civil partner in the dwelling-house is sold in pursuance of an order made under sub-paragraph (2)(g), the amount of the proceeds of sale of that interest after deducting from those proceeds any costs incurred in the sale of that interest;

        (b) if that interest is not so sold, the amount which in the opinion of the court represents the value of that interest.

        (6) Where the interest of one of the civil partners in the dwelling-house is held jointly or in common with any other person or persons—

        (a) the reference in sub-paragraph (2)(g) to the interest of one of the civil partners shall be construed as including a reference to the interest of that other person, or the interest of those other persons, in the dwelling-house, and

        (b) the reference in sub-paragraph (5)(a) to the amount of the proceeds of a sale ordered under sub-paragraph (2)(g) shall be construed as a reference to that part of those proceeds which is attributable to the interest of that civil partner in the dwelling-house.

        (7) In sub-paragraph (2)—
        "relevant settlement" means a settlement made, during the subsistence of the civil partnership or in anticipation of its formation, on the civil partners, including one made by will or codicil;
        "specified" means specified in the order.

        Consent orders under paragraph 9
        12 (1) On an application for a consent order under paragraph 9, the court may make an order in the terms agreed on the basis only of the prescribed information furnished with the application.
        (2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the court has reason to think that there are other circumstances into which it ought to inquire.
        (3) Sub-paragraph (1) applies to an application for a consent order varying or discharging an order under paragraph 9 as it applies to an application for such an order.
        (4) Sub-paragraph (1) applies despite paragraph 10.
        (5) In this paragraph—
        "consent order", in relation to an application for an order, means an order in the terms applied for to which the respondent agrees;
        "prescribed" means prescribed by rules of court.

        Orders for transfers of tenancies of dwelling-houses
        13 (1) This paragraph applies if—

        (a) an application is made by one of the civil partners for an order under this paragraph, and

        (b) one of the civil partners is entitled, either in his own right or jointly with the other civil partner, to occupy a dwelling-house in Northern Ireland by virtue of a tenancy which is a tenancy mentioned in Schedule 2 to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1071 (N.I. 6)).

        (2) The court may make in relation to that dwelling-house any order which it could make under Part 2 of that Schedule (order transferring tenancy or switching statutory tenants) if it had power to make a property adjustment order under Part 2 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) to this Act with respect to the civil partnership.
        (3) The provisions of paragraphs 9, 10 and 13(1) of Schedule 2 to the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (payments by transferee, pre-transfer liabilities and
        GC 318
        right of landlord to be heard) apply in relation to any order under this paragraph as they apply to any order under Part 2 of that Schedule.

        Application to orders under paragraphs 5 and 9 of provisions of Schedule ( Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland)
        14 (1) The following provisions of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) apply in relation to an order made under paragraph 5 or 9 of this Schedule as they apply in relation to a like order made under that Schedule—

        (a) paragraph 3(1) to (3) and (7) (lump sums);

        (b) paragraphs 12, 13 and 14(2) to (4) (pension sharing);

        (c) paragraphs 20 and 21 (orders under Part 1 relating to pensions);

        (d) paragraphs 34(1) to (4) and (6) and 36 (duration of orders);

        (e) paragraphs 37 to 39 and 42 to 47, except paragraph 37(1)(g) (variation etc. of orders);

        (f) paragraphs 48 to 50 (arrears and repayments);

        (g) paragraphs 63 to 66 (drafting of instruments, bankruptcy, mental disorder, and pension-sharing appeals).

        (2) Sub-paragraph (1)(d) does not apply where the court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for an order under paragraph 9 only because a dwelling-house which was a civil partnership home of the civil partners is situated in Northern Ireland.
        (3) Paragraph 22 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) (change of pension arrangement under which rights are shared) applies in relation to an order made under paragraph 9 of this Schedule by virtue of subparagraph (1)(d) as it applies to an order made under Part 1 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) by virtue of paragraph 20 to 21 of that Schedule.
        (4) The Lord Chancellor may by regulations make for the purposes of this Schedule provision corresponding to any provision which may be made by him under paragraph 23(1) to (3) of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) (supplementary provision about orders relating to pensions under Part 1 of that Schedule).
        (5) The power to make regulations under this paragraph is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).
        (6) Regulations under this paragraph are subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament in the same manner as a statutory instrument; and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies accordingly.

        Avoidance of transactions designed to defeat claims under paragraphs 5 and 9
        15 (1) Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) apply where one of the civil partners ("A") is granted leave under paragraph 4 to make an application for an order under paragraph 9.
        (2) If the court is satisfied, on application by A, that the other civil partner ("B") is, with the intention of defeating a claim by A, about to—

        (a) make any disposition, or

        (b) transfer out of the jurisdiction, or otherwise deal with, any property,

        it may make such order as it thinks fit for restraining B from doing so or otherwise for protecting the claim.
        (3) If the court is satisfied, on application by A—

        (a) that the other civil partner ("B") has, with the intention of defeating a claim by A, made a reviewable disposition, and

        (b) that, if the disposition were set aside—

        (i) financial relief under paragraph 5 or 9, or

        (ii) different financial relief under paragraph 5 or 9, would be granted to A,

        it may make an order setting aside the disposition.
        (4) If—

        (a) an order under paragraph 5 or 9 has been made by the court at the instance of one of the civil partners ("A"), and

        (b) the court is satisfied, on application by A, that the other civil partner ("B") has, with the intention of defeating a claim by A, made a reviewable disposition,

        the court may make an order setting aside the disposition.
        (5) Where the court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for an order under paragraph 9 only under paragraph 7(4), it shall not make any order under sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) in respect of any property other than the dwelling-house concerned.
        (6) Where the court makes an order under sub-paragraph (3) or (4) setting aside a disposition, it shall give such consequential directions as it thinks fit for giving effect to the order (including directions requiring the making of any payments or the disposal of any property).
        (7) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), but subject to sub-paragraph) (8), any disposition made by B is a reviewable disposition" (whether made before or after the commencement of A's application under that sub-paragraph).
        (8) A disposition made by B is not a reviewable disposition for those purposes if made for valuable consideration (other than formation of a civil partnership) to a person who, at the time of the disposition, acted in relation to it in good faith and without notice of any intention on the part of B to defeat A's claim.
        (9) A reference in this paragraph to defeating a claim by one of the civil partners is a reference to—

        (a) preventing financial relief being granted, or reducing the amount of financial relief which might be granted, under paragraph 5 or 9 at the instance of that civil partner, or

        (b) frustrating or impeding the enforcement of any order which might be, or has been, made under paragraph 5 or 9 at the instance of that civil partner.

        Presumptions for the purposes of paragraph 15
        16 (1) Sub-paragraph (3) applies where—

        (a) an application is made under paragraph 15(2) or (3) by one of the civil partners with respect to—

        (i) a disposition which took place less than 3 years before the date of the application, or

        (ii) a disposition or other dealing with property which is about to take place, and

        (b) the court is satisfied that the disposition or other dealing would (apart from paragraph 15 and this paragraph of this Schedule) have the consequence of defeating a claim by the applicant.

        (2) Sub-paragraph (3) also applies where—

        (a) an application is made under paragraph 15(4) by one of the civil partners with respect to a disposition which took place less than 3 years before the date of the application, and

        (b) the court is satisfied that the disposition has had the consequence of defeating a claim by the applicant.

        (3) It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that the person who—

        (a) disposed of, or

        (b) is about to dispose of or deal with the property,

        did so, or (as the case may be) is about to do so, with the intention of defeating the applicant's claim.
        (4) A reference in this paragraph to defeating a claim by one of the civil partners has the meaning given by paragraph 15(9).

    PART 2
      STEPS TO PREVENT AVOIDANCE PRIOR TO APPLICATION FOR LEAVE UNDER PARAGRAPH 4

        Prevention of transactions intended to defeat prospective claims under paragraphs 5 and 9
        17 (1) If it appears to the court, on application by one of the persons ("A") who formed a civil partnership—

        (a) that the civil partnership has been dissolved or annulled, or that the civil partners have been legally separated, by means of judicial or other proceedings in an overseas country,

        (b) that A intends to apply for leave to make an application for an order under paragraph 9 as soon as he or she has been habitually residence in Northern Ireland for the period of one year, and

        (c) that the other civil partner ("B") is, with the intention of defeating A's claim, about to—

        (i) make any disposition, or

        (ii) transfer out of the jurisdiction, or otherwise deal with, any property,

        the court may make such order as it thinks fit for restraining B from taking such action as is mentioned in paragraph (c).
        (2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies even if the date of the dissolution, annulment or legal separation is earlier than the date on which that sub-paragraph comes into force.
        (3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies where—

        (a) an application is made under sub-paragraph (1) with respect to—

        (i) a disposition which took place less than 3 years before the date of the application, or

        (ii) a disposition or other dealing with property which is about to take place, and

        (b) the court is satisfied that the disposition or other dealing would (apart from this paragraph of this Schedule) have the consequence of defeating a claim by the applicant.

        (4) It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that the person who—

        (a) disposed of, or

        (b) is about to dispose of or deal with the property,

        did so, or (as the case may be) is about to do so, with the intention of defeating the applicant's claim.
        (5) A reference in this paragraph to defeating a person's claim is a reference to preventing financial relief being granted, or reducing the amount of financial relief which might be granted, under paragraph 5 or 9 at the instance of that person.

    PART 3
      SUPPLEMENTARY

        Paragraphs 15 to 17: meaning of "disposition" and saving
        18 (1) In paragraphs 15 to 17 "disposition" does not include any provision contained in a will or codicil but, with that exception, includes any conveyance, assurance or gift of property of any description, whether made by an instrument or otherwise.
        (2) The provisions of paragraphs 15 to 17 are without prejudice to any power of the court to grant injunctions under section 91 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23).

        Interpretation of Schedule
        19 In this Schedule—
        "the court" means the High Court;
        "dwelling-house" includes—

        (a) any building, or part of a building, which is occupied as a dwelling, and

        (b) any yard, garden, garage or outhouse belonging to, and occupied with, the dwelling-house;

        "overseas country" has the meaning given by paragraph 1(3)."
        Before Schedule 14, insert the following new schedule—

      HOUSING AND TENANCIES: NORTHERN IRELAND

        Rent ( Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I 1978/1050 (N.I. 20))
        1 In Article 14 (extended discretion of court), in paragraph (2), after "spouse" (in both places) insert "or civil partner".
        2 (1) Amend Schedule 1 (statutory tenants by succession) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph 2, after "surviving spouse" insert ", or surviving civil partner,".
        (3) In paragraph 7, after "surviving spouse" insert ", or surviving civil partner,".
        3 In Schedule 4 (grounds for possession), in Case 3 in Part 1 (dwelling-house required as residence for landlord or member of his family), in paragraph (d), for "wife or husband" substitute "spouse or civil partner".

        Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I 1981/156 (N.I. 3))
        4 (1) Amend Article 2A (meaning of member of a person's family) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (1)(a)—

        (a) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and

        (b) after "live together as husband and wife" insert "or as if they were civil partners".

        (3) In paragraph (2)(a), after "a relationship by marriage" insert "or civil partnership".

        Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 [H.L.]983/1118 (N.I. 15))
        5 (1) In Article 24 (interpretation), amend paragraph (3) (meaning of member of another's family) as follows.
        (2) After "spouse" insert ", civil partner".
        (3) After "marriage" insert "or civil partnership".
        (4) After "live together as husband and wife" insert "or as if they were civil partners".
        6 (1) Amend Article 26 (succession on death of tenant) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (2)(a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
        (3) In paragraph (3)(a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
        (4) In paragraph (4), for "paragraph (4A)" substitute "paragraphs (4A) and (4B)".
        (5) After paragraph (4A) insert—
        "(4B) A tenant to whom the tenancy was assigned in pursuance of an order under any of the following provisions of the Civil Partnership Act 2004—

        (a) Part 2 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland); or

        (b) paragraph 9(2) or (3) of Schedule (Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership),

        is a successor only if the other civil partner was a successor."
        7 In Article 32 (assignments), in paragraph (1), after sub-paragraph (a) insert—
        "(aa) the assignment is made in pursuance of an order made under Part 2 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland), or paragraph 9(2) or (3) of Schedule (Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership), to the Civil Partnership Act 2004; or".
        8 In Article 33 (other disposals), in paragraph (2), after sub-paragraph (a) insert—
        "(aa) the vesting or other disposal is in pursuance of an order made under Part 2 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland), or paragraph 9(2) or (3) of Schedule (Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership), to the Civil Partnership Act 2004; or".
        9 In Article 94 (subletting or assignment), in paragraph (2), after "1978" insert "or Part 2 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland), or paragraph 9(2) or (3) of Schedule (Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership), to the Civil Partnership Act 2004".
        10 In Schedule 3 (grounds for possession of dwelling-houses let under secure tenancies), in Ground 2A—

        (a) for "a married couple or" substitute "a married couple, a couple who are civil partners of each other", and

        (b) after "as husband and wife" insert "or a couple living together as if they were civil partners".

        Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 ( S.I. 2003/412 (N.I. 2))
        11 (1) Amend Article 3 (meaning of a person's family) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (1)(a)—

        (a) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and

        (b) after "live together as husband and wife" insert "or as if they were civil partners".

        (3) In paragraph (2)(a), after "a relationship by marriage" insert "or civil partnership".
        12 In Article 13 (persons qualified to succeed tenant under an introductory tenancy), in paragraph (a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
        13 Article 14 (cases where tenant is a successor), in paragraph (2), after sub-paragraph (c) insert—
        "(d) Part 2 of Schedule (Financial relief in die High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland), or paragraph 9(2) or (3) of Schedule (Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership), to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (property adjustment orders in connection with civil partnership proceedings or after overseas dissolution of civil partnership, etc.),".
        14 (1) Amend Article 15 (persons qualified to succeed tenant under an introductory tenancy) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (2)(a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
        (3) In paragraph (3)(a), after head (iv) insert—
        "(v) Part 2 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland), or paragraph 9(2) or (3) of Schedule (Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership), to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (property adjustment orders in connection with civil partnership proceedings or after overseas dissolution of civil partnership, etc.),".
        15 Article 16 (assignment in general prohibited), in paragraph (2)(a), after head (iv) insert—
        "(v) Part 2 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland), or paragraph 9(2) or (3) of Schedule (Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership), to the Civil

        GC 323
        Partnership Act 2004 (property adjustment orders in connection with civil partnership proceedings or after overseas dissolution of civil partnership, etc.),".
        16 In Article 28 (interpretation of Part 3), in the definition of "partner"—

        (a) after "spouse" (in both places) insert "or civil partner", and

        (b) after "husband or wife" insert "or as if they were civil partners"."

        Before Schedule 14, insert the following new schedule—

    FAMILY HOMES AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: NORTHERN IRELAND
      PART 1

        AMENDMENTS OF THE FAMILY HOMES AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER (S.I. 1998/1071 (N.I. 6)
        1 (1) Amend Article 2 (interpretation) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (2), after the definition of "health" insert—
        ""home rights" has the meaning given by Article 4;".
        (3) In the definition of "matrimonial charge" in that paragraph, after "matrimonial" insert "or civil partnership".
        (4) Omit the definition of "matrimonial home rights" in that paragraph.
        (5) In the definition of "relative" in that paragraph—

        (a) in paragraphs (a) and (b) for "spouse or former spouse" substitute "spouse, former spouse, civil partner or former civil partner", and

        (b) after "were married to each other" inset "or were civil partners of each other".

        (6) After paragraph (2)(g) insert—
        "(h) the Civil Partnership Act 2004."
        (7) In paragraph (7), after "matrimonial" insert "or civil partnership".
        2 (1) Amend Article 3 (meaning of "cohabitees", "relevant child" and "associated persons") as follows.
        (2) For paragraph (1)(a) substitute—
        (a) ""cohabitees" are two persons who are neither married to each other nor civil partners of each other but are living together as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners;".
        (3) In paragraph (1)(b), after "have subsequently married each other" insert "or become civil partners of each other".
        (4) After paragraph (3)(a) insert—
        "(aa) they are or have been civil partners of each other;".
        (5) After paragraph (3)(e) insert—
        "(eza) they have entered into a civil partnership agreement (as defined by section (Civil partnership agreements unenforceable) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004) (whether or not that agreement has been terminated);".
        3 (1) Amend Article 4 (rights concerning matrimonial home where one spouse has no estate, etc.) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (1)—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (a)—

        (i) after "one spouse" insert "or civil partner ("A")", and

        (ii) for "that spouse" substitute "A",

        (b) in sub-paragraph (b), after "other spouse" insert "or civil partner ("B")".

        (3) In paragraph (2)—

        (a) for "the spouse not so entitled" substitute "B",

        (b) for "("matrimonial home rights")" substitute "("home rights")", and

        GC 324

        (c) in sub-paragraph (a), for "the other spouse" substitute "A".

        (4) In paragraph (3)—

        (a) for "a spouse" and for "that spouse" substitute "B", and

        (b) for "the other spouse" (in both places) substitute "A".

        (5) In paragraph (4)—

        (a) for "A spouse's" substitute "B's",

        (b) in sub-paragraph (a), for "by the other spouse as the other spouse's" substitute "by A as A's", and

        (c) in sub-paragraph (b)—

        (i) for "the spouse occupies the dwelling-house as that spouse's" substitute "B occupies the dwelling-house as B's", and

        (ii) for "by the other spouse as the other spouse's" substitute "by A as A's".

        (6) In paragraph (5)—

        (a) for "a spouse ("the first spouse")" substitute "B", and

        (b) in sub-paragraph (b), for "the other spouse ("the second spouse")" substitute "A",

        (c) for "the second spouse" (in both places) substitute "A", and

        (d) for "the first spouse" substitute "B".

        (7) In paragraph (6)—

        (a) for "a spouse" substitute "B", and

        (b) for "the other spouse" (in both places) substitute "A".

        (8) In paragraph (7), for the words from first "which" to the end substitute "which—

        (a) in the case of spouses, has at no time been, and was at no time intended by them to be, a matrimonial home of theirs; and

        (b) in the case of civil partners, has at no time been, and was at no time intended by them to be, a civil partnership home of theirs."

        (9) In paragraph (8)—

        (a) for "A spouse's matrimonial home rights" substitute "B's home rights",

        (b) in sub-paragraph (a), after "marriage" insert "or civil partnership", and

        (c) in sub-paragraph (b), for "the other spouse" substitute "A".

        (10) In paragraph (9)—

        (a) for "a spouse" substitute "a person",

        (b) for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights", and

        (c) after "spouses" insert "or civil partners".

        (11) In the heading to Article 4, for "matrimonial home where one spouse" substitute "home where one spouse or civil partner" and, in the preceding cross-heading, after "matrimonial" insert "or civil partnership".
        4 (1) Amend Article 5 (effect of matrimonial home rights as charge on dwelling-house) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (1), for "marriage, one spouse" substitute "marriage or civil partnership, A".
        (3) In paragraph (2), for "The other spouse's matrimonial home rights" substitute "B's home rights".
        (4) In paragraph (3)—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (a), for "the spouse so entitled" substitute "A", and

        (b) in sub-paragraph (b), after "marriage" insert 'or of the formation of the civil partnership".

        (5) In paragraph (4)—

        (a) for "a spouse's matrimonial home rights" substitute "B's home rights",

        (b) for "the other spouse" substitute "A", and

        (c) for "either of the spouses" substitute "A or B".

        (6) In paragraph (5), for "the other spouse" substitute "A".
        (7) In paragraph (6), for "the spouses" substitute "A and B".
        (8) In paragraph (7)—

        (a) for "a spouse's matrimonial home rights" substitute "B's home rights",

        (b) in sub-paragraph (a), for "the other spouse" substitute "A", and

        (c) in sub-paragraph (b), after "marriage" insert "or civil partnership".

        (9) In paragraph (8)—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (a), for "a spouse's matrimonial home rights" substitute "B's home rights", and

        (b) for "the other spouse" (in both places) substitute "A".

        (10) In the heading to Article 5, for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights".
        5 (1) Amend Article 6 (registration, etc. of matrimonial charge) as follows.
        (2) In paragraphs (1), (3), (4), (5) and (6), after "matrimonial" insert "or civil partnership".
        (3) In the heading to Article 6, after "matrimonial" insert "or civil partnership".
        6 (1) Amend Article 7 (restriction on registration where spouse entitled to more than one matrimonial charge) as follows.
        (2) In paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
        (3) In paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4), after "matrimonial" (in each place) insert "or civil partnership".
        (4) In paragraph (3), for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights".
        (5) In the heading to Article 7, after "matrimonial" insert "or civil partnership".
        7 (1) Amend Article 8 (cancellation of registration of matrimonial charge before completion of disposal of dwelling-house) as follows.
        (2) In paragraphs (1) and (2), after "matrimonial" insert "or civil partnership".
        (3) In the heading to Article 8, after "matrimonial" insert "or civil partnership".
        8 (1) Amend Article 9 (cancellation of registration after termination of marriage, etc.) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (1), for "matrimonial charge" substitute "matrimonial or civil partnership charge".
        (3) In paragraphs (1)(a), (2)(a) and (b) and (3), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
        (4) In paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(a) and (4), after "marriage" (in each place) insert "or civil partnership".
        (5) In paragraphs (1)(c), (2), (3) and (4), after "matrimonial" (in each place) insert "or civil partnership".
        (6) In paragraph (1)(c), for "spouse's matrimonial home rights" substitute "spouse's or civil partner's home rights".
        (7) In the heading to Article 9, after "marriage" insert "or civil partnership".
        9 (1) Amend Article 10 (release of matrimonial home rights and postponement of priority of matrimonial charge) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (1), for "spouse entitled to matrimonial home rights" substitute "spouse or civil partner entitled to home rights".
        (3) In paragraphs (2) and (3), for "matrimonial charge" (in each place) substitute "matrimonial or civil partnership charge".
        (4) In paragraph (2), for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights".
        (5) In paragraph (3), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
        (6) In the heading to Article 10, after "matrimonial" (in each place) insert "or civil partnership".
        10 (1) Amend Article 11 (occupation orders where applicant has estate or interest etc. or has matrimonial home rights) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (1)(a)(ii), for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights".
        (3) After paragraph (2) insert—
        "(2A) If a civil partnership agreement (within the meaning of the Civil Partnership Act 2004) is terminated, no application under this Article may be made by virtue of Article 3(3)(eza) by reference to that agreement after the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which it is terminated."
        (4) In paragraph (3)(f)—

        (a) for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights", and

        (b) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".

        (5) In paragraph (4), for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights".
        (6) In paragraph (5)—

        (a) for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights",

        (b) after "is the other spouse" insert "or civil partner",

        (c) after "during the marriage" insert "or civil partnership",

        (d) in sub-paragraph (a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and

        (e) in sub-paragraph (b), after "marriage" insert "or civil partnership".

        (7) In the heading to Article 11, for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights".
        11 In Article 12 (effect of order under Article 11 where rights are charge on dwelling-house), in paragraph (1)—

        (a) for "a spouse's matrimonial home rights" substitute "B's home rights", and

        (b) for "the other spouse" (in each place) substitute "A".

        12 (1) Amend Article 13 (one former spouse with no existing right to occupy) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (1)(a) and (b), after "former spouse" insert "or former civil partner".
        (3) For paragraph (1)(c) substitute—
        "(c) the dwelling house—

        (i) in the case of former spouses, was at any time their matrimonial home or was at any time intended by them to be their matrimonial home, or

        (ii) in the case of former civil partners, was at any time their civil partnership home or was at any time intended by them to be their civil partnership home."

        (4) In paragraph (2), after "former spouse" (in both places) insert "or former civil partner".
        (5) In paragraph (6)(f), after "marriage" insert "or civil partnership".
        (6) After paragraph (6)(g)(i), insert—
        "(ia) for a property adjustment order under Part 2 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) to the Civil Partnership Act 2004;".
        (7) In paragraph (9)(a), after "former spouses" insert "or former civil partners".
        (8) In paragraphs (11) and (12), after "former spouse" insert "or former civil partner".
        (9) For paragraph (13)(a) and (b) substitute—
        "(a) as if he were B (the person entitled to occupy the dwelling-house by virtue of that Article); and
        (b) as if the respondent were A (the person entitled as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) of that Article)."
        (10) In the heading to Article 13, after "former spouse" insert "or former civil partner".
        13 In Article 14 (one cohabitee or former cohabitee with no existing right to occupy), for paragraph (13)(a) and (b) substitute—
        "(a) as if he were B (the person entitled to occupy the dwelling-house by virtue of that Article); and
        (b) as if the respondent were A (the person entitled as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) of that Article)."
        14 (1) Amend Article 15 (neither spouse entitled to occupy) as follows.
        (2) After paragraph (1) insert—
        "(1A) This article also applies if—

        (a) one civil partner or former civil partner and the other civil partner or former civil partner occupy a dwelling-house which is or was the civil partnership home; but

        (b) neither of them is entitled to remain in occupation—

        (i) by virtue of a beneficial estate or contract; or

        (ii) by virtue of any statutory provision giving him the right to remain in occupation."

        (3) In paragraph (3)(c), for "spouses" substitute "parties".
        (4) In the heading to Article 15, after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
        15 In Article 20 (non-molestation orders), after paragraph (4) insert—
        "(4ZA) If a civil partnership agreement (within the meaning of the Civil Partnership Act 2004) is terminated, no application under this Article may be made by virtue of Article 3(3)(eza) by reference to that agreement after the end of the period of three years beginning with the day on which it is terminated."
        16 (1) In Article 22 (evidence of agreement to marry), after paragraph (2) insert—
        "(3) Subject to paragraph (4), the court shall not make an order under Article 11 or 20 by virtue of Article 3(3)(eza) unless there is produced to it evidence in writing of the existence of the civil partnership agreement (within the meaning of the Civil Partnership Act 2004).
        (4) Paragraph (3) does not apply if the court is satisfied that the civil partnership agreement was evidenced by—

        (a) a gift by one party to the agreement to the other as a token of the agreement, or

        (b) a ceremony entered into by the parties in the presence of one or more other persons assembled for the purpose of witnessing the ceremony."

        (2) In the heading to Article 22, after "marry" insert "or form a civil partnership".
        17 In Article 24 (variation and discharge of orders), in paragraph (3)—

        (a) for "a spouse's matrimonial home rights are" substitute "B's home rights are, under Article 12,", and

        (b) for "the other spouse" (in each place) substitute "A".

        18 (1) Amend Article 31 (dwelling-house subject to mortgage) as follows.
        (2) In paragraphs (3)(a) and (4), for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights".
        (3) In paragraph (5), after "spouse, former spouse" insert ", civil partner, former civil partner".
        19 (1) Amend Article 33 (actions by mortgages: service of notice on certain persons) as follows.
        (2) In paragraphs (1) and (2), after "matrimonial" insert "or civil partnership".
        20 (1) Amend Article 39 (appeals) as follows.
        (2) At the end of paragraph (2)(b) insert "or

        (c) where the county court is a civil partnership proceedings county court exercising jurisdiction under the Civil Partnership Act 2004."

        (3) At the end of paragraph (6) insert "or a civil partnership proceedings county court exercising jurisdiction under the Civil Partnership Act 2004 in the same proceedings".
        21 (1) Amend Schedule 2 (transfer of certain tenancies on divorce etc. or on separation of cohabitees) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph 1(2), before the definition of "cohabitee" insert—
        ""civil partner", except in paragraph 2, includes where the context requires) former civil partner;".
        (3) In paragraph 2(1), after "spouse" (in both places) insert "or civil partner".
        (4) For paragraph 2(2) substitute—
        "(2) The court may make a Part II order—

        (a) on granting a decree of divorce, a decree of nullity of marriage or a decree of judicial separation or at any time thereafter (whether, in the case of a decree of divorce or nullity of marriage, before or after the decree is made absolute), or

        (b) at any time when it has power to make a property adjustment order under Part 2 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 with respect to the civil partnership."

        (5) In paragraph 2(3), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
        (6) Omit "or" at the end of paragraph 4(1)(a) and insert—
        "(aa) in the case of civil partners, a civil partnership home; or".
        (7) In paragraph 5(a), after "spouses" insert ", civil partners".
        (8) In paragraph 6, after "spouse" (in both places) insert", civil partner".
        (9) In paragraph 7(1) and (2), after "spouse" (in each place) insert", civil partner".
        (10) For paragraph 7(3) substitute—
        "(3) If the spouse, civil partner or cohabitee so entitled is a successor within the meaning of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (S.I. 1983/1118 (N.I. 15))—

        (a) his former spouse (or, in the case of judicial separation, his spouse),

        (b) his former civil partner (or, if a separation order is in force, his civil partner), or

        (c) his former cohabitee,

        is to be deemed also to be a successor within the meaning of that Chapter."

        (11) In paragraph 8(1) and (2)(a) and (b), after "spouse" insert ", civil partner".
        (12) In paragraph 8(3), after "widower" insert "or surviving civil partner".
        (13) In paragraph 9(1) (in both places), after "spouse" insert ", civil partner".
        (14) In paragraph 10(1), after "spouses" insert ", civil partners".
        (15) In paragraph 10(2), after "spouse" insert ", civil partner".
        (16) For paragraph 11 and the heading preceding it, substitute—

        Date when order made between spouses or civil partners takes effect
        11 The date specified in a Part II order as the date on which the order is to take effect must not be earlier than—

        (a) in the case of a marriage in respect of which a decree of divorce or nullity has been granted, the date on which the decree is made absolute;

        (b) in the case of a civil partnership in respect of which a dissolution or nullity order has been made, the date on which the order is made final."

        (17) For paragraph 12 and the heading preceding it substitute—

        Effect of remarriage or subsequent civil partnership
        12 (1) If after the grant of a decree dissolving or annulling a marriage either spouse remarries or forms a civil partnership, that spouse is not entitled to apply, by reference to the grant of that decree, for a Part II order.
        (2) If after the making of a dissolution or nullity order either civil partner forms a subsequent civil partnership or marries, that civil partner is not entitled to apply, by reference to the making of that order, for a Part II order.
        (3) In sub-paragraphs (1) and (2)—

        (a) the references to remarrying and marrying, include references to cases where the marriage is by law void or voidable, and

        (b) the references to forming a civil partnership, include references to cases where the civil partnership is by law void or voidable."

        (18) In paragraph 14(1)—

        (a) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and

        (b) for "spouse's matrimonial home rights" substitute "spouse's or civil partner's home rights".

        (19) In paragraph 14(2), after "spouse" insert ", civil partner".

    PART 2
      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
        Land Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 18)
        22 In Part 1 of Schedule 6 (registration of certain burdens), in paragraph 14A for "matrimonial charge (within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 or" substitute "matrimonial or civil partnership charge".
        Registration of Deeds Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 25)
        23 In section 4(4A), for "matrimonial charge (within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 or" substitute "matrimonial or civil partnership charge".

        Land Acquisition and Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 (S.I. 1973/1896 ( N.I. 21))
        24 (1) Amend Article 30A (spouses having statutory rights of occupation) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (1)—

        (a) for "one spouse ("A")" substitute "one spouse or civil partner ("A")", and

        (b) for "the other spouse ("B") acquires matrimonial home rights" substitute "the other spouse or civil partner ("B") acquires home rights".

        (3) In paragraph (2), for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights".
        (4) In the heading to Article 30A, after "spouses" insert "and civil partners".

        Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1050 (N.I. 20))
        25 (1) Amend Article 14 extended discretion of court in certain proceedings for possession) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (4A)(b), for "tenant's spouse or former spouse, having matrimonial home rights" substitute "tenant's spouse or former spouse, or civil partner or former civil partner, having home rights".
        (3) In paragraph (4B)—

        (a) after "the spouse or former spouse" insert ", or the civil partner or former civil partner,", and

        (b) for "those matrimonial home rights" substitute "those home rights".

        (4) In paragraph (4C)—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (b), for "former spouse of the tenant" substitute "former spouse or former civil partner of the tenant", and

        (b) in sub-paragraph (c) after "former spouse," insert "former civil partner,".

        (5) In paragraph (4D), after "former spouse," insert "former civil partner,".

        Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (S.I. 1983/1118 (N.I. 15))
        26 In Article 36(1)(d) (rent not to be increased on account of tenant's improvements), after "former spouse" insert "civil partner, former civil partner,".
        27 (1) Amend Article 47 (extended discretion of court in possession claims) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (5), for "tenant's spouse or former spouse, having matrimonial home rights" substitute "tenant's spouse or former spouse, or civil partner or former civil partner, having home rights".
        (3) In paragraph (6)—

        (a) after "the spouse or former spouse" insert ", or the civil partner or former civil partner", and

        (b) for "those matrimonial home rights" substitute "those home rights".

        (4) In paragraph (7)—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (b), for "former spouse of the tenant" substitute "former spouse or former civil partner of the tenant",

        (b) in sub-paragraph (c), after "former spouse" insert "former civil partner".

        (5) In paragraph (8) after "former spouse," insert "former civil partner,".

        Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I 1989/2405 (N.I. 19))
        28 (1) Amend Article 309 (rights of occupation etc. of bankrupt's spouse) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (1), for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights".
        (3) In paragraph (2)—

        (a) for "a spouse's matrimonial home rights" substitute "a spouse's or civil partner's home rights", and

        (b) after "the other spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".

        (4) In paragraph (3) after "spouse or former spouse" insert "or civil partner or former civil partner".
        29 (1) Amend Article 310 (rights of occupation of bankrupt) as follows.
        (2) In paragraph (2), for "spouse (if any) has matrimonial home rights" substitute "spouse or civil partner (if any) has home rights".
        (3) In paragraph (3)—

        (a) in sub-paragraph (a), for "matrimonial home rights" substitute "home rights", and

        (b) in sub-paragraph (c), after "spouse" insert or "civil partner".

      PART 3

        TRANSITIONAL PROVISION
        30 (1) Any reference (however expressed) in any enactment, instrument or document (whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act)—

        (a) to rights of occupation under, or within the meaning of, Part II of the Family Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 (S.I. 1984/1984 (N.I. 14)), or

        (b) to matrimonial home rights under, or within the meaning of, the Family Homes and Domestic Violence (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (S.I. 1998/1071 (N.I. 6)),

        is to he construed, so far as is required for continuing the effect of the instrument or document, as being or as the case requires including a reference to home rights under, or within the meaning of, the 1998 Order as amended by this Schedule.

        (2) Any reference (however expressed) in the 1998 Order or in any other enactment, instrument or document (including any enactment amended by this Schedule) to home rights under, or within the meaning of, the 1998 Order is to be construed as including, in relation to times, circumstances and purposes before the commencement of this Schedule, references to rights of occupation under, or within the meaning of, Part II of the 1984 Order and to matrimonial home rights under, or within the meaning of. the 1998 Order without the amendments made by this Schedule.
        (3) Any reference (however expressed) in any enactment, instrument or document (whether passed or made before or after the passing of this Act) to a matrimonial charge under, or within the meaning of—

        (a) Article 5(1) of the 1984 Order, or

        (b) the 1998 Order,

        is to be construed, so far as is required for continuing the effect of the instrument or document, as being or as the case requires including a reference to a matrimonial or civil partnership charge under. or within the meaning of, the 1998 Order as amended by this Schedule.

        (4) Any reference (however expressed) in the 1998 Order or in any other enactment, instrument or document (including any enactment amended by this Schedule) to a matrimonial or civil partnership charge under, or within the meaning of, the 1998 Order is to be construed as including, in relation to times, circumstances and purposes before the commencement of this Schedule, references to a matrimonial charge under, or within the meaning of—

        (a) Article 5(1) of the 1984 Order, or

        (b) the 1998 Order."

        On Question, amendments agreed to.
        Schedule 14 agreed to.
        Clauses 154 and 155 agreed to.
        Clause 156 [The same-sex requirement]:
        [Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
        Clause 156 agreed to.
        Clause 157 [Person domiciled in a part of the United Kingdom]:
        [Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
        Clause 157 agreed to.
        Clause 158 [The public policy exception]:
        On Question, Whether Clause 158 shall stand part of the Bill?
        Lord Henley: I understand that this is to be the last Question that we shall deal with today before we move to social security matters next week. As it is the last Question, I apologise to the Committee for speaking at this late hour and assure the noble Baroness that I will be brief.
        The clause concerns the public policy exception and provides that:
        "Two people are not to be treated as having formed a civil partnership as a result of having entered into an overseas relationship if it would be manifestly contrary to public policy to recognise the capacity, under the relevant law, of one or both of them to enter into the relationship".
        I am simply curious what situations the clause would cover and what the Government envisage would happen if such an event took place.
        Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My understanding is that this is equivalent to the public policy exception for a marriage, especially foreign marriage, and does not add more than that. It is obviously necessary in very exceptional cases for there to be such an exception.
        Baroness Crawley: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, Lord Henley, by setting out where we see the clause appertaining. The clause provides that an overseas relationship cannot be treated as a civil partnership if it is manifestly contrary to public policy to recognise the capacity of either or both parties to enter into the relationship. The exception applies only to the capacity of the parties to enter into the relationship—known in legal terms as essential validity. It does not affect the procedures for registering the overseas relationship—known in legal terms as formal validity—which will be governed solely by the law of the overseas country or territory.
        Wherever possible, we have aimed to ensure that the Bill provides certainty about which overseas relationships are treated as civil partnerships in the UK. For example, there are provisions in this chapter which ensure that no overseas relationship can be treated as a civil partnership if the parties are not of the same sex, or if either of them is already a civil partner or lawfully married.
        However, there are also other areas where we cannot guarantee that other countries' rules will always exactly match those applying in the UK. For example, other countries may have slightly different approaches to prohibited degrees than is the case in the UK, or may have different rules as to mental capacity. These are aspects of detail where different jurisdictions may legitimately have different views. Where neither of the parties was domiciled in the UK, a degree of flexibility is appropriate when considering whether compliance with UK rules is required before the overseas relationship can be treated as a civil partnership here.
        The appropriate means of ensuring such flexibility is a public policy exception, similar to that which the courts have developed for equivalent issues in relation

        GC 333
        to overseas marriages. Such an exception enables the courts to decide that it is contrary to public policy to give effect to a capacity which exists under the relevant foreign law.
        The definition of when it would be manifestly contrary to public policy to recognise a capacity that exists under the relevant law is clearly something that the courts are best placed to determine. In doing so, they would no doubt apply a similar approach to that which has been taken to similar issues in marriage cases. We are satisfied that the clause gives the courts sufficient power to ensure that, for example, we do not find ourselves treating as civil partnerships overseas relationships between close relatives or people significantly under the age of 16.
        Lord Henley: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for answering, and also for the support that he got from the Minister. I think I understood what the noble Baroness had to say. I shall end with just one question. Should I take it that that
        GC 334
        would mean that if we were dealing with polygamous unions in another country, they would be felt to be manifestly contrary to public policy?
        Baroness Crawley: My advice is that it would be for the court to decide, but that would be most likely.
        Clause 158 agreed to.
        Clause 159 [Power to make provision corresponding to EC Regulation 2201/2003]
        Baroness Crawley moved Amendments Nos. 65A and 65B:
        Page 77, line 26, after "Wales" insert "or Northern Ireland"
        Page 77, line 33, after "Wales" insert "or Northern Ireland"
        On Question, amendments agreed to.
        Clause 159, as amended, agreed to.
        Baroness Crawley: Perhaps this would be an appropriate moment for the Committee to adjourn until Tuesday 25 May at 3.30 p.m.
        The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday 25 May at 3.30 p.m.
        The Committee adjourned at two minutes past five o'clock.

  Electoral Roll
  Electoral Roll
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Cross-Border Issues
  Cross-Border Issues
  North/South Ministerial Council: Official Languages Act 2003
  North/South Ministerial Council: Official Languages Act 2003
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland: Childcare Strategy Review
  Northern Ireland: Childcare Strategy Review
  Student Support: Postgraduate Students
  Student Support: Postgraduate Students
  Harrier GR7/9
  Harrier GR7/9
  Iraq: Depleted Uranium Contamination
  Iraq: Depleted Uranium Contamination
  Fast Jet Flying Hours
  Fast Jet Flying Hours
  MoD: Computer Virus Incidents
  MoD: Computer Virus Incidents
  Civil Contingency Reaction Forces
  Civil Contingency Reaction Forces
  Community Punishment Orders
  Community Punishment Orders
  Female Genital Mutilation
  Female Genital Mutilation
  EU Passengers and Passport Checks: 16 April 2004
  EU Passengers and Passport Checks: 16 April 2004
  Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: Investigation into Death of Diana, Princess of Wales
  Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis: Investigation into Death of Diana, Princess of Wales
  Juveniles in Custody: Use of Physical Restraint
  Juveniles in Custody: Use of Physical Restraint
  Prisons and Immigration Detention Centres in Private Ownership or Operation
  Prisons and Immigration Detention Centres in Private Ownership or Operation
  Bulgaria, Moldova and Romania: Seasonal Agricultural Workers and Visas
  Bulgaria, Moldova and Romania: Seasonal Agricultural Workers and Visas
  Criminal Justice Interventions Programme
  Criminal Justice Interventions Programme
  Drug Treatment: Funding
  Drug Treatment: Funding
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002: Section 55
  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002: Section 55
  Asylum Applications
  Asylum Applications
  Motorcycle Braking Systems
  Motorcycle Braking Systems
  Bus Services: Quality Control Schemes
  Bus Services: Quality Control Schemes
  Government Departments: Annual Reports
  Government Departments: Annual Reports
  International Cricket: Zimbabwe Tour
  International Cricket: Zimbabwe Tour
  United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan
  United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan
  Cyprus: Green Line
  Cyprus: Green Line
  China: Seasonal Agricultural Workers and Visas
  China: Seasonal Agricultural Workers and Visas
  Disabled Persons: Housing
  Disabled Persons: Housing
  Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order
  Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Food Industry: Salt, Fat and Sugar Reduction
  Food Industry: Salt, Fat and Sugar Reduction
  Research for Patient Benefit Working Party
  Research for Patient Benefit Working Party
  National Health Service Bank
  National Health Service Bank
  Older People: Falls and Osteoporosis
  Older People: Falls and Osteoporosis

  Palestinian Authority: Support
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the following statement.

  I am today announcing a £7 million initial UK contribution to the World Bank's Public Financial Management Reform Trust Fund to support the Palestinian Authority.

  The Palestinian Authority has been in fiscal crisis since late 2000. Lack of revenues due to economic collapse prevents it delivering services effectively to the Palestinian people. In 2004 its total budget is 1.45 billion dollars. Revenues are expected to be 800 million dollars, leaving a financing gap of about 650 million dollars. Donor budget support in 2003 was 270 million dollars, a sharp fall from 2001 and 2002. The PA has large and growing debts to the private sector and commercial banks. This is an unsustainable situation, and a continued fiscal crisis could lead to the termination of social and administrative services to the population, and poverty (already at over 60 per cent) increasing further.

  At a meeting of the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee in December 2003, attended by the Palestinian Authority (PA), Israel, major donors to the PA and other Arab countries, the PA asked the World Bank to create a new mechanism through which donors could provide pooled contributions to support the PA's budget. The Public Financial Management Reform Trust Fund was approved by the World Bank's board on 22 April and launched on 27 April. The objectives of the Reform Fund are to mobilise additional donor resources in support of the PA budget, to harmonise donor assistance in exchange for a commonly agreed reform programme, and to simplify procedures for the PA. Use of direct budget support also reflects World Bank analysis that this is the most efficient of all the emergency assistance instruments currently employed by donors, with substantial macroeconomic and welfare benefits.

  An important precondition for creation of the Reform Fund was a satisfactory assessment of the current financial management procedures of the PA. The World Bank has carried out a detailed Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA), which found that major and highly creditable improvements in budgeting and fiscal transparency have been introduced during the tenure of the present Palestinian Finance Minister. Weaknesses in financial accountability remain, related in particular to the lack of adequate public financial statements, inadequate auditing and the undeveloped oversight role of the Palestinian Legislative Council. But the CFAA confirms that the current systems are adequate to
  WS 18
  justify World Bank budget support. It also identifies key actions needed to further improve the systems, and these have now been agreed with the PA as performance benchmarks for the Reform Fund. Disbursement of funding will be conditional on achievement of reform benchmarks. This is an approach successfully used by the EC in its recent bilateral provision of budget support to the PA.

  The use of donor funds provided to the PA through the Reform Fund will be carefully monitored. Prior conditions for the first disbursement, such as passage of a 2004 Budget Law, and the payment of all security personnel salaries by direct bank transfer, have already been met. Funding will be disbursed in six-month tranches depending on progress with further reforms, such as revised external audit arrangements, containment of the wage bill, maintaining a minimum level of social sector expenditure, and full control of the Ministry of Finance over all PA procurement. World Bank staff will monitor the implementation of the benchmarked actions on a regular basis. Every quarter, the PA will prepare a progress report. Using these reports, the bank will lead quarterly technical and fiduciary supervision missions to review compliance with agreed prior actions and benchmarks, budget implementation and general economic and social developments. DfID will participate in these missions.

  In the event of the PA not meeting all benchmarks, the World Bank would assess the specific situation and consult contributing donors on whether a waiver were appropriate. Should no waiver be granted, the release of the next tranche of funding would be held hack pending fulfilment of the benchmarks. The World Bank could also, in consultation with contributing donors, suspend disbursements if the PA reversed already implemented policy actions, until remedial action were taken. Donors have the option of bilaterally withdrawing their money from the Reform Fund at any time.

  In addition to the PA's own external auditing arrangements, an external auditor contracted by the World Bank will perform annual audits of the Reform Fund's deposit account at the PA Ministry of Finance. These audits will verify the extent to which the World Bank's requirements under the grant agreement are being met, and whether the PA's procedures are adequate to achieve this result.

  We expect several donors to contribute to the Reform Fund. Norway and Canada have already decided to do so. Other countries are considering contributions. The World Bank plans to contribute 20 million dollars of its own alongside the fund. The EC has been providing budget support to the PA since 2000, and is likely to continue doing so. The IMF is involved in a technical capacity. The USA has been actively involved in the design of the fund, and will participate in its management. The G8 has urged the international community to increase and accelerate their assistance provided to the PA. We and other contributors will be urging other donors to give money to the Reform Fund. Arab states continue to be the

  WS 19
  biggest supporters of the PA's budget, although some may prefer to contribute outside the Reform Fund.

  DfID has thoroughly appraised a UK contribution to the Reform Fund, in line with our published policy on the provision of direct budget support. This policy reflects our commitments under government acounting that aid should be properly accounted for, used for the intended purposes and represent value for money. When appraising budget support, we ensure the following: first, that a thorough evaluation of public financial management and accountability systems, and associated risks, has been carried out; secondly, that the recipient government have a credible programme to improve standards of these systems; thirdly, that the potential developmental benefits justify the risk, taking account of any safeguards that can be put in place to buttress and develop these systems; and fourthly, that these assessments are explicitly recorded as part of the decisionmaking process to provide assistance. In the case of the Palestinian Authority, we share the World Bank's assessment that there is a significant fiduciary risk, but that a satisfactory programme of reforms is in place to reduce this risk. This level of risk is not unusual in countries where DfID provides budget support. I have judged that the developmental benefits of providing budget support, and the risks of not providing it, justify this fiduciary risk.

  In making this judgment I have also looked at the impact on poverty of PA spending. The PA does not have an internationally recognised poverty reduction strategy. But it has started to develop short-term planning frameworks to guide its own prioritisation. I share the judgment made by the International Development Committee in its report in February that, although unusual, given the current state of the Palestinian economy, "wage payment maintained by budget support is an effective method of emergency poverty alleviation". The PA Ministry of Planning is beginning to develop a more comprehensive approach to poverty reduction. DfID will work with other donors to help them do this, alongside the provision of budget support.

  I have of course considered the many allegations made against the PA about diversion of funds. In particular, there have been accusations that budget support previously provided by the European Commission was used to finance terrorist activities. An EU independent anti-fraud investigation into these allegations has been going on for over a year and has not yet concluded. An inquiry by a European Parliament Working Group on Budgetary Assistance to the Palestinian Authority reported in March 2004, after a one-year investigation. The majority report concluded that, "there is no conclusive evidence, to date, that the EU non-targeted Direct Budgetary support was used to finance illegal activities, including the financing of terrorism", and that, "there is no evidence that EU budget support has not been fully transferred into the PA budget or that it was used outside the budget". It further concluded that budget
  WS 20
  support had, "contributed to bring about concrete changes in the PA financial system and impacted on the PA reform process towards more transparency, accountability and good governance". Recommendations from the report have largely been addressed in the design of the World Bank Reform Fund, notably that, "future budget support should be accompanied by clear, specific conditionalities subject to strict monitoring" and that "such conditionalities should be established in full co-operation and in close co-ordination with the other international donors".

  It has been suggested that aid to the PA should be conditional on progress with security sector reform, and other measures to reduce terrorism against Israeli citizens, such as action against incitement. We agree with the World Bank and other donors that at this stage it will be more effective to link disbursement of budget support to conditions related to financial management, budget allocation and accountability. The Government have made action on Palestinian security their highest diplomatic priority in our relations with the PA. We are also providing practical assistance to help them to take this action. Particularly under current circumstances, we do not think an underfunded PA which risks not being able to pay salaries is in the interests of Israeli security. We have informed the Government of Israel of our decision to contribute. The Israeli Government have told us that they welcome international humanitarian and economic assistance to the Palestinians and support the World Bank Reform Fund, provided the money is properly spent and monitored.

  Contributing to the PA's budget is in line with the Government's strategy for supporting Palestinians. Our new Palestinian Country Assistance Plan says we will work with partners to help to end conflict and create a viable Palestinian state that will reduce poverty. The strategy has three aims: prospects for peace enhanced; more effective, accountable and inclusive Palestinian institutions and governance systems; and humanitarian and development assistance delivered more effectively. Contributing to the Reform Fund will address all three outcomes. It will also address the Government's wider political objectives on the Middle East peace process, by helping the PA to meet its roadmap commitments. Our initial contribution to the Reform Fund is for 2004. We will consider later this year, in light of monitoring of the PA's use of donor funds and its likely financing gap and spending plans for 2005, whether we should continue contributing.

  I am placing in the Library of the House the World Bank's board paper describing the rationale for, and operational arrangements of, the Reform Fund, which includes as an annex the Palestinian Authority's Statement of Development Policy and a matrix of further reform actions the PA is undertaking. I am also placing in the Library of the House copies of the finalised Palestinian Country Assistance Plan.

  Draft Criminal Defence Service Bill
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)
  I am pleased to announce the publication today of a draft Criminal Defence Service Bill together with a consultation paper seeking views on a number of possible models for the delivery of a restructured criminal legal aid scheme. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  It has been the shared belief of this Government and previous administrations that those found guilty of offences who can afford to pay their defence costs should be required to do so. This is right in principle and will ensure and that a greater amount of finite legal aid funds can be targeted at the poor, the vulnerable and the victimised in line with the commitments set out in the DCA manifesto by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs.

  The Draft Bill contains two key proposals: the reintroduction of a financial eligibility (means) test; and the transfer of the authority to grant the right to publicly funded representation away from the courts and into the scope of the Legal Services Commission.

  My department believes that, taken together, these two measures will bring a greater level of consistency and better control over grant as well as ensuring that those found guilty of offences pay where they arc able to do so.

  The accompanying consultation paper discusses in more detail, and invites comments on, the implications of these changes as well as outlining a number of ways in which they might work in practice. The paper will be sent to the key opinion formers within the legal community including the professions and the judiciary and will be published on the DCA's website at www.dca.gov.uk/. Responses are requested by 6 August.

  The Bill itself will also be simultaneously examined by the Constitutional Affairs Committee as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny procedure and interested parties will have an opportunity to comment as part of that process.

  Armed Forces' Pay Review Body: Medical and Dental Officers
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Geoffrey Hoon) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  The supplement to the 2004 Report of the Armed Forces' Pay Review Body making recommendations on the pay of service medical and dental officers has been published today. Copies of the supplement are available in the Vote Office and the Library of the House.

  The review body recommends an increase of 3.225 per cent for all regular and reserve Defence Medical Services medical and dental officers. The review body
  WS 22
  also recommends a pay increase of 3.225 per cent for medical and dental cadets and an out-of-hours supplementary payment of £4,500 to junior doctors. In addition, the review body recommends that there should be an increase of 3.225 per cent in the values of trainer pay and distinction awards.

  The cost of these recommendations to the defence budget will be some £6.3 million. This will he met within existing departmental expenditure limits.

  The review body's final recommendations are to be accepted in full, with implementation effective from 1 April 2004.

  HM Customs and Excise: Spring Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My honourable friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has today made the following written Ministerial Statement.

  The Chief Secretary and I have today presented to Parliament this year's spring departmental report for HM Customs and Excise (Cm 6224).

  The spring report provides an interim update on Customs' activities and sets out the department's priorities and expenditure plans for the coming year. This year it confirms strong growth in VAT receipts, which are more than £2.5 billion ahead of the Budget 2003 forecast—including an estimated £1 billion from our crackdown on "Missing Trader" VAT fraud. It reports continued success in tackling tobacco smuggling, and over £30 million of criminal assets seized. The spring report also outlines the major changes facing the department following the announcement of plans to create a Serious Organised Crime Agency and a single revenue department—Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.

  Alongside this update, the spring report marks a change in policy in relation to the publication of statistics of Customs' seizures. I have decided that Customs will include in its annual and spring reports summary seizure data in relation to those prohibitions and restrictions that it enforces at the frontier but which are not already included in the reports as part of updates on PSA priorities. Customs has not published this information in its annual reports since reporting was streamlined after 1999, but will do so in each spring and annual report from now on.

  There has been continuing interest in the number of seizures Customs makes in the areas where it protects society, including particular interest in Customs' new anti-smuggling role on imported meat and other products of animal origin. Customs will therefore publish seizure information on:

  meat and other products of animal origin;

  articles seized under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES);

  plants and plant-based goods; pornography and paedophilia;

  WS 23

  firearms, offensive weapons and explosives;

  and various other prohibited and restricted goods.

  The data published in this report shows that, in the nine months from April to December 2003, Customs made 9,571 seizures of illegal meat and other animal products with a total weight in excess of 119 tonnes. In comparison, there were 2,053 seizures by all agencies involved in these controls in 2001–02, a figure that increased to 7,819 in 2002–03.

  Customs will continue to consider requests for further information in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. It will only withhold information under exemption 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) or exemption 7 (Effective management and operations of public service) of that code where information would be of value to those who seek to circumvent Customs controls or in the clearest cases of risk to the effective management of its operations.

  Voluntary Code of Practice for Retention of Communications Data
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  The voluntary code of practice for retention of communications data under Part II of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 came into force on 5 December 2003, pursuant to the Retention of Communications Data (Code of Practice) Order 2003 (SI 2003/No. 3175). Paragraph 33 of the code requires that its effectiveness would be assessed, against criteria identified in the code, three months from the date it received parliamentary approval. The review period, which began on 5 March 2004, will assess the code against the criteria:

  has it improved investigative work;

  how many requests for data have been made;

  is the voluntary scheme working;

  what percentage of the market is covered by communication service providers who have adopted the code of practice;

  are sectors of the industry, which have not adopted the code, enjoying an unfair commercial advantage?

  The voluntary scheme is working in the sense that there are a number of communications service providers that have volunteered, or are volunteering, to retain communications data in line with the code. However most of these volunteers need to prepare themselves, in technical terms, to be able to do so. Consequently it is still premature to evaluate whether investigative work has been facilitated by the voluntary retention of communications data in line with the code or to determine what data has been acquired by investigators that was available only because of its voluntary retention in line with the code.
  WS 24
  Although communications service providers are volunteering to retain data in order to support the important task of safeguarding of national security, service providers are sensitive to any commercial impact from being identified as volunteers. The Government shall not be identifying providers that have volunteered or are indicating a likelihood of volunteering. Equally there are no indications that sectors of the industry, which have not adopted the code of practice, are enjoying an unfair commercial advantage.

  We do not believe, at this time, that identifying the volunteers' precise share of the communications service market is helpful, since it could enable deductions to be made, accurately or inaccurately, about which providers have volunteered. However the Government are confident that a significant proportion of communications data is being retained in line with the code.

  Once the volunteers are able to indicate that they are retaining data in line with the code, it will be possible to conduct a more thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of the code.

  The Government are keeping the issue of retention of communications data under review in the context of the recommendations of Lord Newton's committee, which reviewed the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and the declaration of European Council on 25 March 2004 that proposals for establishing rules on the retention of communications traffic data be examined by the Council with a view to their adoption by June 2005.

  In the mean time, the voluntary code of practice remains in place and the Government are continuing to engage with service providers which are considering whether to volunteer.

  Fraud Law Reform
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  It is estimated that fraud currently costs the UK economy £14 billion a year. To equip law enforcement agencies to tackle the threat we face from fraud, the existing law needs to be modernised. The main problem is that the existing statutes focus on very specific types of fraudulent behaviour, so they do not effectively cover all the potential varieties of fraud and cannot keep pace with rapidly developing technology.

  The Government are today publishing a consultation paper on fraud law reform. Its proposals are based on those made by the Law Commission in 2002, following a reference made to them in 1998 by the then Home Secretary. In particular he asked the Law Commission to consider whether a general offence of fraud would improve the criminal law. The commission concluded that it would help to make the law simpler and more easily understandable for juries, defendants and the general public and make the prosecution process more efficient and effective.

  The central proposal is that there should be a general offence of fraud which can be committed in

  WS 25
  three different ways: by false representation, by wrongfully failing to disclose information or by abuse of position. In each case the behaviour must be dishonest, and must intend to make a gain for the defendant or cause a loss to another. However the gain does not actually have to be obtained, as it does under the existing statutory offences.

  We also propose a new offence of "obtaining services dishonestly", to close a current loophole regarding fraudulent use of machines. The current offence of obtaining services by deception does not cover, for example, giving false details to access data from the internet for which a charge is made. This is because a machine has no mind and so cannot be "deceived".

  The consultation paper also seeks views on whether all behaviour which is currently prosecuted as conspiracy to defraud can be prosecuted under the proposed new law of fraud (or under other existing law) so that the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud can be repealed. It also seeks views on the possible extension of the existing offence of fraudulent trading, and on the creation of a new offence of possessing equipment to commit fraud. The proposals will cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  This legislative reform is only part of a wider set of current initiatives which will help tackle fraud. For their part the Government have:

  set up the Assets Recovery Agency and implemented the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These will take the profit out of crime by increasing powers to find and recover money from those who benefit from and launder the proceeds of frauds and other crimes;

  agreed extra resources for the Serious Fraud Office and City of London Police to tackle fraud;

  included new procedures to deal with multiple offending in the current Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill;

  included proposals to ensure effective incentives for criminals who give evidence against their associates, which will help in fraud cases, in the White Paper One Step Ahead, published on 29 March 2004;

  proposed new methods of tackling identity fraud in the White Paper on Legislation on Identity Cards, published on 26 April 2004. The introduction of identity cards incorporating biometrics (such as finger or iris scans) will help people to identify themselves uniquely and protect their identity against fraud.

  Combating fraud requires vigilance from all and we very much welcome the measures that financial institutions and the retail industry have taken to protect credit cards by a chip-and-PIN system. That step has been found to cut card fraud dramatically in other countries.

  Iraq: Export Licence Applications
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  Following consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry recently approved a further licence to export military list goods to Iraq. The arms embargo against Iraq remains in place under United Nations Security Council resolution 1483 (2003), with the exception of "arms and other related material required by the (Coalition Provisional) Authority to serve the purposes of this and other related resolutions". As this includes promoting the development of free and fair media, Her Majesty's Government consider it appropriate to grant exemptions for the export of armoured vehicles for use by media organisations working in Iraq. Her Majesty's Government have included conditions for these licences, including a limit to the quantities. The export is consistent with the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. Future applications will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis against the UN Embargo and Consolidated Criteria, taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time.

  EU Presidency 2005: European Council Dates
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  The United Kingdom will hold the Presidency of the European Union from 1 July until 31 December 2005. During that period my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will chair two meetings of the European Council: on 27–28 October 2005 and 15–16 December 2005. Both meetings will take place in Brussels.

  NHS: Overseas Visitors' Eligibility for Free Primary Medical Services
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My right honourable friend (Mr Hutton) made the following Written Ministerial Statement on 14 May.

  We are publishing today a consultation paper on proposals to revise and clarity the rules on eligibility for free National Health Service primary medical services. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The consultation paper sets out proposals to strengthen the current system so that eligibility for primary medical services would be aligned as closely as possible with that for free hospital care. It sets out proposals for introducing a system of charges for those overseas visitors who would not be eligible for free treatment and seeks views on how such charges should operate.
  WS 27
  Under the proposals overseas visitors would continue to be entitled to receive emergency or immediately necessary treatment free of charge. The paper also invites views on whether any other treatments should continue to be free for the protection of public health.
  WS 28
  The proposed new rules are intended to allow general practice staff and primary care trusts to distinguish more easily between those eligible for free treatment and those not.

  The consultation begins today and runs until 13 August 2004.