Sitting of 21 May 2004

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Orders of the Day

  Highways (Obstruction by Body Corporate) Bill
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.33 am
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This short Bill seeks to amend the Highways Act 1980 by applying section 314 of the Act to the offences of wilfully obstructing a highway—section 317 of the original Act—and failing to comply with a court order requiring removal of the obstruction, under section 137ZA of the Act. The Bill, if enacted, will enable proceedings to be enforced against officers of a body corporate who are responsible for obstructing rights of way. It prevents the unscrupulous from setting up and hiding behind a "paper company".
  I welcome the support that the Bill has received from both sides of the House. I thank those Members who served on an extremely helpful and co-operative Committee. By coincidence most of them were from, or had connections with, East Sussex—testimony, no doubt, to the beautiful countryside in that part of the United Kingdom, which we all want to share. The officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who helped to draft the Bill have proven that a piece of legislation need be neither long nor complicated to have an effective impact and to protect the rights of UK citizens.
  It should be recognised that the Bill might never have existed had it not been for the courage and determination of Kate Ashbrook. Her campaign to free a 140-year-old right of way in East Sussex from obstruction brought to light the loophole in the existing legislation. She fought a personal campaign against a company which hid behind the veil of incorporation. If the Bill is passed, such a situation will not be allowed to occur again, and it will be testimony to her fortitude.
  I also thank the Ramblers Association for their encouragement and help in preparing the Bill, my researcher, Berni Smith, for her research on the detail, and the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality and hon. Members on both
  1206
  sides of the House for their support. In particular, I express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), whose expertise in parliamentary procedure has been invaluable.
  I hope the Bill will gain the same sort of support in another place, and that ramblers in Britain can walk freely before we are recessed for the summer. I shall be content if my epitaph describes me in consequence as the "Rambling MP" although my brevity today may be pleaded in mitigation.
  9.37 am
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: We on the Conservative Benches warmly welcome the intentions of the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) on his efforts in bringing this important issue to the House.
  As someone who is a Member for a rural constituency and has a keen interest in rural affairs, I understand the importance of access to the countryside wherever possible and appropriate. Historical rights of way should be preserved to ensure the continued enjoyment of the countryside by our constituents. Rogue landowners must not be allowed to obstruct footpaths and highways while hiding behind incorporated shell companies to avoid paying fines and removing the obstructions. It is right that a loophole in the law that allows the circumvention of existing provisions is closed.
  The current loophole is exploited by putting land into the ownership of a shell company, by which process it is feasible to negate and nullify the law. The decisions of local magistrates and the determination of local authorities to reopen obstructed rights of way are, therefore, hindered at present. We all believe that the current situation is unacceptable.
  There are, however, a few clarifications that I should like the Minister to make. First, should the Bill become law, what steps will DEFRA take to ensure that local authorities maintain rights of way and enforce the new powers in the legislation? Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) raised in Committee an important question about whether company directors residing abroad would be prosecuted under the new provisions. I understand that the Minister promised to write to members of the Committee on that point and it would be helpful if he could explain to the House the contents of that response.
  Thirdly, it would also be informative if we understood how the legislation would apply to companies based offshore—in the Channel Islands, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands. That is obviously a possible loophole, or trick, that landlords could use.
  Fourthly, will the Minister provide details about how DEFRA would publicise the changes under the Bill to ensure that local authorities, landowners and other relevant interest groups had a full and comprehensive understanding of their implications?
  I welcome the Minister's commitment to my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) in Committee that if the Bill's provisions reach the statute book they will not be retrospective. Such a move would set an unwelcome precedent for future legislation. A further confirmation from the Minister on the Floor of the House would be most welcome.

  1207
  Finally, I understand that the Bill does not entail any additional public expenditure or changes to public service manpower. Conservative Members welcome that, and I should be grateful for a further assurance from the Minister that this is the case.
  Conservative Members strongly support the Bill. We believe that the laws of the land should be fair, reasonable and effective. It is also important that they are seen to be so by the public. Deliberate obstructions are not only detrimental to rights of way, but are often eyesores and are damaging to the countryside. Law-abiding, decent landowners will welcome the Bill, as it will improve relationships between countryside users and landowners. The countryside is for us all, and we condemn people who deliberately prevent normal members of the public from gaining legitimate access to it. We support the Bill and hope that it will prevent unscrupulous landowners from obstructing historic rights of way.
  9.40 am
  Mr. Roger Williams: I wish to place on the record Liberal Democrat Members' support for the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) on introducing it.
  I have had experience of dealing with rights of way legislation, both in local authorities and national parks, and know some of the difficulties involved with historic interpretations of different aspects of rights of way. Any legislation that is introduced to clarify the issues or to close a loophole is very welcome to Liberal Democrats.
  I also congratulate ramblers and I congratulate Kate Ashbrook on the work that she has carried out. The sooner the Bill is brought into force, the better it will be for walkers and those who wish to use the countryside as well as for landowners. It will clarify the position. The deliberate obstruction of rights of way does nothing to enhance the reputation of landowners or to promote access to, and enjoyment of, the countryside. We welcome the Bill wholeheartedly.
  9.42 am
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I am pleased that we have reached the conclusion to our careful consideration of this short, uncontentious but important Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster) on succeeding in getting it to this stage. Many people have their names attached to a private Member's Bill, but it takes more than an accident to bring about sufficient agreement across the Chamber to give that Bill every chance of success. I congratulate him on his efforts.
  I am also grateful to the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) for their comments. They raised a couple of issues that I shall deal with briefly, but both have acknowledged that the issue of rights of access is not an easy one. Since I took up this brief, it has become clear to me that the range of complexities that can arise with rights of way and, in particular, with rights of way in relation to common land and those
  1208
  involved if one strays into Powys are enormous. It is not always easy to deal with what might appear to be a simple problem. However, I believe that this Bill closes a loophole and does so comprehensively.
  The Bill's very simple but important aim is to close a loophole that allows the obstruction of a public right of way if a wealthy landowner sets up a shell company deliberately to evade legislation. I stress that we are dealing with deliberate evasion, not accidental oversight.
  The Government's policy is to promote an accessible network of public rights of way for the greater use and enjoyment by all. As the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 proved, this is vital for the rural economy as a whole. The Bill strengthens the provisions that the Government introduced in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 to deal with obstructions. The aim is to make provision for safe, accessible recreational facilities away from traffic, and the rights of way network must also facilitate initiatives towards walking for health and encouraging people to exercise more. The issue is as important as that.
  The Bill seeks to close a loophole whereby an individual may act under the cover of a body corporate in the knowledge that, if the company has no assets, no fines will be payable. In Committee, Members from all three main parties referred to the appalling case in East Sussex associated with Nicholas van Hoogstraten. Local highways authorities are under a duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to use and enjoy those public rights of way for which they are responsible. However, authorities must have the necessary means to ensure that they can be proactive in keeping rights of way free from obstructions. It is wrong that there should be administrative, legal or cost obstructions in the pathway of a highways authority that seeks to carry out its obligations, and I agree with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness on the importance of that. By removing the obstacle, we take a positive step in that direction.
  In the vast majority of cases in which obstructions occur, the obstruction is removed through negotiation. The threat of legal action is usually successful when negotiation fails. However, the case in East Sussex has demonstrated that when that threat needs to be followed through, there is a loophole. Because of the notoriety of the individual associated with this case, the press coverage advertised widely the fact that recalcitrant landowners can defeat the system by misuse of the corporate veil.
  Although we believe that the need to prosecute an officer of a company may occur very rarely in practice, we can only speculate on the number of occasions when authorities may have been deterred from prosecuting a body corporate, in the knowledge that enforcement action might prove difficult and, indeed, very expensive. It is therefore important to ensure that when the Bill becomes an Act the provisions are properly communicated to enforcement authorities; the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness made that point strongly. I give him the assurance that I intend to take responsibility for promoting the provisions to local authorities, landowners, users, and others with an interest in rights of way when the Bill becomes an Act, as I sincerely hope that it will before long. I intend to write directly to local authorities, and we shall update current

  1209
  departmental guidance on rights of way legislation to ensure that these important provisions are clearly understood by those who have to use them.
  I underline that the Bill will ensure that when a body corporate commits the offence of wilfully obstructing a highway, or failing to comply with an order to remove an obstruction—and it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent, connivance or neglect of an officer of the body corporate—that officer may also be found guilty of that offence. The provisions of the Bill will apply to offences committed under section 137, which deals with wilful obstruction of a highway, of the Highways Act 1980 and section 137ZA, which deals with the failure to comply with an order to remove an obstruction, after the commencement of the Bill, regardless of whether the order to remove the obstruction made under section 137ZA was made before or after commencement. I should also clarify that local highways authorities are responsible for bringing prosecutions under sections 137 and 137ZA of the 1980 Act.
  As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness pointed out, concerns were expressed in Committee about whether directors of a body corporate resident abroad would be covered by the application of section 314 of the 1980 Act to offences under sections 137 and 137ZA of that Act. I can confirm that that will be the case. When a body corporate commits either of the offences in question and it is proved that the offence was committed with or through the consent, connivance or neglect of a director, that director will be guilty of the offence regardless of where he chooses to reside. Living overseas will not prevent the application of the offence.
  The hon. Gentleman clearly anticipated that those with a creative turn of mind would consider our deliberations, and he asked whether placing ownership in an offshore company would be another route to escape. That is not the case. The issue is where the offence is committed, so a magistrates court can deal with any offence—whether it is committed by a British or foreign national—committed within the area of the Bill's jurisdiction, which is England and Wales. That applies to both companies and individuals.
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there were difficulty in prosecuting an overseas company, it would be possible to prosecute the directors who were in this country even if there were no prosecution against the company itself?
  Alun Michael: That would be the case. I do not think that there is a loophole for the inventive. The case only arose because of the misapplication of company law. That law had a virtuous intention, and I believe that the Bill closes the loophole entirely. It will enable highways authorities to carry out their responsibilities, as has always been the intention of the House and this and previous Governments, and will achieve consistency.
  The Bill is modest, with an important purpose. The useful debate in Committee highlighted a number of issues, all of which have been dealt with. I hope that it will be successful in receiving Third Reading and will quickly become law.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill
  Bill reported, as amended in the Standing Committee.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.51 am
  Jim Sheridan: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Back in February, I had the honour and privilege to move the Bill's Second Reading. I stood in the Chamber, in the shadow of the Morecambe bay tragedy, and asked right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the Bill for one reason above all others—to end the exploitation of workers: the kind of exploitation that left men and women to die alone, helpless and terrified, on the sands of Morecambe bay in the name of easy money and quick profit; the kind of exploitation that has resurrected the slavery that we all thought was banished to the history books; the kind of exploitation that feeds off tax evasion, drug smuggling and human trafficking; the kind of exploitation that preys on the weak and the vulnerable; the kind of exploitation that diminishes the humanity of each and every one of us, inside and outside the House.
  On Second Reading, I said that I believed it was time for legislation, not exploitation. The unanimous support that the House gave to my Bill was a clear demonstration that members of every party, from the Back Benches to the Front Benches, also believed that to be the case. That cross-party support was highlighted yet again only yesterday with the publication of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs follow-up report into the role of gangmasters. The Committee stated that it now agrees that there is a need for a system of licensing and registration of gangmasters. It supports my Bill, which I deeply appreciate, and wants the Government to ensure that there is sufficient parliamentary time to get it on the statute book, with the political will and, more importantly, the resources to make it work.
  My intention has always been to ensure that any law on gangmaster licensing is effective, robust and, equally important, workable. To coin a well-known advertising slogan, "I want a law that does exactly what it says on the tin." As amended, I believe that the Bill will deliver just such a law.
  Before outlining how the Bill has been strengthened since Second Reading, I want to say some brief but important "thank yous". I thank the Government, both Ministers and officials, for their support and hard work in helping me to redraft the Bill. I also thank the coalition groups, from the National Farmers Union to the Transport and General Workers Union, which informed the ideas and the thinking that underpin it. The coalition is a coalition for progress. It spans workers, employers, industry, trade unions, communities and churches. Its breadth and depth are a powerful reflection of the seriousness of the problem and the Bill's merits. Last, but by no means least, I thank my parliamentary colleagues, Members from every party in the House, who have been unswerving in their support and wise in their advice.
  I shall give a brief background to the Bill, as amended. The House will know that gangmasters are labour providers who operate throughout the UK economy.

  1211
  The Bill is not, however, intended to bring in regulations in each and every industry. Instead, as amended, it will regulate gangmasters in the sectors in which they are most common and where the abuses of the rogue operators are at their most extreme—agriculture and horticulture, the shellfish industry and the food processing and packaging industry. That amounts to about 3,000 gangmasters employing, supplying and supervising at least 60,000 workers. Although there are gangmasters who run good, honest, decent firms, many operate at the margins of the law at best and beyond the law at worst.
  Voluntary codes and self-regulation have unfortunately failed. They have failed to protect workers, legitimate gangmasters, producers, packers and retailers. They have also failed to protect the taxpayer. The absence of a law to regulate gangmasters has given the good no chance and the bad every chance. The Bill attempts to right that wrong and, as amended, I believe that that is exactly what it will do.
  I shall walk the House through the key changes that have strengthened and enhanced the Bill since Second Reading. It is important that there be no rat runs through which rogue gangmasters can escape, so its scope has been widened. Not only will it apply to the whole of the UK, it will also extend to gangmasters based offshore. The work to which the Bill applies has been defined in broad terms to ensure that rogue gangmasters cannot evade the law by redefining the nature of the work that they do. The Bill now covers all forms of sub-contracting. In addition, employment agencies and employment businesses will come within its ambit if they are engaged in activities for which a gangmaster licence is required.
  I come now to the definition of a "worker". Although they are often the most vulnerable to exploitation, migrant workers do not make up the majority of those employed, recruited and supplied by gangmasters. In fact, it is estimated that some 70 per cent. of those involved with gangmasters are indigenous workers. But British or foreign, migrant or indigenous, legal or illegal, a worker is a worker is a worker, and no worker should ever be abandoned by the law and left to be a victim of exploitation. Through an amendment that defines a worker as
  "an individual who does work to which this Act applies"
  the Bill now offers the full protection of the law to every worker.
  Anne Picking: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is to be congratulated on this important Bill having reached this stage. He said that a worker is a worker is a worker. Is he aware of a situation in my constituency, where a third party employs migrant workers at a mushroom farm to work excessively long hours, sometimes 60 or 70 a week, thereby pushing out the local work force who cannot compete with those people? That means that workers are being exploited, no matter where they are based or where they come from, which has to be absolutely wrong.
  Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point. I know that she has worked extremely hard to
  1212
  tackle problems that she has identified in mushroom factories in her constituency. That is a classic case—and tangible evidence, if it were needed—of workers, in this case migrants, being exploited, having been offered terrible wages and conditions, in many cases without any accommodation. The net result, as my hon. Friend made clear, is that indigenous workers lose out on jobs because they cannot compete with people who are being paid poverty wages. A fundamental reason for introducing the Bill is to stop that exploitation of migrant workers and protect our indigenous workers, such as those in East Lothian, and that is exactly what the Bill will do. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the work that she has done behind the scenes, letting the authorities know what is going on.
  I want to deal with the regulations and the powers of the Secretary of State. To ensure that the net is cast just wide enough to capture only those that it is intended to capture, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations concerning the exclusion from, or inclusion in, its provisions of certain types of work. Members will see that, as amended, the Bill also sets out the requirements for regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State through statutory instruments on matters such as the status and constitution of the licensing authority, the circumstances in which a licence may not be required, the licence appeals system and the "reasonable steps" defence for users of unlicensed gangmasters. When he rises to speak, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that all the regulations will be made in accordance with current Government practice on the use of delegated powers, including a full and proper consultation process at every stage, which is vital.
  The Bill will establish a gangmasters licensing authority, which will be a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It will consist of key industry stakeholders and representatives from the Government, the police and enforcement agencies. It will set out the licence conditions after the fullest consultation with stakeholders. It will process licence applications, set and collect licence fees and establish a public register of licensed gangmasters. It will also have the power to modify, suspend and, where necessary, revoke licences, and it will run a licence appeals system, which is crucial. It will proactively enforce licence conditions. The authority will also be able to investigate and enforce the arrestable offences created by the Bill. I shall deal with those important offences in a moment.
  The authority will play a pivotal role in bringing about the culture change needed to drive out the rogues, support the law-abiding and protect the vulnerable. Its fundamental strength lies in the four pillars on which it is built. The first is the skills, experience and expertise of the industry stakeholders who will make up its board and, through their experience, guide the board through its work. The second pillar is the enforcement link that the authority will provide between key Departments, local government, the police and existing enforcement agencies, such as the Health and Safety Executive and the Inland Revenue. The third pillar is the political commitment and financial support from the sponsoring Department, DEFRA, for which we are deeply appreciative. The fourth pillar is the authority's democratic accountability to Parliament, through

  1213
  DEFRA and the Secretary of State, who will be required to make an annual report to Parliament on its operation and, indeed, its effectiveness.
  I return to the offences created by the Bill. It is right and proper that those who break the law should be brought to justice. The Bill, in its amended form, will make sure that that happens. However, prevention is always better than cure, so to provide an effective deterrent to rogue operators, the Bill will establish the criminal offences of operating as a gangmaster without a licence, obtaining or possessing a false licence, using an unlicensed gangmaster and obstructing an enforcement officer. Members will know that the illegal activities of some rogue gangmasters have been so serious that they have come under investigation by the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
  The Bill now reflects the need seriously to tackle the crime with serious sanctions. It therefore amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to make operating without a licence and possession of a false licence arrestable offences. It also amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to ensure that the assets of convicted gangmasters can and will be confiscated. The Bill now has added deterrent value for the arrestable offences of operating without a licence and using a false licence, as it includes sentences for repeat offenders: up to two years' imprisonment for a second offence and up to 10 years' imprisonment for a third offence.
  I shall now move on to what some Members rightly regard as the most important part of the Bill—the part that deals with enforcement. From the moment I introduced the Bill, I have argued that the key to the success of the licensing and registration scheme lies in the effectiveness of the enforcement that backs it up. To be effective, enforcement must be based on three crucial principles. First, it must be co-ordinated: rogue operators and their abuses cannot be allowed to disappear into gaps between Departments and enforcement agencies. Secondly, it must be properly resourced: the price of doing nothing always outweighs the cost of enforcing the law. Thirdly, it must be proactive: it cannot rely on whistleblowing by workers who are often too terrified to blow the whistle in the first place.
  In my view, the amended Bill enshrines those key principles; for example, the licensing authority will act like a buckle on a belt, pulling together the enforcement efforts and expertise of key players such as DEFRA, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Home Office, the police, the Health and Safety Executive and the Inland Revenue. The authority will also be capable of carrying out proactive investigations. Income from the licence fees, in addition to the financial underpinning provided by DEFRA, should ensure that it has the right resources to do the job.
  Mr. Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman mentions licence fees. He knows that I support the principle of the Bill, but I am concerned about the costs that could be imposed on legitimate gangmasters. What does he think the fee will be, and does he think that setting it too high will encourage unlicensed activity to continue?
  Jim Sheridan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is crucial that farmers, in particular, know the cost of the licence, but I remind him that the industry itself will set the licence fee, and it is hard to imagine it overburdening itself by setting the cost too high. Secondly, estimates of the cost suggest that it should not have a detrimental impact on labour providers. It is estimated—I stress that these are only estimates—that the fee for a three-year licence will be between £1,750 and £2,250, or between Σ585 and £750 a year. I do not think that such costs would put farmers out of business, and farmers themselves have said that the licence will produce a level playing field for them and their businesses.
  The Bill opens gateways between Departments, the licensing authority and other enforcement agencies to facilitate the exchange of enforcement information and best practice. It also gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint enforcement officers, and gives those officers powers to enter premises, to search premises, to take possession of any item from those premises, to require the production of all relevant records, to inspect and take away the records, if necessary, and to order the attendance of persons. The Bill also provides enforcement officers and police officers with the power to make arrests in this respect.
  Rogue gangmasters in agriculture, the shellfish industry and food processing and packaging are exploiting workers, undercutting good labour providers and engaging in serious criminal activity. The purpose behind the Bill has always been to construct the architecture necessary to end exploitation and to establish the legal paper trail that will bring rogue operators to justice and, I hope, drive them out of business. Farmers, packers, producers, supermarkets, Churches, workers, trade unions, employers, community groups, legitimate gangmasters, the Government, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House all say with one voice that it is time to legislate, time to establish a statutory licence and a register, and time to end the exploitation. That broad coalition of support has played its part in informing, shaping and amending the Bill into the form in which it once again comes before the House today.
  I have always wanted a Bill that was robust, effective and workable. I genuinely believe that, as amended, the Bill is precisely that. It now sets up a licensing authority that combines industry expertise with Government support and democratic accountability. The Bill also now has the scope and flexibility to close any loopholes through which rogue gangmasters might seek to escape, it reaches out to each and every worker throughout the UK, and it provides the framework for an enforcement structure that has both the strength and the flexibility to deter, to detect and to protect.
  The House can never lay claim to the making of perfect law, but we can make good law—law that works, law that serves and protects, law that changes our communities, our country and our lives for the better. With the utmost sincerity and conviction, I say that, as amended, the Bill is an opportunity to make just such a law.
  10.16 am
  Mr. Peter Luff: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) both on introducing the Bill and on the manner in which he has just moved Third Reading. The agriculture industries of the UK owe him a great debt.
  Although a member of the Standing Committee, I graced it with my presence for only a few minutes. It is matter of some regret to me that it sat on a Wednesday afternoon; I had expected it to sit on a Wednesday morning, a series of which I kept free in order to play a full and active part in its deliberations. However, there seems to have been some discussion with the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality about when the Bill would be ready for Committee, which indicated an afternoon sitting. That prevented several of my right hon. and hon. Friends and me from participating, even though we had wanted to contribute to work on the Bill. None the less, a clearly satisfactory Bill has emerged from the Committee, whose members I congratulate on their deliberations. Incidentally, I hope that no precedent has been set for the timing of Standing Committees on private Members' Bills—to have them sit on Wednesday mornings enables us to plan our very crowded diaries.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned whistleblowers, and I pay tribute to Zad Padda, my constituent as a company, Fusion Personnel, if not as a resident—he lives in Birmingham. He has played a leading role in bringing the issue to public attention and has put his personal security at some risk by taking such a high profile—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We cannot have hon. Members making their speeches to music.
  Mr. Luff: I am sorry about that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. At least it makes a change from the more mundane ringtone that we hear in cinemas when we are warned about the same peril. It will not happen again"although it is a good tune.
  Zad Padda has put his life in some jeopardy by taking such a high profile, and I have had to ask my local police force to keep a close eye on his security. The world that we are discussing today is pretty murky, and some of those whose lives the Bill will make a great deal more difficult will not welcome what he has done. Zad Padda came to my constituency surgery two or three years ago, and he is the only person so far to have brought a PowerPoint presentation to one of my surgeries. I was so impressed by what he showed and told me about the work of gangmasters and how they could be better regulated and controlled that I asked Lord Whitty to meet him. You and I know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the convention is that a Minister gives about half an hour to such a meeting. In fact, Lord Whitty spent an hour and a half or even two hours with Zad Padda, which I think is a measure of the noble Lord's interest in the issue. It is therefore fair to pay tribute to Lord Whitty, too. I know that the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality has done the bulk of the work in the House of Commons, but the noble Lord has been concerned about gangmasters for some time. I
  1216
  might say—this is perhaps a more partisan note—that perhaps his concern seems rather higher than that of some other Departments, and it would be good to see the same commitment from them.
  My concern about the Bill, which I support and will not vote against, is simply that the Government should not say, "We've got the Bill on the statute book. We can tick the box—job done." I regard the Bill simply as another brick in the wall of providing proper and better protection for workers and all the other benefits that will flow from a more effective system of control. The Bill is not the answer in itself.
  I suspect that another hon. Member may want to comment on this is more detail later, but it is not at all clear to me that the Morecambe bay tragedy would have been prevented simply by the Bill. A much more comprehensive approach to the problem than just the Bill is required. The Bill is a useful contribution, but not the sole answer.
  It is certainly not clear to me that the incident that provided me with my own personal wake-up call last July would have been prevented. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may recall that one Monday I was travelling on a train towards Evesham, on the way to London and the House of Commons, when it was involved in a tragic collision with a white minibus on a level crossing at Charlton. As a result of that awful accident, three agricultural workers were killed. Soran Karim, a 23-year-old Iraqi, Satish Kumar from India and Islam Uddin Ahmed from Bangladesh were all victims of the accident. They were being driven by an Iraqi asylum seeker, Adnan Kadir Karim, who earlier this week received a five-year prison sentence for their manslaughter. Our hearts go out to all the families left behind as a result of that tragic incident. I warned the Government then, both publicly and privately, that that was an example of what happens when unlicensed workers, improperly trained and improperly warned of the dangers involved in an activity, are allowed to continue working unchecked on the fields of Worcestershire. Their deaths should have been the wake-up call that prompted rather earlier action.
  We learned a lot from the court case. I have not yet seen the full proceedings—I am relying on press reports of the proceedings — but I am concerned that the Bill would not have prevented that tragedy. As far as I can tell, Karim was operating as a freelance gangmaster, going around cafés and restaurants in Birmingham, picking up people who wanted casual labour and driving them to the fields of Evesham to offer them and himself as employees: whether he was a gangmaster and whether it would have been apparent to a farmer that he was a gangmaster are interesting questions. I suspect that the Minister may tell me that, technically, under the terms of the Bill, Karim would have been deemed to be acting as a gangmaster. However, if a gang of four friends, colleagues, turn up casually on a farmer's fields and say, "Employ the four of us. We'll take what you give us", will they be caught by the Bill?
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I may be able to assist the hon. Gentleman. We do not want to leave any doubt in these matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) indicated, the Bill has been drafted and amended in Committee to make its

  1217
  provisions wide and ensure that all people who act as gangmasters—whether in a small way as subcontractors, or any other way—are caught by it. The Bill's powers of exclusion have been drafted to be clear that people in the business that the hon. Gentleman describes are caught and cannot avoid the provisions.
  Mr. Luff: I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance, and he may well be right in that particular case. Another company in my constituency employs a lot of immigrant casual labour, without using gangmasters. It is said that the people just turn up and ask for jobs. It is a reputable company. I have visited it many times. I have seen the conditions in which people work. I know the rates of pay. It is a good company, but it strikes me that other companies that operate in the packing business might well claim that they operate in that way, while having informal arrangements with gangmasters. Even if they do not and the word goes around that a firm is a good company to work for or someone is a good farmer to pick for, people may be exploited by the farmer or the company without a gangmaster being involved.
  I am sure that the Bill will not end the exploitation of agricultural workers. It should deal with the gangmaster issue, but it will not end all the problems involved in those industries. It is very important that the Government do not use the Bill as an excuse to play down the other enforcement activities in which they need to be involved. That is the key message of the EFRA Committee report on gangmasters. We are grateful to the Committee for producing its very important report. The Committee"s original report showed that it was not convinced by the need for the Bill and thought that better enforcement was all that was required. That is a fair paraphrase of its original report.
  The EFRA Committee's new report, published yesterday morning, makes it clear that it is now persuaded that the Bill is necessary and that it supports its principles, but that it is just not enough on its own. That very clear message comes through from reading the report. It refers to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) and talks about her concern that
  "enforcement continues to be held back to an extent by a lack of resources and an absence of co-ordination."
  That will still need to be addressed, whether or not the Bill reaches the statute book, as I am sure it will.
  The EFRA Committee report says:
  "A plethora of cross-departmental and inter-agency committees, forums, steering groups, working groups and co-ordination groups have been set up, each of which addresses aspects of the problem, or which have wider responsibilities for illegal working… The Illegal Working Steering Group… chaired by a Minister of State in the Home Office… The Informal Economy Steering Group… chaired by the Inland Revenue… The Informal Economy Working Group… chaired by Customs and Excise… The Gangmaster Co-ordination Group…chaired by a Defra official… Regional gangmaster for a… The Department for Work and Pensions are responsible for the fora… The Department for Work and Pensions Fraud Steering Group, chaired by a Minister from the Department… enforcement activity is co-ordinated through Reflex… chaired by the National Crime Squad."
  There is still a very complex enforcement framework, and the Government need to do much more to bring it together.
  1218
  It is rather sad that one cannot verbalise the picture—that would be rather jolly—but it is entitled "Architecture of Government activity against illegal working". That is figure 1 of the report, which may reassure some people, but its sheer complexity rather alarms me.[Interruption.] I think that the Minister is indicating that he is a little concerned about its complexity as well, but it is a very pretty picture.
  The EFRA Committee now accepts that registration is necessary, but it raises several concerns, which I share. We have already discussed the cost. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire for what he said on the cost. At that level, it should not be a problem. Clearly, it is affordable—it is not a big issue—but if the cost becomes significantly higher than that, it may have an adverse affect. So the House will have to consider that issue very carefully, as the authority reports its work to the House, under its requirement in the Bill. However, there are two other concerns.
  This is the kind of Bill that I instinctively do not like because all the detail is provided in secondary legislation. This is a running theme of mine in considering legislation. The Bill's detail will almost all come from statutory instruments. It contains enabling powers. Obviously, we have the Government's assurances—they count for a lot—but I would love to see more stated in the Bill about exactly what the gangmaster licensing authority will be expected to consider when issuing licences. For example, the issue in the accident in which I was involved last July was not only whether those people would be exploited because they would be underpaid, but that they were driving illegally. As far as I can tell, the minibus was not insured and the driver did not have an English driving licence. He could not even read English road signs, which is probably why the accident occurred: as he crossed the unmanned crossing, he did not know what to do. A licence condition ought to be that gangmasters can demonstrate that those who drive their minibuses all have driving licences and are fully insured.
  Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because it is important to put on record the way in which the Bill's architecture has been designed. It is virtually impossible for hon. Members to anticipate everything that could go wrong. Indeed, some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks illustrate precisely that point. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) said in his introduction, the two elements that enable the Bill correctly to target the real problem are, first, the engagement of the industry, given that those who know the business know what is happening on the ground, and, secondly, the fact that the provisions will be dealt with by statutory instrument, allowing them to be fine tuned if new ways to evade the law or the intentions of the Bill are found. So the hon. Gentleman is right to raises those issues, but the Bill's architecture is designed precisely to deal with them. I gave undertakings in Committee to the effect that we intend to indicate in advance of the Bill's enactment how the secondary legislation should be used.
  Mr. Luff: That is helpful. Obviously, there is always a trade-off between clarity in primary legislation and flexibility in the operation of the legislation, particularly

  1219
  in fast-moving environments. I accept that, but perhaps it would have been possible to be rather more forthcoming in the Bill without prejudicing that flexibility. The Minister's assurance is appreciated, and I hope that the authority will be encouraged to examine the issue of driving licences and insurance.
  The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire spoke about the responsibility of the supermarkets, which is important. Making sure that the industries operate ethically is not just the job of Government—a job that, as the report shows, has not been done adequately by successive Governments. It is also the job of the private sector. Price competition among our major supermarkets is leading them to turn a blind eye to what is happening as their food is prepared for them. One could say literally, in the wake of Morecambe bay and the Charlton crash, that there is blood on much supermarket food.
  To their great credit, some supermarkets are trying to do something about the situation. Wychavon district council, which produced a report on issues relating to food processing in the Vale of Evesham, sought the advice of supermarkets. One supermarket, Asda, was happy to offer a great deal of advice. On the face of it, it seems that Asda is trying to do something about the problem, but I am worried that the other supermarkets are not. The British consumer needs to understand that she or he is often paying a heavy price for the very low prices of agricultural products. As part of an ethical trading initiative, the supermarkets must act to reassure themselves that they are genuinely using ethical labour at every stage of the production chain. The Bill, welcome though it is, will not solve that problem either, unless the private sector—the supermarkets—get a better grip of the situation.
  I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion—I have already gone on longer than I intended. There is a parallel in legislation that might have been a better model for the Bill—the Private Security Industry Act 2001—which meets some of the objections that I raised with the Minister in respect of flexibility and clarity. But we are where we are, and the Bill is the only measure we have. It will improve the situation considerably and will be welcomed by all reputable gangmasters. Sadly, it seems that they are a dwindling band.
  We can be fairly confident that the Bill will make a significant contribution to preventing the exploitation of labour. That is the key point for me. When I was commenting on some of these issues at the time of the accident, some people mischievously interpreted my remarks as racism—a criticism of the person driving the minibus. Not at all—my criticism was of the fact that the people involved were being exploited. They were the victims of what happened, and I was extremely sorry about what happened to them. The problems suffered by such victims are often more concealed than that—for example, the poor housing conditions in which many of them live, the appallingly low wages they are paid and the risk at which they are put.
  Those are issues that the Bill should address. It should secure a vital service for agriculture. The word "gangmaster" has unpleasant connotations. It does not sound very nice. We need to put it on record that the casual foreign labour working in British fields and
  1220
  British packhouses is crucial to the success of those industries. We should thank those foreign labourers for the contribution they make to the success of our agricultural and horticultural industries. We should be grateful to them and look after them properly. We should ensure the safety of the general public, we should guarantee tax revenues, we should prevent abuses of immigrants and we should ensure that the law of the land is better upheld than it has been. The Bill is not a panacea, but it is a useful step in the right direction and I welcome it.
  10.33 am
  Geraldine Smith: I welcome the Bill and am delighted to be in the Chamber to see it go to Report and Third Reading. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on all his hard work and his foresight in bringing the Bill before the Commons even before the Morecambe bay tragedy. I also congratulate the Bishop of Lancaster, who has pushed hard for a gangmasters Bill. He behaved magnificently after the Morecambe bay tragedy and conducted a multi-faith service in the cathedral.
  I thank the Government for acting so swiftly to assist the passage of the through Parliament and agreeing to give it parliamentary time if necessary. I thank all hon. Members for the support they gave me after the Morecambe bay tragedy and for the support they have given the Bill. It has been a fine example of Parliament working well and Members of all parties working hard together.
  It is true that the Bill is a small step in the right direction, but it is not a panacea. It probably would not have prevented the Morecambe bay tragedy. To be honest, I do not know what would have done. How could one have stopped people going out in the darkness in the middle of Morecambe bay, even if there had been double the number of enforcement officers and ample regulation? There were people operating outside the law, and I hope that the police investigation will bring some people to justice if it is proved that serious exploitation was taking place.
  The Morecambe bay tragedy brought the issue of gangmasters to the fore. Last Thursday I attended a service down on the beach. It was 100 days since the tragedy occurred and the Chinese tradition is to hold a service. I met up again with many local people who had been involved in the tragedy. What an impact it had had on their lives—for example, on the local lifeboat crews. One of the young men who had recovered some of the bodies is still having nightmares, seeing Chinese people in his dreams. The local chief superintendent, Wendy Walker, is a credit to the local police force. She behaved so well following the tragedy, but it still plays on her mind because she went into the morgue and saw 20 young people with not a mark on their bodies—20 people who should not have been dead and who were probably dead as a result of exploitation.
  There was not just a human cost. We are faced with a police bill of £1 million to date, and the investigation continues. I put it on record in Parliament that I should like to see the Government pick up the cost of that. They have been helpful and given a grant of £200,000, but Morecambe bay was a national tragedy and it should

  1221
  not be the people of Morecambe who suffer in their policing and have to foot that bill. I appeal for more help in paying the bill.
  The issue of exploitation was brought to my attention after the Morecambe bay tragedy because I met so many people who had so many horrendous tales to tell me about how people were being exploited right across agriculture—often illegal immigrants, but not always. Quite often British people were suffering terrible exploitation. We heard one example today of a mushroom factory where exploitation was taking place. I have heard of a similar factory in my area where local people are being put out of work because the owners are trying to get cheaper foreign labour. It seems that there is probably exploitation taking place there.
  It is clear that we need measures to address the problems. The Bill will be helpful. It will produce a public register so we will know how many gangmasters are operating in this country. We must be careful. A gangmaster is just a supplier of labour and there are some good, reputable gangmasters operating. Those gangmasters have suffered as a result of unscrupulous people undercutting them by employing, slave labour. The Bill should help to deal with that.
  As has been said, there is a need for joined-up government. Let us be honest—that is easier said than done. It is difficult for any Government. Government works in Departments and it is hard for those Departments to liaise and work closely together at times. The tragedy in Morecambe bay and other events that hon. Members have highlighted show the need for Departments to work together.
  We still have issues to deal with in Morecambe bay. Agencies have worked much better together since the tragedy. The Department for Work and Pensions, the Inland Revenue and various other Departments have got together and reviewed multi-agency operations. They are looking closely at the situation. The immigration service has acted well since the tragedy, carrying out a number of raids in my constituency and taking what I consider at this stage to be satisfactory action. But problems remain. I have heard that last week up to 80 Chinese people were working on the northern side of the bay at 11.30 at night in dangerous conditions, so clearly more remains to be done.
  Enforcement is important. This is a good Bill if it has teeth, and that will be the key to its success. We are talking not just about foreign workers, but about young British people. I have seen young British lads, 16 and 17-year-olds, out in Morecambe bay working for gangmasters, who are often not aware of some of the dangers of the bay, and I am sure that the same applies throughout the agriculture sector.
  The events at Morecambe bay shocked and shamed the nation. At least 21 young lives were lost. A body was found only two weeks ago, and we hear that two bodies are probably still out there in the bay. People were shocked and saddened that such practices could occur in the 21st century, with people living in overcrowded conditions, 20 to a small flat, exploited, transported in
  1222
  rundown vehicles that were not even taxed and just left in the middle of a bay to die in freezing cold, icy waters in the darkness.
  We want to ensure that those lives that were lost were not wasted. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire for making sure that those lives were not wasted. His Bill will be a tribute to them and will help to prevent other vulnerable workers from being exploited in the same way.
  As I have said, the Bill is not a panacea, but it is a step in the right direction and I welcome it.
  10.41 am
  Dr. John Pugh: It is a privilege to follow hon. Members who have done such exemplary work in furthering such a good and potentially promising piece of legislation. Its target is largely the illegal gangmasters, or gangsters—shadowy criminals, exploitative people who engage in trafficking and abuse every piece of employment and housing legislation going. But I hope that within the Bill's ambit comes another group of people who call themselves agencies rather than gangmasters. Their names often appear in telephone directories and they advertise in newspapers, and they too house, deliver, tout for and organise a work force. Some could be described as borderline legal. Some have been prosecuted, some are rather easily satisfied with false identities, and some turn a blind eye to almost every health and safety regulation known. In addition, they often house the people who work for them in circumstances that violate all the regulations for houses in multiple occupation. That creates a problem throughout the country.
  Those agencies fundamentally provide a legal get-out for legitimate employers in all sorts of areas, including agriculture, building, catering, packing and industry. They are their alibi against whatever legislation the Government may wish to introduce in order to enforce decent labour relations.
  I very much favour the Bill, but like previous speakers I wonder what the eventual statutory instruments will look like and how the measures will be enforced. It is important that they be effective, not only against the gangsters, at whom the law can throw sufficient ammunition anyway, but to some extent at those people who regard themselves as working properly but who breach a good number of regulations in the process. If legislation—
  Alun Michael: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about organisations or individuals that operate within the legislation for registering employment agencies, I should make it clear that where they act as a gangmaster they are covered by the Bill. Obviously, people using a particular name can seek to avoid the law, but they would not be able to put themselves outside the legislation by the simple use of a term, or by using other legislation in order to try to avoid the Bill's application.
  Dr. Pugh: I am grateful for that assurance and all the other assurances that the Minister has given so far. The principle of the Bill is entirely sound, but the ultimate test will be its enforcement and the statutory instruments that follow, which we look forward to receiving.
  10.44 am
  Mr. Frank Dobson: I welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on introducing it and on all his work in preparing it and in the discussions that have taken place since Second Reading. It deals with what has been a growing problem, at the heart of which has been the exploitation of vulnerable workers receiving extremely low pay, working in poor conditions, facing excessive charges for their travel arrangements—which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) pointed out, have frequently been dangerous—without proper insurance cover, often being charged ferocious rates for protective clothing and so on, and often living in very poor accommodation supplied by the gangmaster at vast expense, so that while their notional pay may have been low, their take-home pay dwindled into virtual non-existence because of the deductions for travel, accommodation and clothing.
  It is also worth emphasising that not only was the vulnerable work force being exploited, but the taxpayer was being swindled left, right and centre. The Inland Revenue was not receiving the money that it should have been. Contributions were not being made towards pensions and other requirements of the Department for Work and Pensions, and you can bet your boots that VAT was not being paid. There have also been rising costs to the national health service. Because of the poor health and safety conditions, people were falling sick and being injured in a way that they would not have been if they had been properly employed by decent people.
  The Bill is the product of legitimate concern that has been building up over a long period; it has not just occurred now. I recall time and again listening to Dick Body on the Tory Benches and Joan Maynard on the Labour Benches, a joint attack by two people who probably did not agree on anything else on earth other than their dislike of the gangmaster system. Dick will probably be pleased by it, because he is still in the land of the living, and Joan Maynard would have been very pleased had she still been around to see it.
  That was all years ago, then my hon. Friend introduced this Bill and then there were the awful events in Morecambe bay. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), who, I confess, is a friend of mine. She had been exercising foresight and forewarning of the problems in Morecambe bay for a long time, but proper notice was not taken of what she was saying, and she found herself in the awful circumstances of being able to say "I told you so" after a tragedy, which was not something that she had looked forward to. She is still working hard and still drawing attention to shortcomings that might make it possible for such an event to occur again, in Morecambe bay or elsewhere.
  One of the problems in the past, highlighted by the recent Select Committee report to which the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred, concerns the co-ordination of the raids—if that is the right way to describe them—involving the police, the Inland Revenue, and sometimes the immigration service, the Departments for Work and Pensions and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Health and
  1224
  Safety Executive, and so on. As I understand it, one of the Bill's benefits will be that there will not be the necessity to co-ordinate raids in quite the same way. If there is a raid and someone is lifted, they can be arrested on the spot and taken to a police station. At that point, it should not be beyond the wit of anybody to get in touch with the proper people at the Inland Revenue, the Department for Work and Pensions, the immigration service, the police, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or the Health and Safety Executive so that the full weight of every possible law comes down upon the offender.
  Co-ordination will be made much easier by the Bill, which will be welcomed by all decent, law-abiding people. It is certainly welcomed by the law-abiding and decent suppliers of labour in the rather peculiar markets involved, and it is welcomed by the National Farmers Union, the Transport and General Workers Union and the major retailers.
  Generally speaking, I agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire in wanting the detail of the legislation to be included in the primary legislation. In these circumstances, however, there are good grounds for saying that much of that detail needs to be set out in regulations. If it were included in an Act of Parliament, it would probably take a great deal of time and effort to get any Government to make an appropriate amendment to that Act. We are dealing with some vile, villainous and ingenious people, so the fact that the detailed control of true regulation can be amended relatively quickly and easily in response to their latest ingenious villainy makes a good case for using the regulatory system.
  I represent Chalk Farm and various other such places—Holborn and St. Pancras is not a very agricultural or even horticultural area—and while the Bill covers agricultural and horticultural work, shellfish gathering and the processing or packing of any products derived from those industries and sectors, I wish to point out that there are other areas where gangmasters operate. Some of them are equally villainous in cleaning, the building trades and further stages of food preparation, which I do not think that the Bill necessarily covers. We can pat ourselves on the back about the Bill, but we cannot say that we have dealt with everything. It is right that the Bill deals only with the limited area that we have been discussing, but there are other issues, and we cannot think that we have dealt with the whole problem of gangmasters because we have tried to deal with a particular aspect.
  None the less, this is a good day, and it is the product of a lot hard work by Members of Parliament and officials. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on organising the process as he has done. His officials have had a number of meetings with the various interest groups, and he and they have also had meetings with the all-party membership of the Committee outside the Committee's proceedings, in which we managed to identify practical problems and come up with answers that dealt with them as far as we could see. There has been an interchange of ideas to meet a common and decent objective. It has been a good and productive process, and I congratulate him on his approach, which has been immensely helpful, as I think everyone who has been involved in the process would agree.

  1225
  After the law is passed, it needs to be implemented. As I said, I think that it will make it easier to co-ordinate the activity of the various supervisory bodies, but a great deal of hard work and effort will be needed and the various Departments will have to give the matter higher priority than they have been doing in practice until now if the Bill is to achieve what we want. We will also have to ensure that resources are available to back up the practicalities in the field. For all the good that the various working parties and such like are doing—and it may be very good work—what really counts is what happens on the ground, as I said in one of the meetings; it was a fairly chilly one at six o'clock in the morning in a pea field in Lincolnshire. We have got to get that sorted, and I think that the Bill goes a long way towards doing that. There will be further consultation about the regulations, involving the Transport and General Workers Union, which has done a great deal of work on the matter, as well as other organisations, including the National Farmers Union, which has been extremely co-operative.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale said, the problem does not apply only to foreign workers. In fact, the majority of the people who have been awfully exploited are our own fellow citizens. An end to the exploitation of people who are in this country for a brief period, but who might want to stay longer, and of our fellow citizens is a good thing and a step forward.
  The cost to a farmer and the ultimate cost to retailers and the rest of us of paying decent wages and ensuring that people work in decent conditions is an increase in the cost of the final product. We must recognise that, if we are going to ensure that people are decently treated when they are working to provide food for us, it may cost us a few more pence on our grocery bill, but that paying those few more pence is absolutely right if we are to bring about improved working conditions and get rid of the scandalous working conditions that some gangmasters—not the decent ones—have visited upon some of the most vulnerable people in our country. We may have to pay a little bit more to live in a better society, but I think that most people would agree that it will be well worth it.
  10.57 am
  Mr. Roger Williams: My hon. Friends and I very much welcome the Bill. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) for the work that he has done. The skill and determination that are needed to take a private Member's Bill through the House must never be underestimated. It has never fallen to me to do so, but I am told that it dominates a great deal of one's time, including parliamentary time.
  I first became aware of the gangmaster system when I was doing some missionary work in East Anglia in the 1960s and 1970s. We were picked up after the children left for school and brought back home just before they arrived back. I am probably looking at what happened through rose-tinted spectacles 30 or 40 years on, but it seemed like a family-friendly system. I guess the same abuses were happening then, but that they were not so readily identifiable and that attention was not drawn to them.
  1226
  The system and the market supply chain have changed incredibly. There is now a huge demand to deliver fresh products on to the table in a matter of hours rather than days. In the light of the domination of the limited number of supermarkets that have such a huge influence on the supply chain and prices, and their basic determination to compete on price, it is clear that the gangmasters in question and the abuses that have been identified are a symptom of that system. As a number of hon. Members have said, if we are going to address the issue, supermarkets must take some responsibility for the ethical considerations in deciding how a code should be produced. It is all very well for them to make great play of welfare conditions in respect of a chicken product produced in a foreign country, but it also behoves them to look after the welfare of the workers who have been involved in supplying that food. In warm weather, demand for salad increases, and farmers are asked at short notice to increase production and get more product to the supermarket shelves. The gangmaster system often breaks down during such stressful periods, which ill serves the people whom it employs.
  Assuming that the Bill is enacted and becomes part of the legislative framework, how will 3,000 gangmasters apply for and obtain licences? We want to encourage gangmasters into the system, and we do not want people making excuses by claiming that the system could not cope with their applications. Will a system of temporary licences be set up while the inspections and investigations take place to ensure that gangmasters meet the requirements of the licensing system?
  The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report criticised the Government for not being able to establish the number of gangmasters and employees affected by the Bill. The hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) mentioned 3,000 gangmasters, and I am sure he has the evidence to substantiate that figure, but a huge amount of work remains. We must set up an inclusive system, because the last thing that we want is gangmasters to exist outside the system—we want them inside it. The Select Committee report also pointed out that some gangmasters have co-operated voluntarily with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Because those gangmasters have volunteered to take part in the scheme, they presumably feel that they comply with the legislation.
  I recently visited St. Merryn Meat, which lies just outside my constituency in Merthyr. It employs 1,000 people, and produces 70 per cent. of the meat for Tesco. On a daily basis, it also employs 100 Portuguese workers, who are supplied by an employment agency. When I attended the briefing held by the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan), I asked whether those people and the agency that supplies them would be covered by the gangmaster legislation, and was assured that that agency must register. Perhaps the Minister will update us on whether the Bill covers such work.
  Many tributes have been paid to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith). None of us wants a tragedy to occur in our constituency. The hon. Lady has dealt with the matter with dignity and determination, and brought the issues to the Government's attention. Hopefully, her work will make it less likely that such disasters will happen in the future.

  1227
  Police criminal intelligence tells me that people traffickers also traffic drugs and evade excise on alcohol and tobacco. Those people form a criminal fraternity, and the more we can do to break its back, the better. If the Bill does just a small amount to achieve that objective, not only will it have improved the working conditions of up to 60,000 people in this country, but it will produce a big stick with which to attack the criminal fraternity which brings this country's reputation down.
  We support the Bill for all those reasons. A wide range of people have co-operated with the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire. The National Farmers Union, the Transport and General Workers Union and others attended your briefing, which shows the hard work that you have put in.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I gently remind the hon. Gentleman to use the correct parliamentary language?
  Mr. Williams: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The attendance at the briefing just goes to show the great work carried out by the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire, and we wish him all the best in the future.
  11.5 am
  Mr. Mark Simmonds: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) on getting the Bill to Third Reading. He has put a great deal of time and effort into behind-the-scenes work to hold together the disparate and diverse group that supports the Bill, which is no mean feat. The group of supporters is a coalition of the willing, including the NFU, the trade union movement, suppliers, retailers and, most importantly, legitimate labour providers in the agricultural and horticultural sectors. The hon. Gentleman has also secured cross-party support in this House. That is not always easy, but he has done it with great aplomb. I also congratulate him on his explanation and analysis of the Bill in his opening remarks, which was expertly done.
  Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend may plan to blow his own trumpet later, but meanwhile it is fair to put on the record the fact that he was first person to bring a Bill like this before the House, under the ten-minute rule.
  Mr. Simmonds: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which I was going to mention a little later in my remarks. As an MP who represents a rural part of Lincolnshire, I support the Bill, as the House knows. Many hon. Members will recall that last September I introduced a similar Bill to tackle the problems associated with rogue gangmasters.
  I was delighted that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned my predecessor, Sir Richard Body, and his unstinting and tireless work to get Governments of both political parties to address the problems and issues, which have existed for many years, surrounding the exploitation of both the indigenous population and migrant workers in the agricultural and horticultural sectors. Although Conservative Members support the Bill, we must
  1228
  recognise that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the regulations and the cost structure that the Bill imposes on legitimate businesses. I hope that we can seek clarifications and assurances about the legislation's scope and execution during this debate.
  Before I discuss the Bill in greater detail, it is important to understand the context within which it is set. Over the past five years, the number of illegal workers entering the country has dramatically increased, partly as a result of this Government's failed immigration policies, but also because of the failure to enforce existing legislation. That has left illegal workers particularly open to exploitation by rogue gangmasters, as those who are here illegally have no recourse through the trade union movement, or any other method to deal with maltreatment.
  The Government clearly have no idea of the number of gangmasters and migrant workers—illegal and legal—involved in the problem. They do not know how long migrant workers have been in the UK, where they are working or whether they are being exploited, and they cannot accurately assess the revenue lost to Customs and Excise in VAT or to the Inland Revenue in tax—the regulatory impact assessment that accompanies the Bill openly admits that point.
  In 1998, Operation Gangmaster was established to look into the problems of illegal ganging. However, it has been widely acknowledged, not least by the EFRA Committee, which was extremely critical of the Government, that the Government's efforts to tackle the problem have failed. The first report by the EFRA Committee stated:
  "Five years on, Operation Gangmaster has no overall budget, reports to no Minister, has no identified aims or goals and no time frame by which anything must be achieved."
  That relatively significant lack of co-ordination between Government Departments is one of the major reasons why Operation Gangmaster has not succeeded.
  I accept that the terrible tragedy in Morecambe bay, which was highlighted in a moving speech by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), has created a sharper focus for the Government, particularly for the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality. I echo the comments of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras about how well the Minister has conducted the passage of the Bill, particularly in holding private informal meetings with all the interest groups.
  None the less, in its conclusions and recommendations, on page 23 of its latest report, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee says:
  "The reality, then, is that the Government is no nearer obtaining a comprehensive picture of the scale and nature of the problem of illegal gangmaster activity than it was when we published our original report eight months ago. Other than issuing a tender for one piece of limited research, the Government has made no progress."
  I find that sad.
  I did not open my speech in that way for party political purposes; I simply want to ensure that the Minister, other DEFRA Ministers and Ministers in other Departments who are responsible for specific pieces of relevant legislation, and their civil servants, understand categorically that the enactment of this Bill

  1229
  will be not the end but the beginning. It is the efficient enforcement of the Act that will determine its success or otherwise.
  We must remember that we already have in place 20 pieces of legislation that should curb illegal practices—but the lack of co-ordination between Government Departments and agencies has resulted in confusion, a certain amount of chaos, and, there is no doubt, a significant growth in illegal activity.
  Members on both sides of the House, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and I, urged the Government to tackle the problem and ensure that existing legislation was enforced. However, the Government's record of inaction looked set to continue—until the terrible tragic events in Morecambe bay in February. I join other hon. Members in making my personal tribute to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, who has handled herself with dignity and determination in resolving the issues that emanated from that tragedy.
  Only after the tragedy, and the subsequent public outcry for action, did the Government feel it necessary to act, and to support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire. To the hon. Gentleman's eternal credit, he had decided to bring the Bill in before, rather than after, the tragedy in Morecambe bay.
  I am generally hesitant about introducing licensing schemes and regulations per se, not least when legislation is already in place, but I sincerely believe that a licensing scheme for gangmasters will make the existing legislation easier to enforce. If a gangmaster fails to obtain a licence, the conditions of which will include satisfying the requirements of the existing legislation, he could be subject to prosecution and, ultimately, a custodial sentence.
  As several hon. Members have pointed out, the Bill is not a panacaea, and the expectation that it will solve all the associated problems is unrealistic. I am particularly concerned that unless there is extremely robust enforcement, rogue gangmasters may continue to operate outside the licensing system, while legitimate operators face the increased costs of meeting the conditions in pursuance of obtaining a licence.
  Like the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire, I was delighted to read that the Select Committee had changed its mind about supporting the Bill, and I shall put on the record two quotations that demonstrate how it has changed its position. Its previous report, published in September, said that it was
  "not convinced a statutory registration scheme offers a stand-alone solution to the problems of illegal gangmasters…without concerted action to remedy shortcomings in enforcement…a statutory registration scheme, introduced as a single policy response will serve nothing".
  I understood and shared its concerns about enforcement, but I have always felt that a licensing scheme will aid enforcement, provided that there is a co-ordinated effort by enforcement officers ensuring that the conditions of licences are met.
  I am sure that all hon. Members are delighted that in its recent report the Committee said:
  1230
  "We are persuaded that licensing and registration are required to deal with the problem of illegal gangmasters. Therefore we support the Bill and call on the Government to ensure that time is made available—in Government time if necessary—for its successful passage".
  I echo that last point, although I hope that that will not be necessary. I was intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale seem to suggest that the Government had already committed themselves to ensuring that the provisions of the Bill could pass through Parliament in Government time, if, sadly, the private Member's Bill should fall for some reason.
  I now turn to some of the specifics in the Bill, although I have no wish to repeat the debates that took place either on Second Reading or in Committee. I shall talk about the regulatory impact assessment, the proposed structure of the licensing authority and the proposed draft regulations.
  The regulatory impact assessment provides an estimate of the likely cost of a licence—a point rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire. The estimate was that a three-year licence would cost between £1,750 and £2,250. I am still concerned that that may be excessive, and I fear that it may prove to be a burden for small-scale labour providers, and could discourage some gangmasters from registering for a licence altogether.
  I have been informed by some rogue gangmasters that this charge is minimal, particularly in the context of the large sums that are often to be made in what is—let there be no doubt—a multi-million pound business. I hope that the Minister and his officials will consider a sliding scale of charges, determined by the turnover of the business, to ensure that the small-scale labour provider is not deterred from participating in the marketplace.
  Alun Michael: We have designed the arrangements so that there can be engagement with the industry on such issues, such as whether there should be a flat rate or a sliding scale. Would a sliding scale mean more bureaucracy, or would it be fairer? That is precisely why the engagement with the board of the body to be established, as well as in consultation work, is crucial. What matters is not just my view, or that of other DEFRA Ministers and officials, but what will work best in helping the legitimate industry, as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Simmonds: I am grateful for that helpful intervention.
  For the licence to be effectively self-financing, running costs and bureaucracy must, as the Minister suggested, be kept to an absolute minimum, so that licence fees are as low as possible. However, that should not be done at the expense of enforcement.
  According to the regulatory impact assessment, accommodation costs for the new authority are likely to be in excess of £200,000 per annum. I believe that to be extravagant, and suggest that the authority could—and should—be based close to the agricultural areas that it serves, rather than in Whitehall. That would also reduce the accommodation costs and other overheads. Personally, I would be delighted to see it based in Boston in Lincolnshire—[Interruption]—just to mention somewhere at random.

  1231
  Paragraph 5.2 of the regulatory impact assessment emphasises the point made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) when it suggests that labour providers may pass increased costs up the food chain. I wonder how likely it is that retailers will be prepared to absorb the costs themselves rather than pass them on to suppliers and consumers. In order for the Bill to work, retailers must be prepared to engage and co-operate with suppliers. In these days of ethical consumerism, it would be in their interests, so I hope that they will play their part.
  In Committee I expressed my concern about some of the ambiguity in the Bill, especially the provisions in clause 13, which refer to "all reasonable steps" to be taken by labour employers such as farmers to ensure that a gangmaster holds a valid licence. I understand that the definition of reasonable steps will be elaborated on in secondary legislation, and I understand why that is necessary. However, it would be helpful to have an assurance from the Minister today that that will be subject to the fullest consultation with the industry. It is essential that those reasonable steps be practical. Farmers will often require labour at short notice, sometimes in the middle of the night while in the middle of a field. It is essential that a gangmasters' register is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and is up to date, to ensure that a gangmaster's licence is valid. The only way that can happen is if the register is an online, compute-accessed facility, so that a farmer can access it via a laptop in the middle of a field in the middle of the night.
  It is still unclear what steps a farmer or packhouse owner will have to take to ensure that he is not liable for employing an unlicensed gangmaster. It is also unclear from the Bill how far the liability would extend. For instance, would a large retailer which sold produce knowingly harvested or produced by an unlicensed gangmaster be liable to prosecution? Paragraph 44 of the EFRA most recent report, paragraph 44 recommended that the Government consider extending liability to retailers. Has the Minister considered that suggestion and, if so, has he reached any conclusions?
  I have previously expressed concerns about the lack of detail available regarding secondary legislation. That point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I understand why flexibility must be maintained, but the make-up of the authority is clearly hugely important. I am pleased that DEFRA has provided details of the structure and operations of the gangmaster licensing authority, and that that will be subject to affirmative procedure in the House.
  In the context of the gangmaster licensing authority, the DEFRA document, in annexe 1, section 17 on "Liaison Groups and Committees", says that the authority shall establish enforcement, labour provider and labour user liaison groups. Will that be stipulated by Ministers in the regulations, or will the authority set up such groups at its discretion? Annexe 2, which refers to exclusions, is helpful in clarifying which types of work require a licence for supplying labour and which do not. I particularly welcome the exclusion of gathering
  1232
  shellfish using boats. Many small-scale family shellfish gatherers would otherwise be classed as gangmasters and would require licences to employ family members.
  Annexe 3 suggests that the providers of workers to farmers under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme would not require a licence. That may initially seem sensible, as the organisations that operate within SAWS are perfectly legitimate However, I am concerned by the number of SAWS workers who may have overstayed and breached their permits. In October last year, the Home Office said that it had no reliable estimate of the number of SAWS workers that had officially disappeared and failed to return to their country of origin. Surely it would be sensible to address this aperture in the immigration system before excluding the scheme from the gangmaster license. SAWS suppliers should ensure that their workers do not violate the terms of their immigration status, and that could be something that the gangmaster licensing scheme could enforce and control.
  In conclusion, I broadly welcome the provisions to license gangmasters, which are long overdue. The Bill should make enforcing existing legislation easier, provide a level playing field for legitimate labour providers, and put an end to the exploitation of British and migrant workers by rogue gangmasters. However, the Bill by itself is not a complete solution, and there are still issues that need to be resolved. The Bill must ensure that the licence fee does not become too burdensome and a deterrent to legitimate labour providers, and there must be adequate enforcement and prosecution of those who continue to operate outside the law.
  I specifically welcome clause 23, which states that the Secretary of State will report to Parliament once a year, analysing the performance of the scheme. I would like the Minister to clarify what form that report will take, and that if required it will involve a debate in the House. We would not want the report just to be stuck in a dusty corner of the Library. As the criminal element becomes more sophisticated and imaginative in its determination to flout the law and exploit vulnerable workers, so we must be equally determined to ensure that legislation is continually monitored and updated to enforce this Bill robustly, to the benefit of those who are exploited and to the benefit of the whole food chain.
  11.24 am
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I am pleased to be able to respond positively to a debate that has been remarkably well informed and a detailed examination of the issues before the House. On occasions one feels that the House has skated over the surface of important issues, but that could not be said of today's debate. From the start, it has gone to the heart of the Bill.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) for giving me the opportunity to engage with the Bill. As many hon. Members have said, it has been a very positive process. The Bill is very different from the one considered by the House on Second Reading, but its target is the same. The Bill is now clear and specific in its design and intentions. It provides a licensing system for gangmasters, which has been debated on many occasions, but it goes further. It will create a kind of

  1233
  antisocial behaviour order for gangmasters, if used in the way that hon. Members who have taken an interest in it intend.
  Much work has been done in a short time to get the detail of the Bill right. It has been an excellent example of co-operation and teamwork. I am pleased that hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to DEFRA officials, because policy officials, lawyers and parliamentary counsel have demonstrated an extraordinary willingness to work hard and quickly to achieve the Bill that we now have before us. They have brought credit on themselves and the civil service in general. They have demonstrated that things can be done both quickly and carefully when the will is there.
  I also support my hon. Friend's comments about the work undertaken by officials of the Transport and General Workers Union, the National Farmers Union and others. Indeed, it is fair to say that when we met informally again this week, at a meeting called by my hon. Friend, significant commitment was evident from a variety of organisations. However, the personal engagement of Jack Dromey, the deputy general secretary of the TGWU, and Tim Bennett, the president of the NFU, provided encouragement and support to their teams which was essential in evoking the co-operation necessary to achieve the result we have before us. People not only talked about the problems, they went away and tried to tease out the answers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) posed some difficult questions at the beginning of the process. Having three former Cabinet Ministers—including two former Agriculture Ministers—as part of the team was very good for concentrating the mind. They each made a positive contribution.
  I also wish to thank the members of the Committee, of all parties, who worked constructively with us to ensure that the Bill would be effective in delivering its objectives. By the time we reached Committee stage and Report, unseen work had been done that made a difference to the quality of the legislation. We reached the point at which the Committee's members were able to support unanimously the amendments tabled. We now have a much stronger Bill that will, I hope, continue to command the cross-party support that was evident in Committee. We have a Bill that provides for the registration and licensing of gangmasters. It will make the whole labour supply process more open and ensure that gangmasters are accountable for their actions.
  Members have raised significant issues during the debate, while making it clear that they want the Bill to progress. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire, myself and the groups to which I have referred have discussed and anticipated all those points, but it is only fair to mention some of them. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) referred to the way in which my noble Friend Lord Whitty has engaged with this, issue. He referred to the work of Zad Padda, a young man who has shown leadership and intelligence in recognising the importance for labour providers of setting up an effective system of licensing.
  To those hon. Members who have referred to how much activity is going on, I would say that the work of Operation Gangmaster is only in the headlines when a major prosecution takes place, which is often
  1234
  considerably after the events that have led to arrests. A number of successes have been reflected in the press and other media recently, perhaps not with as great a splash as we would wish. It is a pity that that was not reflected in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report. It was right to comment that the support of that Committee for the Bill, which was not given earlier, is important and welcome.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) was right to underline, as other Members have, the fact that this Bill is not a panacea. Indeed, legislation is never a panacea and never a substitute for action. Previous Governments have made the mistake sometimes of engaging in frenetic activity in adding to legislation, without making a difference on the ground. We must recognise that we are dealing with illegal activity, which does not operate on the basis of convenient structures in which we can intervene without a great deal of work. We are dealing with a market in which there is flexibility, in which people change their methods of working rapidly, and in which a lot of people are not prepared to obey the law. Flexibility is what the market needs. Growers, to whom the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred, need help fast at particular stages in the year, but that flexibility is what makes it difficult to regulate the industry properly. I take on board the point made about the impact on lifeboat crews and the police, and the much wider ramifications of the events in Morecambe bay.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale rightly mentioned the damage done to legitimate labour providers. I am pleased that Members on both sides of the House have refereed to the legitimate contribution made by those who are trying to operate within the law and do things properly. The liaison between Departments and agencies, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire and touched on by various other Members, is a serious issue. The problem is that although liaison is often good at ministerial level and the will is there to co-operate, the situation at ground level is different. The trick is to ensure that that will is reflected on the ground.
  In relation to the Bill, enforcement has two elements. Of course, there is the desire to prevent tax evasion and to ensure that the minimum wage is paid, but the two elements are enforcement by licensed gangmasters of the requirements of the agency in relation to the code of practice and so on, and making sure that we burn off those who work outside the licensing system so that they cannot undercut legitimate labour providers. Those two elements need to be looked at separately, because they are different. Enforcement in relation to those who are within the virtuous circle of licensing needs to be kept to the minimum necessary to ensure that they comply with the requirements, whereas firm and swift action is needed to ensure that those who are not licensed, and not within that virtuous circle, are unable to continue their activities.
  The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) referred to agencies and those who operate in the shadows. If somebody is operating as a gangmaster, whatever title they use or however they advertise, they are within the ambit of the legislation. One of the questions that we discussed with some care was that of employment

  1235
  agencies. We did not want a duplication of legislation, but we wanted to ensure that somebody could not register as an employment agency and effectively act as a gangmaster but not he caught by the provisions of the Bill. I believe that we have got the design right.
  Mr. Luff: This is a technical point, and I am happy if the right hon. Gentleman wants to write to me rather than answer it now. There is one quite sophisticated packing operation in my constituency, which requires a large supply of office labour to deliver its services. If it used a recruitment agency to recruit staff for the office rather than the packing side of its operation, would that recruitment agency also be required to register as a gangmaster?
  Alun Michael: As often seems to be the case, I am happy to engage in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman on arcane detail. I think the answer is that if staff were recruited to undertake activities that fall within the ambit of the Bill, that would be caught by its provisions. Were those activities outside its ambit, they would not be caught. On the other hand, if the activities are ancillary, that is the kind of area that needs to be clarified. I believe that we have ensured that the Bill casts the net as widely as possible, so that we can provide by exclusion, which is allowed for in the Bill, that those not intended to be covered are not caught. That provides flexibility in the architecture of the Bill, which I hope will be effective.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras helped at an early stage, applying his experience as a Cabinet Minister and his acute sense of the practical, by asking the most challenging questions about how the Bill would operate in the mists of the morning in some of the flatter areas of England. As a result of responding to those questions, we have improved the Bill considerably. He was absolutely right to underline the legitimate concern about swindlers who do not pay tax, national insurance or the minimum wage, and to remind us of the long history of parliamentary concern about exploitation, which goes back much further than a generation. I agree entirely that action not just in terms of co-ordinating raids but in terms of following up intervention should be made much easier, which goes to the heart of the Bill and of what I meant when I described it as providing an antisocial behaviour order for gangmasters.
  A number of questions were asked about who would be caught. I was asked whether the Bill would cover workers in a meat processing plant. The Bill covers all processing and packaging of produce derived from agricultural work, which includes meat. We will consider the coverage of downstream processing activities in more detail when the regulations are made, to ensure that we do not inadvertently catch those for whom the legislation is not intended. All such work is included unless it is excluded by regulation.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) asked how quickly licences would be introduced, and whether we could ensure that there was not a long period before licences could be obtained. The Bill allows for transitional provisions, which would allow temporary registration or provisional licences, to
  1236
  ensure that labour providers can be brought into the licensing scheme quickly and allow us to concentrate on operating the scheme and ensuring that it restricts those who seek to break the law. The hon. Gentleman referred to his experience in East Anglia in the missionary field. I reflected that my experience was of stone picking after ploughing during bob-a-job week in north Wales—he will appreciate that there are some areas of the uplands in which stones are quite a significant crop. That activity may well come within the ambit of the Bill. I make it clear for the record that that was before my experience of the Transport and General Workers Union, when I was employed on the buses.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, it is important to encourage gangmasters into the system straight away. It would be a tragedy if they hung back and waited to see what happened. We need to get them into the system and to make it clear that being outside it will not be tolerated and will lead to swift action. On the other hand, we do not want a bureaucratic system that produces just statistics. In terms of the Select Committee's comment yesterday, putting effort into bean counting is not the way to approach the matter; we want to ensure that it is unrewarding to evade the law.
  Much preparation work has been done with the Ethical Trading Initiative. Two or three hon. Members have referred to the fact that the Ethical Trading Initiative has discovered some flaws in the audit system. I do not think that that is terribly surprising. Those who have been involved in the Ethical Trading Initiative have effectively had to accept an additional burden as legitimate providers of labour, while those who do not bother to get involved do not have that burden, and those who operate completely outside the law obviously avoid all sorts of overheads. The Ethical Trading Initiative and the systematic approach that some providers have sought to develop will be greatly strengthened by the legislation.
  The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) made a series of important points. I congratulate him on his positive approach to the Bill. He has genuinely supported it and sought to help to improve it. I hope that that does not reach the ears of the Leader of the Opposition and damage the hon. Gentleman's political career. He showed himself to be courageous, even adventurous, by referring to immigration policy. I gently remind him that the Leader of the Opposition had personal responsibility for immigration policy as well as wider areas of the law for a number of years. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was wise to draw that to the attention of the House because it was not exactly the most productive period, in respect of either immigration policy or enforcement of the law.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the scope and execution of subsidiary legislation. We are trying to give the shape of the subsidiary legislation, such as on the membership of the board of the non-departmental public body that will run the scheme, so that, as has already happened, points can be made about whether there is a gap, or whether the balance of the membership is right to ensure that the expertise is there. The final version of the statutory instrument that provides for the membership of the board will follow soon after the legislation has reached the statute book, but we have outlined a proposed membership, which was not dreamt

  1237
  up within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs but arises from the discussions that I referred to earlier with all the participants to try to ensure that we get it right. That is the way we are approaching the subsidiary legislation generally: we aim to develop policy and the drafting at the same time as the Bill goes through the House, and to give as much clarity as possible to those who will look at the Bill in another place as to how the provisions will be used. That has not always been the case. My first experience of legislation in the House was with the Immigration Act 1988. The Minister who led for the then Government was Tim Renton, who later became their Chief Whip. I spent a lot of time trying to tease out of him the slightest indication of what the subsidiary legislation might look like. We even offered the old regulations as a gift-wrapped package at Christmas in the hope that he would relent and give some insight into what would happen after the Bill became law.
  The position this time is very much the reverse. We are seeking to work with all the organisations and to be open with hon. Members about the way in which the subsidiary legislation will be used, because the experience of all the organisations and the application of the knowledge of hon. Members can help to get it right. We will continue in that spirit. I undertake to my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness and others who served on the Committee to keep them informed as we develop those ideas.
  The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness made some points about delivery. We could give the impression that nothing much is going on. The message needs to go out that a lot is going on in order to catch those who are defrauding the Exchequer as well as undertaking exploitation. Operation Gangmaster has delivered benefits to the Exchequer of some £10.6 million in 2002–03. That includes recovery of income tax worth some £4 million and a reduction in benefit fraud through the prevention of claiming benefits while working. Government enforcement action has led to a number of high-profile arrests and prosecutions of gangmasters in recent weeks.
  The Department for Work and Pensions has identified 235 over-payments and 1,023 adjustments to benefits worth £405,000, securing 138 sanctions and prosecutions. The Inland Revenue specialist team is settling 46 inquiries and reviews, and identifying unpaid tax and national insurance Contributions worth £4.3 million. In addition, there have been criminal prosecutions of 14 gangmasters for VAT offences involving £5.9 million and resulting in prison sentences totalling 31 years.
  Some of those recoveries have been done without the sort of prosecutions that bring the matter into the public eye and lead to headlines, but people should be in no doubt that enforcement measures and co-operation between Departments are having a positive effect.
  Mr. Luff: Would the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to remind police forces that another area where enforcement is very important is traffic offences?
  1238
  It would be helpful if police forces showed more enthusiasm to tackle the obvious white mini-buses that run around illegally.
  Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes his point effectively. It is always difficult for the police to balance the different requirements and, indeed, the different calls on their time from hon. Members, but I am sure that, as a result of recent events, the police are well aware that there is an issue here that is not just about casual labour—it is about a number of much more serious things. Indeed, the Home Secretary and members of his team have made it clear how important they regard those issues.
  The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness referred to the regulatory impact assessment and was concerned about the cost to small-scale providers. That issue needs to be addressed. On the one hand, we want a licensing system under which the charge and the means for assessing it are as simple as possible, while on the other we must ensure that we do not set up a perverse incentive for smaller-scale providers. That is one of the issues that we want the partners to discuss both before the establishment of the agency, and within the agency, as soon as the shadow board is in place.
  The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness referred to accommodation costs and, if I understood him correctly, made us an offer that we cannot refuse—free accommodation in his constituency. We do not envisage that the accommodation will have to be in Whitehall, so we are open to offers, even from Boston and Skegness. I can assure him that we shall certainly not be gold-plating the accommodation costs. Currently, all the costs are of an indicative nature. The very fact that the board will include representatives of those who will have to pay the licensing fees will, I hope, help to ensure proper scrutiny of the proposals so that costs are kept to a minimum. That will obviously have a knock-on effect on licence fees.
  Mr. Dobson: The concept that the licensing system should pay for itself seems reasonable, but this point has just occurred to me: is there any possibility that some of the money obtained from prosecuting the villains could also be used to finance the enforcement system, on the polluter pays principle? The villains are the polluters.
  Alun Michael: My right hon. Friend has vast experience of hypothecation and of attempts to persuade the Exchequer that any income it derives should be directed back to the activity whence that money came, so he can anticipate my answer. However, we have acknowledged that as well as operating the licence system and ensuring that those who are licensed obey the licensing terms, there is also a need for enforcement in respect of people who are not licensed or who have had their licence withdrawn. The Government should take responsibility for that, to ensure that inappropriate burdens are not put on the licence fee and on legitimate gangmasters.
  Mr. Luff: Until the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) put his question, I had not thought about that point either. In fact, there is a precedent in government. We are told that speed cameras pay for themselves and surpluses go to the

  1239
  Exchequer, so perhaps the fines under this system could pay for the authority and the surplus could go to the Exchequer.
  Alun Michael: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not thought that idea through. He would not have made that proposal when his party was in government. I was involved in the discussions about the return of money from speed camera fines and can tell him that it takes an awful lot of evidence to persuade the Treasury that it should go along with such proposals. I do not think we need to take that route.
  There are advantages to the Exchequer in the prosecution of people who do not pay tax and so on, which create an incentive for the application of the law in different ways. As I said, we have looked into DEFRA's enforcement role, as well as into co-operation between different enforcement agencies. In fact, groups will be set up under the Bill to ensure that the agency liaises with labour providers and other enforcement agencies. The agency will set up those liaison groups to ensure that the process is joined up and that the groups are practical and effective and do not merely fulfil a theoretical requirement. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that the important thing is that the process should be rooted in what happens in practice and that the different interests of enforcers and labour providers, as well as the overall policy on the operation of the licence system, are considered in the liaison groups. The board will bring all the significant players together and we have designed the Bill so that we can achieve a balance between specific and overall interests.
  The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness asked about retailers absorbing costs. It is important that we have an indication from the supermarkets, the British Retail Consortium and others of their commitment to the licence process and the need to follow it through in practice. We shall be discussing that with them.
  In response to another point made by the hon. Gentleman, I can promise that we shall hold the fullest consultation with the industry and ensure that everyone has a chance to comment on the process as it is developed. We want fast access to information on the ground, because unless the police and others who operate the licence system are able to get information quickly, we shall be unable to draw a firm line between legitimate, licensed gangmasters and those who operate outside the law, which is obviously the focus that we need.
  That process will be helped by the work that Home Office Ministers are undertaking to simplify and clarify the authorising of overseas workers in this country, so that they can show that they are in the UK legitimately. The system has been over-complex in the past, but the need to demonstrate legitimacy is fully understood and that is important for labour providers and other employers.
  I think that I have referred to the liaison groups and covered most of the points raised in the debate.
  Mr. Simmonds: Will the Minister deal with the final point that I made about the implications of the seasonal agricultural workers scheme, which is referred to in
  1240
  annexe 3 of the regulatory impact assessment? I understand why it has been excluded, at least initially, from the provisions in the Bill, but I hope that he will deal with several of the issues that I highlighted in my remarks.
  Alun Michael: I am happy to consider the hon. Gentleman's points in detail. We believe that the seasonal agricultural workers scheme is carefully designed, so the possibility of it being used as cover for illegitimate activity would not arise. However, I am happy to reconsider that and to write to him with the details.
  I referred to the Bill as creating an antisocial behaviour order for gangmasters. The licensing scheme will provide a further tool for us to use in the fight against the exploitative activities of illegitimate gangmasters—those who are not concerned with obeying the law. It provides robust enforcement powers to support that objective.
  The Bill also ensures a high degree of stakeholder involvement in the detailed design and operation of the new licensing arrangements. I reinforce the point made at the beginning of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire when he outlined the Bill's impact and how it would work. It creates a new non-departmental public body to operate the licensing scheme. We want to make sure that it is not an unnecessary piece of bureaucracy and that the Bill will bring together key stakeholders and the Government to steer and operate the new licensing arrangements so that those who provide labour do so in a way that is within the law and is not exploitative. Therefore, the names of the providers of labour who act properly and within the law will not be tarnished by the activities of the lawbreakers, the thugs and those who have no respect for the law.
  It is important that there should be commitment to the licensing scheme from all sectors of the industry, from producer to supermarket. The representation on the board secures that engagement. The involvement of stakeholders will also ensure that the conditions attached to a licence balance our wish to see an end to the exploitation of vulnerable workers with the need to ensure that the licensing arrangements do not place unnecessary burdens on labour providers and others in the fresh produce supply chain. That is why the licence fees will be set by the licensing authority in discussion with the Government.
  Reference has already been made to the fact that the indicative costings suggest that the fee could be between £1,750 and £2,250 for a three-year licence, but those figures will be need to be reviewed once we have a clearer idea of the conditions that the licensing authority thinks should be attached to a licence. Again, that involves the engagement of all sides of the industry. Although the licensing authority will have day-to-day responsibility for the operation of the licensing scheme, the Government will also have an important role to play. In particular, we will establish and fund an independent appeals mechanism for the licensing process. That will ensure that labour providers can appeal against decisions taken by the authority involving the issue and withdrawal of licences.
  At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire stressed the importance of enforcement, as others have. Co-ordinated action

  1241
  and being proactive are important We will also put in place robust enforcement arrangements to deal with the criminal offences created by the Bill. It gives the Secretary of State responsibility for the appointment of enforcement officers. That ensures that officers from existing enforcement agencies can utilise the new criminal offences to tackle gangmasters when this helps to deliver departmental enforcement objectives—in a sense, the antisocial behaviour order aspect of the Bill. We are also considering making additional resources available to increase the number of enforcement officers operating in this area, and we will be looking to secure police co-operation when appropriate.
  Enforcement activities need to be intelligence-led. The powers of entry and arrest provided for under the Bill will be used when necessary but I reassure the House that all enforcement officers will be trained appropriately before they are given the authority to exercise these powers. There may be considerable merit in including housing enforcement. officers within the Bill's ambit, effectively to facilitate a one-stop shop approach to licensing and enforcement, but we have made it clear where the different responsibilities lie. That will also ensure that enforcement officers have ready access to information on gangmaster activities flowing from the licensing scheme.
  Information sharing will be a key element in the successful introduction of the licensing scheme, so the Bill creates a two-way flow of information between the Government and the licensing authority. Again, that will ensure that the authority can take fully informed decisions on whether a licence should be issued or withdrawn. It will also provide valuable intelligence for Government enforcement bodies.
  The Bill also provides for robust maximum penalties. I said that the intention is that if an offence is committed, prosecution can follow rapidly, but should there be repeat offences, we would hope that the courts use the higher penalties quickly to burn off any idea that offenders can get away with it, because that would do great damage to the licensing scheme and, again, provide succour to those who do not respect the law.
  It has been underlined that much of the licensing scheme remains to be clarified in regulations. I have stressed that despite our wish to see licensing introduced as quickly as possible, there will be full consultation at every stage of the regulation-making process. We intend to set out our ideas as early as possible so that that discursive opportunity is used and that we get it right. That will enable us to move quickly once the legislation is on the statute book. The key regulations on the operation of the licensing authority will be presented to the House for detailed consideration. That is appropriate and reflects our wish to ensure that everyone has a chance to consider the detail of the new arrangements.
  We have come a long way since Second Reading, and we still have some way to go before a fully operational licensing scheme can be introduced. However, I hope that the House agrees that the Bill provides a firm foundation. We understand the industry's need for a flexible labour supply, but that flexibility cannot be provided at the expense of workers. Licensing will oblige gangmasters to operate their businesses ethically. It will create a clear distinction between legal and illegal operators and strengthen the ability to enforce the law
  1242
  in a variety of ways. It provides the ability to ensure that those gangmasters who operate without a licence are prevented from doing so and that legitimate labour providers know that those who are willing to use any means to undercut them will be put out of business in short order. That will strengthen the legitimate part of the business. There can be no place for unlicensed gangmasters in future.
  As many hon. Members said, the Bill is characterised by the tremendous spirit of co-operation displayed by all those involved with it. That has helped to ensure its speedy development and passage to this point. I hope that that spirit of co-operation continues and that the Bill successfully completes its passage through Parliament. Indeed, I hope that the spirit of co-operation will also help to guarantee the success of the new licensing arrangements. I commend the Bill to the House as a positive response to the problems caused by gangmasters who are willing to exploit those who cannot look after themselves.
  12.3 pm
  Jim Sheridan: With the leave of the House, I want to thank right hon. and hon. Members for their support, especially those who made such powerful and eloquent contributions to the debate, not only in the Chamber today but throughout the parliamentary process. In particular, I thank those people who gave me the benefit of their advice and experience, which was extremely helpful.
  Again, I express my gratitude to the Minister and his officials, not only for their hard work, but for the receptive way in which they accepted the changes that we proposed and for the expeditious manner in which they responded to those suggestions. I must say, however, that I was somewhat surprised when the Minister referred to "Bob-a-job". I had not thought that he was of an age to be able to feel nostalgic about that worthwhile experience. Finally, I also want to thank the broad coalition that has supported the Bill every step of the way.
  We are all too aware that, today, politicians have a less than glowing reputation. Election turnouts are at an all-time low, voters are disengaged and opinion polls rank us somewhere between estate agents and loan sharks in the popularity stakes. That is little wonder in an age when the public perception is that politicians would rather trade insults at the Dispatch Box than work together to solve problems and that politics is more about delivering memorable soundbites than about developing workable policies. It is therefore very easy to be cynical about what we, as MPs, can achieve during our time on these Benches, but today we can achieve something—we can effect real, lasting and positive change. Today, we have a rare chance to do what we were elected to do: to make a difference.
  The Bill represents a different kind of politics. It is not the product of political point scoring; instead, it has been born out of partnership, consensus and reasoned debate between workers and employers, between Government and industry and between Members from every party in the House. At this point I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), who has worked tirelessly alongside the rest of us on the Bill and should be congratulated on

  1243
  that. Perhaps most importantly of all, the Bill is not driven by slogans and spin; instead, it is inspired by ideas and motivated by principles.
  It has been said on a number of occasions that the Bill is not a panacea, and I have never said that it will cure every ill or right every wrong, but it will make a difference. It will serve and protect those who, by electing us to this House, give us not only their votes but their trust. So, yes, the Bill may be only one small step towards ending worker exploitation, but it is a step in the right direction, and it is a step on a journey that social justice and workplace dignity demand we take. Good law can do great things, and this Bill makes for good law. I therefore thank the House for its indulgence and ask for its support.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Town and Country Planning (Telecommunications Masts) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.8 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The measures in the Bill are of significance to many people in my constituency and other constituencies up and down the country. At the outset I should like to put on record my appreciation for the overwhelming cross-party support that I have received and the enormous encouragement from outside the House. Since the Bill's First Reading, my postbag has been filled with letters from the four corners of the country expressing support.
  In particular, I would like to thank the pressure groups Planning Sanity and Mast Sanity, which have been a constant source of encouragement and assistance. I would also like to thank Mr. Mike Bell, chairman of the Radiation Research Trust, and his team, whose support has been invaluable. Finally, Mrs. Sarah Webster of Bridgetown in Devon deserves, in particular, to be thanked in this debate. She is a dedicated and passionate campaigner on the issue of transmission masts who has helped me to understand in the clearest possible terms the impact it has had on the lives of so many people. She has put me in contact with people across the United Kingdom who are suffering from serious ill health that they attribute to transmission masts and base stations.
  I have the fullest support of the two local councils in my constituency, Forest Heath district council and St. Edmundsbury borough council. I have consulted and have the fullest support of the Local Government Association, which is backing the Bill having canvassed the views of the local authorities it represents. I make no party political point when I say that many people in this country feel that the power to influence their lives and their local communities has slipped away from them over the years. It is extraordinary that the construction of masts that are so visible and so intrusive is a matter over which, in practice, local people have no control.
  Far too many Members of Parliament have sent e-mails and letters of support to name each individually; none the less, I should mention my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), who has campaigned for greater regulation in this area for several years—indeed, she preceded many in her calls for the effects of transmission masts on health to be researched much more rigorously. Many other Members have discussed the subject and their constituency concerns with me, not least my right hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), and my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), as well as many others across the political divide, most notably, my fellow Suffolk Members of Parliament.
  In the past few years, there have been several Adjournment debates on the impact of transmission masts on health and on the environment, including one

  1245
  that I introduced last March. I should be surprised if any Member of Parliament has not at some point received correspondence on the issue from a constituent. Action to defuse a national groundswell of public anxiety is long overdue, and I want action to be taken on three fronts in particular.
  First, the Government should accept the need for more research to investigate the genuine cases of ill health and the health concerns felt by sensible, rational people. Secondly, the precautionary principle advocated by Sir William Stewart when he was a Government senior advisor should mean that, in most cases, masts should not be placed too close to people's homes, schools and hospitals. The Government might wish to draw up new guidelines to put that into practice. Thirdly, a change should be made to paragraph 40 of policy planning guidance note 8 to enable the councillors who have to make planning decisions to take the views of those whom they represent into account in a balanced and objective way.
  I note that, earlier this year, the National Radiological Protection Board published research that broadly confirms what Sir William Stewart stated four years previously:
  "There is now scientific evidence, however, which suggests that there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines… We conclude…that it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation,"—
  radiofrequency radiation—
  "even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach".
  With such uncertainty continuing to hang over transmission masts, there is a clear need for more specific research.
  My Bill addresses the other two calls for action. If it is enacted, every application for planning permission for a mast must be accompanied by a certificate that sets out the area and maximum range of the beam of greatest intensity. If that falls on part of any premises or land occupied by an education or medical facility, or a residential property, planning permission will not be granted. Furthermore, every application must also be accompanied by a precautionary principle statement. If the statement indicates that there is a threat of serious damage to heath or to the environment, the fact that there is no full scientific certainty about the health impact of mast radiation shall not constitute a reason to ignore the precautionary statement and grant planning permission. Those measures are significant and will place the power to accept or reject applications clearly in the hands of local authorities. I shall return to those points later in my speech, for I now want to concentrate on why I feel that those measures are necessary.
  My interest in this matter was provoked by constituents of mine who wrote to me on numerous occasions to relay their fears that mobile phone masts have a detrimental effect on their health. Nausea, dizziness and headaches are just some of the symptoms that a number of my constituents tell me have affected them since a transmission mast was erected near their homes. One notable, specific case is that of Mark Wheal, who first brought this to my attention on behalf of himself and his anxious neighbours. Elsewhere,
  1246
  schoolchildren have suffered from nosebleeds, insomnia and, indeed, behavioural changes allegedly because a mast has been erected near their school.
  When a cluster of transmission masts was placed on a water tower at Haverhill in my constituency, there were some curious consequences. Almost immediately, the squirrels and birds disappeared. Doris Barnes, who lived with her nephew, John Insole, began to have a series of what appeared to be strokes. Dementia began quickly to set in, and she needed 24-hour care. Her bedroom had been in the path of the beam of greatest intensity of the transmitter. As the Insoles inevitably found it difficult to cope, and on their GP's advice, she was put in a care home in a village nearby. Almost immediately, her health substantially recovered, and there was no apparent explanation. Those constituents of mine are rational individuals. I find it difficult to reject out of hand their belief that radiation from masts is responsible for their ill health. I also find it difficult to believe that there has been some sort of outbreak of mass hysteria in many parts of the country in relation to concerns about such masts.
  I have led grass-roots campaigns in Newmarket and Haverhill—two towns in my constituency—against mobile phone masts that were near schools, residential property and centres of population. In one instance, the behaviour of the mobile telecommunications company involved was literally underhand and unscrupulous. A TETRA mast was erected on a block of flats in Newmarket. After a strong campaign, agreement was reached that the mast should be moved. I thought that I had brokered an agreement for its removal to a location on a hill just outside the town. Then, one morning, we all woke up to find that it had been erected in another part of the town—technically, not in Suffolk, but in neighbouring Cambridgeshire. Townspeople were understandably outraged. Indeed, the Suffolk constabulary were deeply embarrassed as well. The local district council sought to have the mast removed, but lost on appeal. The company was simply not interested in discussing alternative sites for a compromise, despite assurances having been given to me.
  Jim Dowd: I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. We have discussed this matter several times. Will he confirm that the contractor for the O2 system in his constituency was, in fact, O2 Airwave?
  Mr. Spring: Yes, I can certainly confirm that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being present because I shall now address specifically something that is of particular interest to him.
  That behaviour is totally and disgracefully at odds with the code of best practice on mobile phone network development. That telecommunications company followed none of the guidance issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Indeed, let me read to the House an extract from the foreword of the code of best practice:
  "Strategic planning, combined with proper discussion of and consultation on proposals for developing the telecommunications network, is central to this process. This requires operators, local authorities and local people working together in partnership to produce optimum solutions.
  In August 2001, we introduced improved planning arrangements for telecommunications development. These included greater requirements for consulting local people."

  1247
  The document goes on to say that the one of the main aims of the code is to
  "encourage better communication and consultation at all stages of network development between operators, local authorities and local people."
  Those words will come as a cruel joke to the people of Newmarket, whose deep concern and anxiety have been ignored.
  Operators have devised what they call "the traffic light model" to enable them to rate a site according to likely sensitivities. It is intended as a guide to the degree of consultation necessary. One of the factors that is supposed to be considered before a mast is given green, amber or red status is the involvement of the local Member of Parliament. My concerns have been routinely ignored.
  Furthermore, PPG8 already makes it clear that where there are plans to install, alter or replace an installation close to a school or college, the institution should be consulted before an application is submitted to the local authority. The mast in my constituency in Newmarket, which was moved to the neighbouring constituency in Cambridgeshire, is close to three schools, none of which was ever consulted. Schools never are.
  Since I indicated my intention to present the Bill, I have discovered that the pattern is repeated right across the country. Such is the frustration of local residents that groups of concerned protesters have torn down masts and forcibly tried to block new installations. I shall quote from some of the letters I have received from worried people across the country.
  Dr. John Pugh: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear tales from my part of the country too, where, when masts are upgraded to secure greater 3G benefits, that is happening without any consultation whatever.
  Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. When an industry acts in that way, it divorces itself from people's anxieties. That is at the heart of the problem. There is no effective control of the process to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  I shall describe some of the worries expressed to me in letters, so that the House will be under no illusion about the severity of the problem. Mrs. Lin Ansell of Liss in Hampshire tells me of the impact of a mast outside her home. She writes:
  "We experienced a phenomenon here in Liss regarding the Tetra mast sited between 120 and 300 metres from our houses. On Wednesday 29th October, 17 of the residents including 4 children experienced ill health, disturbance and disorientation. We were having a residents meeting at the time when we expressed our concern about how ill we and members of our family were feeling. We got better on the following Friday, and we found later (AFTER we had experienced these various symptoms) that the Tetra mast had been turned on during Wednesday and turned off on the Friday…
  Since the mast was switched on for good, I have a permanent headache, metallic taste in my mouth and feel sick. We have moved into a back bedroom, and my friends who have come to stay complain of headaches and sleeplessness. I have been unable to offer the house to lodgers because of the illness felt by guests. This has deprived me of my health and my income. Are you able to offer any help in our hour of need?"
  1248
  More disturbingly and tragically, I have received information that describes serious illnesses such as cancer, which sufferers ascribe to masts near their home. In Ballygawley, Northern Ireland, five homes amid rural farmland make up the hamlet of Cranlome Hill. Those houses are within 100 m of a transmission mast. In those five homes there are six cases of serious life-threatening cancer. The people who live in the houses lead healthy lives, with plenty of exercise and a good diet. Many would find it an unsustainable argument that the ill health may not be connected in some way to the unwelcome mast. Mr. Walter Graham, chairman of the campaign group, Northern Ireland Opposing Masts, explained to me in a letter the symptoms of local people living close to the mast:
  "Our most recent member is a small rural area between Ballygawley and Dunganon known as the Cranlome Hill mast. Local citizens concerned for their health cut down the mast after their group of five homes at the bottom of the hill from the mast had six people with cancer. Four are now dead. The mast had thirty-five pieces of microwave equipment with another four due to go up. They even had cancer appear in a six-month-old cow kept in the field with the mast."
  Mr. Graham goes on to speak about another mast in Saintfield. He says:
  "I spoke at a public meeting in Saintfield, which has had two masts for a number of years. During question time a woman stated that she had had a daughter with leukaemia within a half mile of the masts and that she had contacted the health board asking about other children with the disease. They found eleven children under eleven with leukaemia and seven adults with cancer, all within a half mile of the masts. It has since been reported that a farmer two miles out of Saintfield, who has a mast in his field near the house, has had his child come down with leukaemia."
  Any Member of the House present during the debate introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on 28 January could not have been left but deeply concerned after hearing of the cancer cluster in the hamlet of Wishaw. The chairman of the local action group, Sutton Coldfield residents against masts, Eileen O'Connor, an exceptionally brave lady herself who has battled against cancer, catalogues the ill-health in the tiny hamlet. She says:

  "Five ladies developed breast cancer

  One case of prostate cancer

  One bladder cancer

  One lung cancer

  Three cases of pre-cancer cervical cells

  One motor neurone disease age 51, who also had massive tumour removed from the top of his spine

  People have developed benign lumps

  Electro sensitivity

  Three cases of severe skin rashes

  Many villagers suffering with sleep problems, headaches, dizziness and low immune system problems.
  Out of the eighteen houses surrounding the mast at up to a range of 500 metres, 77 per cent. of the tiny hamlet has health-related illness believed to be as a result of radiation from the mast. The outbreak of illness occurred in 2001 after seven years of exposure to the radiation emitted by the T-Mobile mast. We are now in connection with many people who are suffering from this form of radiation.
  One other important fact is that since the Wishaw Mast was vandalised on 6th November 2003, many of the residents are reporting a feeling of well-being. The residents are reporting improvements in their sleep patterns and increased energy levels. The headaches and dizzy symptoms have disappeared".

  1249
  The time is at hand to react to those tragic cases of ill health with a precautionary approach to the siting of masts. It is all that we can do in the absence of long-term definitive knowledge about the impact of radiation. The present law is woefully inadequate, with numerous loopholes that mobile phone companies are able to exploit at will. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) has just indicated one. Masts below 15 m do not even require planning permission. This means that masts can be erected without a full check on the suitability of the site by local councillors. If that state of affairs was not bad enough, masts erected on land owned by Network Rail require no planning permission whatever. It is wrong that these structures can be erected with such ease when there are still so many question marks over their impact on health. If enacted, my Bill would require that the transmission masts go through the full planning permission procedure, regardless of their height or whether they are on land owned by Network Rail.
  The case is different elsewhere in the world where the large questions over the health impact of masts is recognised. UK Government policy concerning human exposure to the electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile telecommunication base stations is based on compliance with the safety levels published by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. These levels are much higher than in Italy and Switzerland, and even than in China and Russia. In Italy, the national public limit for people exposed for more than four hours a day is 90 times lower than the ICNIRP value. A mast in Haverhill in my constituency complies with UK emission levels but would not have been allowed in other countries. Such disparities may be based on conflicting scientific information, so it is incumbent on us to access the best worldwide scientific research to try to plug the gaps in our knowledge.
  I turn now to how my Bill may help to prevent many of the disturbing cases that I have described to the House. I have already touched on how it would amend existing legislation, bringing within the full planning process all applications to erect a mast. Furthermore, I have spoken about how the Bill would embrace the precautionary principle by requiring the publication of a statement that shows how the mast adheres to that principle. Considering that an application should already be accompanied by an explanation of an operator's needs in a particular area, details of the location and type of telecommunications apparatus or structure to be constructed, details of any other mobile phone systems on the site, the area of search and details of possible alternative options where appropriate—these may include other methods of providing the required coverage—design options for particular sites, a traffic light model rating and the proposed consultation strategy, I do not think that a precautionary principle statement would be too much of a burden. It seems sensible that such a statement should be made available to the public and that an appeal to the Secretary of State must take into account its contents. The fact that there is no full scientific certainty about the health impact of mast radiation should not constitute a reason to ignore the precautionary statement and grant planning permission.
  1250
  Let me turn to the other measures in the Bill. I want to reduce from six months to three months the time for which telecommunications companies are allowed to install cumbersome, temporary, movable apparatus to replace unserviceable apparatus. New apparatus has to be of the same type and capacity as the unserviceable apparatus that it is to replace. That measure is important, as it will place the emphasis on telecommunications companies to repair their equipment quickly and with as little inconvenience to local residents as possible.
  My Bill would also allow schools and hospitals to cancel contracts that they have entered into with telecommunications companies agreeing to the erection of installations on their land or premises. Once an application to cancel a contract has been served by a school or hospital, the mast must stop being used within 28 days. Many schools and hospitals might have entered into such agreements before the possible health effects of masts were known as they are now. It is only fair that they should have the opportunity to cancel those agreements in the light of new research. I know of parents and head teachers in my constituency who would strongly welcome the measure.
  I do not pretend to be a scientist and I cannot possibly make scientific judgments. My interest in this subject has arisen from real-life experiences and some, admittedly minority opinion, research. Finally, I would like to read a copy of a letter that I received from Mrs. Jane Lee of Budleigh Salterton in Devon, a lady who lost a legal battle with Orange earlier in the year, as I want to show the House in the clearest possible terms how the law is stacked in favour of the telecommunications companies, and to what lengths ordinary people have gone in order to prevent masts from being placed outside their homes. She writes:
  "I am severely disabled and now in an extremely serious financial situation. The reasons for this are:

  1. I have just lost an expensive legal battle to stop Orange putting up a mast that would focus the beam of greatest intensity directly onto my home.

  2. Now that this mast has been allowed, my local estate agent tells me that I will probably lose a third of the value of my home.

  3. In order to protect my own and my family's health, I feel I am being forced to move. It will be hard to find another bungalow in this area that I can afford and adapt to my special needs. Worse, in order to find another home that I can afford I may have to move away from my family and friends who are my support.

  I have seen other people who have been made ill by low level radiation from masts beaming into their homes. I refuse to have this imposed on myself, my family or on my neighbours. I have therefore fought 4 battles over 2½ years. The stress of this has meant that I have hardly slept in the last 12 months and been driven to near despair.
  As my house is worth over £100,000 I cannot get legal aid. In losing my high court battle, I have to pay costs, which I cannot afford. As few people will risk living so close to a mast I am about to lose a third of the only capital I will ever have (due to my disability I am unable to earn money to replace this). I have lived here for over 7 years and am heartbroken at the prospect of losing the home I love."
  Since being drawn in the private Members' ballot I have been sent more than 500 letters from individuals and organisations offering me alternative Bills, but this issue needs urgent legislation and attention. My Bill is sound and comprehensive, and I hope that my arguments in the House today and the impressive cross-

  1251
  party support that I have received show that we can reach a sensible consensus should the Bill reach its Committee stage. Without a shadow of doubt, legislation is required.
  The Bill gives the power to local authorities to decide where transmission masts should be erected. I understand that mobile phones will not work without the supporting infrastructure—the masts—and want people to benefit from greater choice and network coverage, but that can be achieved while minimising the possible health risks to members of the public. I urge the House to support the Bill today, to carry it through Committee and to turn it into law.
  12.36 pm
  Dr. John Pugh: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on introducing the Bill, which I support. The Bill is built around the precautionary principle and reflects concerns about the risks posed by mobile phone mast stations and people's fears of them.
  Although the risks posed by using a mobile phone are well known to hon. Members, many of whom walk around with mobile phones glued to the sides of their faces, the scientific community has not yet agreed the risks posed by mobile phone stations—the risk is not an established fact. Indeed, the hon. Member for West Suffolk has included this fair and honest statement on his website:
  "Recent studies have discovered no link between poor health and exposure to radiation that is emitted from the masts."
  However, we all know three perfectly plain things. First, as yet, no study can gauge the long-term effects of consistent exposure to masts and their radiation, and it will take decades correctly to establish that point. Cigarettes were not originally known to be carcinogenic, and the initial use of a cigarette does not produce a change in cells, but over time sustained exposure has that effect. Formula milk, as opposed to breast milk, has only recently been discovered to have long-term risks, which were previously unidentified.
  Secondly, we know that some people are affected more than others by base stations because they are more in the line of fire, which causes an effect. The debate is not about whether there is an effect, but whether the effect is harmful, and, if so, exactly how harmful it is. Even the Stewart report acknowledges that children are potentially more at risk.
  Thirdly—this is the key factor that impresses anyone involved in a mast campaign—those affected or those who believe that they are affected are not at liberty to move out of the way of the mast. They live in the area, they are residents, their children play in the area and they are inevitably affected, and not by their choice.
  Additionally, it is fairly obvious that a new generation of masts may well magnify some of the purported effects of the current masts. I pay tribute to activists in my constituency, and particularly to Geoff Williams and "Mast Sanity", which has done a lot to alert me to the increase in phone masts, which is almost unknown to the general public.
  The Bill does two positive things. It forces the developers of masts formally to state that their masts generate no harm and that they are, in a sense, safe,
  1252
  which is good. It also urges people to identify the groups who are in the line of fire—the beam of maximum intensity. I am sure that the phone companies will not welcome either of those provisions. A declaration of safety, however and whenever given, is to some extent a legal hostage to fortune and can be produced later if any evidence should arrive. That will innately make the mast manufacturers and the mobile phone companies a little more cautious. Moreover, it will define, or force a definition of, the people who are most at risk, who might later wish to make a claim.
  The one good thing that that will do is concentrate the minds of both developers and councillors, by making them think specifically about who may be affected and about the long-term effects. It will not guarantee that everything goes perfectly for the mast protesters, or that every proposal that they object to is turned down. In particular, it will do nothing to affect mast developers' rights of appeal. They will still be able to appeal, and win their appeal.
  Mast developers will, I guess, feel reasonably legally safe if they act according to the best knowledge at the time, regardless of what subsequent developments and scientific knowledge may show up. Ultimately, however, they will not be that protected, because they will be working in a transparent regime. They will feel that bit less comfortable if the Bill reaches the statute book.
  Legally, the Bill will not make a seismic change or radically reduce mast developers' rights as some of us may wish. Culturally, however, the change could be significant.
  Jim Dowd: In the context of cultural change, does the hon. Gentleman share my view that although this is one of the most sensitive and delicate issues for communities throughout the country, the uniform experience of Members of Parliament is that the mobile operators act with haughty and contemptuous disdain, when they ought to be engaging most closely with the communities that are alarmed by their proposals?
  Dr. Pugh: The hon. Gentleman is right. Mast operators talk a better game than they play. They see Members of Parliament from time to time and tell them about their commitments, but as the hon. Member for West Suffolk said, when applications are made, particularly when they are sensitive, we are not always consulted.
  We want cultural change and a swing in favour of local authority power. We want the siting of masts to be more collaborative and consensual, with a greater role for the local authority to say where they should go—for example, places whore there would be less public opposition. I would like local authorities to play a more directive role, but the Bill does not do much to lead them in that direction. The hon. Member for West Suffolk talked about local authorities being only too willing, but he must be blessed in that respect. Local authorities in many parts of the country want a directive role, but there are some that are not so aggressive. For example, my own local authority seems to accept that the siting of masts in residential areas can be responded to with a shrug, whereas it prohibits masts on the end of a pier. Consequently, in my constituency the fish are better protected than the population.

  1253
  The Bill is a first step forward, not a massive breakthrough. As the hon. Gentleman said, if he had drafted a more aggressive Bill, it would have been shot down in flames right at the start. It does, however, have real potential. It is a positive way forward, which could produce some kind of cultural change, and it should certainly have a Second Reading.
  12.43 pm
  Hugh Robertson: I support the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) has brought before the House with his customary elegance and attention to detail. It is greatly to his credit that he has provided the House with an opportunity to debate this important subject, and I congratulate him accordingly.
  I doubt whether there is a Member in the Chamber today who has not at some time or another had a letter, e-mail or phone call from a constituent concerned about the impact of mobile telephone masts on health or quality of life. Many will have experienced pressure groups in their constituencies campaigning on the issue. Members will undoubtedly recognise the complaints listed by my hon. Friend—nausea, dizziness, cancers, and, of course, critically, the fear of those complaints. The growth in those complaints has seemingly occurred in line with the increase in mobile telephone use, and the perception in the public's mind is that the two are linked.
  The Bill would introduce several valuable measures that would protect individuals from the potential dangers of telecommunications masts. Relevant to all this—and in many ways the starting point for it—are the findings of the independent expert group on mobile telephones, chaired by Sir William Stewart, and published in May 2000. As the Stewart group found, there is no conclusive evidence of harm from emissions from mobile phones and telecommunications masts. However, the report did recommend a precautionary approach, which would indicate that the findings were far from certain. Indeed, how could they be? It is therefore important that we take the necessary precautions to protect people from potential harm.
  Let nobody be in any doubt about the scale of the issue with which we are dealing. There has been a massive boom in the use of mobile phones in recent years. Figures from the Mobile Operators Association show that in 1997–98 there were 9.1 million UK mobile phone subscribers. By June 2001, that number had rocketed to 44.7 million. As at June 2003, the association noted that the number of UK mobile phone subscribers had topped 50 million people for the first time. I have also read that 6 per cent of all households already do not use landlines and rely solely upon mobile phones.
  Naturally, the boom in mobile phones has led to an expansion in the number of masts across the country. According to the Mobile Operators Association, there are currently some 40,000 radio base stations in the UK. With the increasing number of mobile phone users—and the additional masts that will be needed to support the new third generation or 3G services—it is possible that this number could rise to 48,000 by 2007. That is a reasonable estimate, but it would mean many new
  1254
  installations across the whole country, at a time when Britain is perceived to be increasingly congested. It undoubtedly deserves some scrutiny.
  The boom in mobile phone use has far surpassed the levels that were anticipated when the current planning rules relating to masts were introduced. It was as long ago as 1995 when the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, specifically part 24 of schedule 2, was brought into law, providing certain permitted development rights for licensed telecommunications operators. Obviously certain conditions apply to those rights—the mast cannot exceed 15 metres in height, it must not be erected in a national park, conservation area or area of outstanding natural beauty, and it must not have been denied permission by the local authority within the period allowed by the order.
  I am no friend of red tape, but there is a definite and pressing need to examine closely the planning laws and issues surrounding the erection of new telecommunications masts. The Bill may not prove to be the perfect tool to overhaul the planning laws on this important issue. However, given proper consideration and amendment in Committee, it would provide a useful channel for a discussion of the planning laws and could end up as a strong addition to the statute book.
  I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk on all the work that he has done to bring this issue forward. The principle he proposes has my strongest support as a Front Bencher and as an individual Member of Parliament. I urge the Government to give the Bill a Second Reading and to allow the parliamentary time necessary for due consideration.
  12.49 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on his placing in the ballot for private Members' Bills, and on using this opportunity to secure a debate on an important topic that is of widespread interest to Members of the House and the general public and high on the Government's agenda. I listened carefully to his contribution, as I did to those of the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson), who I suspect may have been speaking from the Dispatch Box for the first time, in which case I congratulate him.
  Before I deal with the substantive concerns of the Bill, I want to set this discussion in the wider context. It has been the Government's objective to create the most dynamic, competitive communications industry in the world, ensuring universal access to a choice of diverse services of the highest quality, and ensuring that citizens and consumers are safeguarded. There are 50 million mobile phone users in the Untied Kingdom—around 75 per cent. of the population. Take-up of this technology, which did not exist 15 years ago, has been at a remarkable rate. The UK is at the forefront of service provision of mobile communications technology and it has been estimated that the UK mobile sector contributes £18 billion to the UK economy, or about 2 per cent. of GDP.
  This has been achieved by a careful balancing of the planning regulations and guidelines, which have facilitated the growth not only of existing but of new

  1255
  telecommunications systems, while seeking to keep the environmental impact to a minimum and addressing public health concerns. The Government believe that we have struck the right balance.
  Let me assure hon. Members that very careful consideration was given to the current planning arrangements before they were introduced. The Stewart report on mobile phones and health, published in 2000, recommended that telecommunication development should be subject to the normal planning process, in order to improve local consultation. The Government considered this recommendation in detail and accepted the importance of ensuring that effective public consultation took place. As a result, in August 2001, we significantly strengthened the planning arrangements for telecommunications development. We increased the time for authorities to deal with prior approval applications from 28 and 42 days to a uniform 56 days, and strengthened public consultation requirements on prior approval procedures so that they are exactly the same as those for applications for planning permission. We also increased fees from £35 to £190 to enable authorities to carry out full public consultation.
  Our revised arrangements for prior approval applications have the same consultation requirements as those for applications for planning permission. Therefore, we have met the concerns that led the Stewart group to make the recommendation for full planning permission.
  Mr. Spring: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will come to this point, but can he tell the House of any instance in which an application to erect a transmission mast has been rejected on appeal? He may have set out a theoretical framework for what happens in the planning process, but in practice nothing of the kind happens. I hope that he is not suggesting that it is happening, because it is not.
  Keith Hill: I defer to the hon. Gentleman, and I will check on that point. If I may, I will write to him to indicate the Government's observations on the process. Nevertheless, I reiterate that the fact remains that the full procedures are in place, and the options for appeal are there under the proper provisions of the law.
  The Bill aims to bring all telecommunications development under full planning control. That is simply not realistic. The prior approval procedures give authorities time to consider proposals, but consent is deemed to be granted if no decision has been made after 56 days, so that development is not delayed. This discipline is needed because many authorities are failing to meet their best value targets for determining planning applications. Furthermore, network operators estimate that only around 15 per cent. of installations are under their permitted development rights. Those installations are by definition the smallest and most discrete of developments. We do not want to restrict those rights, because local planning authorities need to focus attention on the developments that will have the greatest impact.
  The current arrangements also have the effect of encouraging network operators to install smaller apparatus on existing buildings and structures wherever
  1256
  possible. That minimises the environmental impact of such developments. However, the fact that those small developments do not need planning permission does not mean that there is no public consultation. The code of best practice that was produced jointly by central and local government and the mobile phone industry is clear that every potential site is rated using the traffic light model. That model determines the level of public consultation that will be required if the site is selected for the installation.
  The Government believe that limiting the rights of network operators to install telecommunications equipment would be detrimental to the ability of network operators to meet public demand for mobile services and would not materially increase or improve consultation with local communities.
  Jim Dowd: My right hon. Friend says that every site is rated according to the traffic light model. I do not think that that is the issue. The issue is what the mobile operators do in response to that rating. When they get a clear red indication on the model, they do absolutely nothing. How are the public reassured by that?
  Keith Hill: I hope to take up those issues, which I know are of considerable concern to my hon. Friend, in the course of our proceedings today. We can deal with those concerns in greater detail at that point.
  The Bill would also remove the permitted development rights afforded to railway undertakings that allow them to build masts and install antennae for their communications systems. The recent concern about those permitted development rights results from the development of masts required as part of Network Rail's new safety system, known as the global system for mobile communications for railways—GSM-R.
  Network Rail is upgrading its analogue radio systems network to a digital network. GSM-R will for the first time provide a national system of secure, immediate and direct driver-to-signaller communication across the entire network. The upgrade is primarily safety driven. It will implement a key conclusion of the Cullen investigation into and report on the Ladbroke Grove rail accident and facilitate compliance with European legislation.
  On 10 September, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a research study on permitted development rights from Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners Ltd. That is the first phase of a wide-ranging review of the General Permitted Development Order 1995. It includes a review of the operation of the permitted development rights available to railway undertakings, and consideration of whether a height limit of 15 m should be set for their masts in "sensitive" landscape areas, and whether prior approval should be required on their siting and appearance.
  We are considering the report's recommendations carefully. Once we decide whether any of the suggested reforms should be taken forward, we will undertake a public consultation. I will, of course, encourage all interested Members to participate in that process.
  If the Government decided that the permitted development rights granted either to mobile network operators or to Network Rail in respect of the erection of masts needed to be restricted, primary legislation

  1257
  would not be the appropriate way of achieving that. Their permitted development rights are granted by the General Permitted Development Order, and any restriction should be by way of amendment to the order.
  Let me address the provisions in the Bill that would require a planning application for a telecommunications installation to be accompanied by a statement that it conforms to the precautionary principle and a certificate setting out the range of the beam of greatest intensity. There is a clear distinction between the precautionary principle and precautionary approaches. Implementation of the precautionary principle was described in some detail in a Commission paper of February 2000. I want to say more about the detail of that shortly, but it is apparent that the requirements of the precautionary principle would fit poorly with any measures undertaken in respect of mobile communications equipment.
  The precautionary approach taken by the Government in respect of mobile telecommunications is of practical measures that are achievable and, in many cases, implemented voluntarily. The precautionary measures adopted on the recommendation of the Stewart group included the decision to adopt the exposure guidelines for non-ionising radiation recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection—ICNIRP—to which the hon. Member for West Suffolk referred in his speech. That important measure was adopted for public protection.
  It is important to acknowledge that ICNIRP is an international body that puts considerable effort into developing comprehensive reviews of the available scientific information to provide a basis for recommendations on exposure guidelines for non-ionising radiation, including electromagnetic fields. The members of the commission are experts is in their field and are supported by a number of standing committees, on epidemiology, biology, physics and optics.
  The advice that ICNIRP gives on exposure guidelines comes from extensive consultation based on the totality of the available scientific evidence on possible health effects. For that reason, the guidelines are widely accepted around the world and are the basis for exposure standards in many countries, within Europe and further afield. Those international guidelines have been developed to protect everyone in the population—mobile phone users and those who work or live near base stations, as well as people who do not use mobile phones.
  The term "the beam of greatest intensity" arises from a recommendation in the Stewart report,
  "in relation to macrocell base stations sited within school grounds, that the beam of greatest intensity should not fall on any part of the school grounds or buildings without agreement from the school and parents. Similar considerations should apply to macrocell base stations sited near to school grounds."
  The group made the recommendation as it had been suggested that children might be especially vulnerable to any adverse effects of radiofrequency radiation and would have a longer time to accumulate exposure over the course of their life. The group acknowledged that some countries had prohibited the placing of macrocell base stations on sensitive sites, such as schools.
  Although such a policy is easy to administer, Stewart did not believe that it always produced the desired effect, because of the way that emissions are beamed. A
  1258
  macrocell base station located near a school may cause higher exposure to pupils than if it were placed on the roof of the school building. The group thought that there was a better approach, which was reflected in its recommendation.
  The Government considered that it would be difficult to adopt the recommendation, despite the arguments in the Stewart report. The concerns about the practicalities of adopting the recommendation including technological ones, such as the fact that it is problematical to define exactly where the beam of greatest intensity falls in all cases. It was also feared that adopting the recommendation would generate greater unnecessary anxiety about the siting of mobile phone base stations. People would inevitably ask why, if it was not acceptable for beams from base stations to be directed near schools, it should be acceptable near hospitals, homes or workplaces.
  A base station rarely operates at the maximum licensed power and even if it did it would still have to comply with the international guidelines that were set, as I said, to protect everyone in the population. The Government believe that adopting the recommendation would have no practical benefit in decreasing the risk created by exposure to base station electromagnetic fields.
  Furthermore, the ongoing audit of base station emissions near sensitive sites justified that decision. Ofcom—formerly the Radiocommunications Agency—has measured exposures around nearly 300 base stations, including those located on or near schools. In all cases, exposures were below—mostly thousands of times below—the guidelines. That should also serve to allay public concerns. For all those reasons, the Government do not support the intentions behind the provisions in the Bill that require that a planning application for a telecommunications installation be accompanied by a statement that it conforms to the precautionary principle and by a certificate setting out the range of the beam of greatest intensity.
  The hon. Gentleman, in his detailed and well researched speech, raised a number of issues relating to PPG8, general health considerations and the precautionary approach, and I will say a few more words in response to the points he raised. The guidance in PPG8 says that health considerations and public concerns can, in principle, be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. In the first instance it is for the decision maker—usually the local planning authority—to determine what issues are material in any particular case and what weight to attach to them. Nevertheless, PPG8 states clearly that, in the Government's view, if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the international guidelines for public exposure—the ICNIRP guidelines—it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application, to give further consideration to the health aspects and any concerns about them.
  Let me say a few words about health and the precautionary approach. The Government, of course, take seriously public concern about the possibility of health effects being associated with telecommunications base stations. That is why we set up the independent expert group, chaired by Sir William Stewart, to

  1259
  consider the health effects of mobile phone base stations and transmitters. In respect of base stations, the report concluded that the
  "balance of evidence indicates that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of guidelines."
  The Government have adopted the precautionary approach recommended by Stewart so, since the publication of his report, we have introduced standards to ensure that all base stations meet the international guidelines on public exposure set by ICNIRP. These guidelines are five times tougher in respect of public exposure than the National Radiological Protection Board guidelines previously used.
  The Government's acceptance of a precautionary approach is limited to the specific recommendations in the group's report and the Government's response to them. It does not mean that individual local authorities should introduce their own precautionary policies for determining applications for mobile phone base stations; that would certainly be a recipe for confusion and uncertainty. However, we remain alert to public concerns and to the need for continuing research in these matters. That is why we have also launched a £7 million joint Government and industry research programme to investigate the health issues relating to mobile telecommunications and have made a commitment to keep the whole subject of mobile phone technologies under review in the light of further research.
  I shall also say a few words about other forms of research. Reference has been made to Tetra—terrestrial trunked radio. The National Radiological Protection Board's independent advisory group on non-ionising radiation—AGNIR—published a report on possible health effects from Tetra in 2002. The report noted that the signals from Tetra-based stations, like their mobile phone counterparts, are not pulsed. There is, therefore, no reason to believe that signals from Tetra-based stations should be treated differently from those from other base stations. The report also found that exposures of the public to signals from Tetra-based stations are small fractions of international guidelines. Airwave mmO2, which is rolling out the Tetra network for the police, is not a signatory to the 10 commitments, but it has its own version of the commitments and works to the guidelines in the code of best practice.
  I am sure that hon. Members will also be aware of the recent Dutch TON study. The study from the Netherlands has examined the effects of radiofrequency signals from mobile phone base stations on feelings of well-being and cognitive functions. The results reported are important and need to be considered carefully. They also need to be confirmed by a different laboratory, as the authors themselves have emphasised.
  On 14 May 2004, AGNIR published its report on "Health Effects from Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields". It fulfils a recommendation of the Stewart report to review the issue within three years.
  With regard to exposures in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations, AGNIR examined data from a number of surveys and concluded that exposure levels are extremely low, and the evidence indicates that they
  1260
  are unlikely to pose a health risk. Nevertheless, AGNIR points out the limitations of published research and concludes that continued research is needed. The Government accept that the public have health concerns about mobile technologies and recognise that those need further study, which we are supporting.
  The Bill's remaining provisions relate to base stations on property used by schools and medical facilities. They attempt to prevent operators from compulsorily acquiring rights to site installations on grounds used by schools, colleges and medical facilities. They would require county councils to revoke agreements to site telecommunications installations on sensitive locations, such as schools and medical facilities, and would allow for land previously compulsorily purchased for telecommunications use to be returned to its original owner without compensating the operator.
  I remind hon. Members that the Stewart group report did not recommend that the erection of masts on or near schools be prohibited, or that existing masts be removed. As I stated, the report recommended that the beam of greatest intensity should not fall on any part of a school's grounds or buildings without agreement from the school and parents. I reiterate that Stewart did not recommend a moratorium on the siting of base stations on schools. As a result of the way in which omissions are beamed, a macrocell base station located near a school may cause a higher exposure to pupils than if it were placed on the roof of the school building.
  The Government do not accept the arguments for directing the beam away from sensitive sites, but even if we did, it is impossible to understand the logic for the provisions. The Stewart group's report does not provide any basis for precautionary actions beyond those already proposed and accepted. It is our view that we should not implement additional precautionary policies. Of course, the development of modern communications systems inevitably leads to an increase in the infrastructure needed to support them, but the planning system already contains the necessary controls to ensure that such developments are carried out sensitively and with respect for the environment.
  Mr. Spring: I put it to the Minister, in a wholly non-partisan and dispassionate way, that if he thinks that planning protection is actually working on the ground he is entirely mistaken. I also put it to him, again in a wholly non-partisan way, that the Government have a responsibility to react to the incidences of ill health ascribed to the transmission masts. That is what the precautionary principle is all about. The voluntary code is being abused wholesale by the telecommunications companies. It is a mess. I understand his position and acknowledge that he has been open and professional, but the Government have a responsibility to the people of this country to tidy up that mess. I hope that as a result of this debate he goes away and reflects on how to do that.
  Keith Hill: I understand and appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman raises those concerns. I also appreciate his acknowledgment that the Government are taking the issues seriously. We recognise the public's concerns about the health implications of masts. We have worked very hard to get the best scientific evidence on which to make a judgment about the health impacts

  1261
  of those masts. What is more, we are responding to research from abroad and in this country. Indeed, we are funding research in this country to continue studies into the public health implications of masts Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are also carefully monitoring developments in the localities where masts have been installed.
  As the hon. Gentleman told the House, he has been the recipient of a huge volume of correspondence since he announced his intention to propose this measure. As the Minister for Housing and Planning, I, too, am in receipt of a considerable amount of correspondence, from members of the public and from Members of the House who are properly responding to the concerns of their constituents. Of course, that volume of correspondence encourages any reasonable Planning Minister, which I hope I can claim to be, constantly to ensure that official and other relevant parties test the performance of the operators in these matters. In addition, Ministers regularly meet the operators and make strenuous demands for the evidence on which they maintain their activities.
  The Government are aware that this is an issue of great public sensitivity, and we are constantly on the alert with regard to it. The fact that we recognise those public concerns is exactly the reason that this country is a world leader not only in research and development in mobile phone technologies but in research on health concerns. I say again to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we are keeping the whole area under the closest review in light of that further research.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 2.

  Division No. 182]

  [1:17 pm

  AYES

  Dismore, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flight, Howard

  Spring, Richard

  Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

  Williams, Roger(Brecon)

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Mates, Michael

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robertson, Hugh(Faversham & M-Kent)

  Mr. David Raney and Mr. Eric Forth

  NOES

  Hill, Keith(Streatham)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Ms Bridget Prentice and Gillian Merton

  It appearing on the report of the Division that 40
  Members were not present, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was no, decided, and the business under consideration stood ever until the next
  sitting of the House.

  Rights of Way (Amendment) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  1.28 pm
  Jim Dowd: With the permission and consent and, indeed, at the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson), I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  My hon. Friend is deeply sorry and sends her apologies to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House for the fact that she is not here today to move the motion. All hon. Members experience, from time to time, an unfortunate dilemma and a conflict between our duties in the House and those in our constituencies, and she is currently in her constituency on a very pressing personal engagement. Rather than lose the opportunity today at least to air the principles underlying the Bill, she has asked me to step into the breach. I apologise to the House and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the fact that you are getting the dustcart instead of the lord mayor's show today.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen has a particular concern about the matters covered by the Bill in relation to her constituency, with its large concentrations of urban dwellings and industry flanked by beautiful countryside. Open green spaces are increasingly important resources for constituents who seek respite through countryside recreation and the associated benefits of fresh air, peace and tranquillity. Even though my own constituency is urban and part of inner-London and we do not have similar issues pressing there, it is a pressing matter for my constituents. They, like the constituents of hon. Members throughout the House, use the countryside more and more for recreation, especially if they live in urban areas for the working week.
  The tranquillity of our greener areas is threatened by the invasion of scrambler bikes, bikes incorrectly but almost universally known as quad bikes, and four-wheel drive vehicles known as off-roaders. Irrecoverable damage is being done to sensitive land and it is becoming increasingly commonplace to see such damage owing to the inappropriate and inconsiderate use of those vehicles. Other rights of way users feel intimidated by convoys of vehicles, and reckless motorised use continues even through the winter months, turning many fragile countryside routes into deeply rutted and impassable mud baths.
  Early-day motion 380 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) has been well supported by some 110 Members from all parts of the House. Although I know that some hon. Members would go as far as a complete ban on vehicles on rights of way, the Bill does not attempt to achieve that. It does not seek to prevent vehicles using the 4,500 km of recorded vehicular rights of way in England and Wales.
  Use by vehicles of rights of way is not always in itself undesirable or damaging. There are already legislative provisions such as traffic regulation orders to regulate use where rights for mechanically propelled vehicles already exist.
  Mr. Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman no doubt has an intimate knowledge of

  1263
  the explanatory notes—in fact, I would not be surprised if he helped to draft them. I was rather puzzled by the sentence in paragraph 4:
  "A public right of way for all vehicles may also arise where mechanically propelled vehicles have used a route for the 20 year period, even where that use is illegal."
  Can the hon. Gentleman explain to me how illegal use has been allowed to continue for that length of time?
  Jim Dowd: There is a passage in my notes that deals with that in part, and I shall come to it later. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that part of the reason for introducing the Bill is precisely the lack of clear regulation in this area. I shall come to some of the antecedents of that and some of the conflicts that it is creating. I share his view that the matter is subject to considerable confusion and needs clarification. The Bill presents us with an opportunity to adopt a partial, though not a complete, solution to the problem.
  It is evident that existing motor vehicular use of the rights of way network will increase to unsustainable levels over the next 20 years. The figure of 20 years is used because there is a deadline of 2026—which is actually 22 years away—under the terms of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 for claiming historic rights to use highways and byways.
  Many claims are already being submitted to local highways authorities to upgrade existing footpaths and bridleways to motor vehicular ways. Most alarmingly, the claims are generally based on the production of evidence of use by horse-drawn vehicles many years, if not centuries, ago.
  Mr. Forth: Will the Bill's provisions be retrospective? I am interested that the hon. Gentleman says that there is a process whereby claims are now being submitted. He will know, because he understands these matters better than most, that there is always an issue with legislation such as this that seeks to put right something that is claimed to be wrong. Were the Bill to become an Act, would it have any retrospective effect in nullifying the claims already submitted and established?
  Jim Dowd: As far as I know, there is no retrospection in the Bill. It is only a clarifying measure. However, having said that, I note that the Minister, who is far more intimately aware of its detail than I am, seeks to intervene.
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): People are sometimes confused about the date at which provisions take effect. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 put a limit on the date by which a claim could have been made in terms of a right of way existing because of use in the past, which was 2026. That means that a long way into the future there would be a degree of uncertainty. As I understand it, the Bill allows a period of 12 months from its coming into law. So, far from having any retrospective effect, it allows a window of opportunity for evidence to be put forward under the existing arrangements, but for a year rather than for some 25 years.
  Jim Dowd: I am grateful to the Minister. Those are exactly the words that I would have used myself, but he has saved me the effort.
  1264
  We are talking about establishing rights based on horse-drawn vehicles using tracks many years ago, which bears no resemblance to modern day use by powerful vehicles, sometimes weighing as much as 2 tonnes. This seems to be a perverse way to determine the accessibility of the rights of way network by motor vehicles.
  The Government have recently consulted publicly on this issue in the consultation paper on the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way. Clearly, it is an emotive issue, which often creates conflict and ill-feeling between those who use mechanically propelled vehicles on rights of way and those who do not. However, I commend the Minister on a comprehensive consultation paper that directly confronts the issues of concern.
  My hon. Friend seeks, through the Bill, to build on the proposals in that consultation paper. The Bill has a very simple purpose, which is to clarify those vehicular rights that can be recorded on local authorities' maps of rights of way, known as definitive maps, in England and Wales. At present we can only speculate on the extent of the historic evidence yet to be uncovered that would support claims in favour of their use by motor vehicles.
  The Bill seeks to curtail claims for rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles, known as byways open to all traffic, or, for those who like acronyms, BOATs. The impact is clear. When the Bill becomes an Act and its provisions are commenced, it will no longer be possible to add further byways open to all traffic to the rights of way network.
  It may be helpful if I clarify how the Bill seeks to achieve that. The Bill limits the creation of any new public rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles by ensuring that evidence of use by non-mechanically propelled vehicles in the future would not be sufficient to establish a public right of way for mechanically propelled vehicles.
  The Bill also seeks to extinguish any unrecorded rights of way for mechanically propelled vehicles. This means that it will not be possible to rely upon any evidence of horse and cart use or an express dedication for such use to establish a right of way enabling motor vehicular use. But this historic evidence should not count for nothing. The Bill also provides for the recording of these rights as restricted byway rights—that is to say, rights on foot, on horseback or for non-mechanically propelled vehicles.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity and the relaxed way in which he offers the Bill to the House on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). Can he reassure me that the claims that will be allowed for another 12 months, following the Minister's helpful intervention, will be considered on exactly the same basis as hitherto, and that the Bill will in no way seek to change the criteria that have been used to consider these claims?
  Jim Dowd: I believe that I can give that reassurance. As I mentioned, the Bill does not seek to change the balance; it seeks to establish a system of regulating the competing claims. As I also pointed out, it does not seek to extinguish existing rights that have been established;

  1265
  instead, it seeks to resolve conflicts between what could be perceived as the conflicting rights of users of footpaths and byways.
  We are not discounting historic evidence. The Bill provides for the recording of restricted byway rights—rights for those who are on foot or horseback or are using non-mechanically propelled vehicles. That separates such byways from those that are open to all traffic rights. In most cases, recording rights under that category will ensure that rights of way are used in a way that reflects their historic past.
  There are property owners or occupiers who rely on unrecorded public vehicular rights of way to gain access to their premises. They need to be protected from being landlocked. The Bill ensures that landowners and occupiers who are adversely affected by extinguishment of unrecorded rights in respect of mechanically propelled vehicles will retain those unrecorded rights to the extent that they need to exercise them in order to access their land. Of course, the provision would also extend to people who are legitimately visiting such owners or occupiers.
  The Bill provides an opportunity for Members of the House to highlight their concerns about the use of motor vehicles on rights of way, and I am confident that the evidence will demonstrate that action is needed now if we are serious about having a sustainable rights of way network. The Bill is a major step forward in addressing the problems associated with motor vehicles in the countryside. It seeks not to ban vehicles, but merely to ensure that their future use is not dictated by past use that bears no comparison with the circumstances of today.
  On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, I thank all the hon. Members who have helped her in preparing in the Bill and who have expressed their support, as well as those outside the House who have sent letters and e-mails expressing their support. I again thank the Minister and his staff for their considerable efforts and assistance in drafting the Bill, and I thank him for his decisive approach.
  If the House, in its infinite wisdom, gives the Bill a Second Reading today, my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen will do all that she can to ensure that it achieves the further stages of its parliamentary progress—and she would do it in person, I am certain.
  1.42 pm
  John Mann: A Bill that can unite in my area all farmers without exception, all horse riders without exception and dog walkers—I cannot confirm that it unites all dog walkers, because I have not spoken to all of them, but all whom I have consulted in many of the 80 villages around my constituency would warmly welcome a Bill such as this—is to be welcomed. Should a Committee consider the Bill, I shall earnestly offer my services to assist in its further progress.
  I have one question, which I hope the Minister will answer, about what will happen if changes of the sort that are proposed should be introduced, whether through this Bill or other means. I want to ask about retrospective action, as it appears to me that in areas such as mine or the neighbouring constituency of Newark, where applications are currently under way,
  1266
  there needs to be clear guidance on the potential use of traffic regulation. When people wish to ride quad bikes and other such motorised vehicles, including motor bikes of all different kinds, licensed and unlicensed, legal and illegal, on the footpaths and bridleways of my area and that of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), such guidance is needed to ensure that we have the opportunity properly to put a case on our constituents' behalf in order to restrict such rights and allow people to get on with their lives in peace, rather than alongside the horrors of organised sport invading the countryside in an inappropriate way.
  I hope that the Minister can consider providing some guidance, irrespective of the progress of the Bill, on how traffic regulation orders could be used by decent, law-abiding people in order to protect their rights.
  1.44 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: The use of a loophole to convert more public paths into byways open to all traffic is a cause for concern. Conservative Members therefore welcome the Government's consultation on mechanically propelled vehicles, which closed in March, and we also welcome the Bill.
  It is important to understand the scale of the problem. In England, there are about 188,000 km of public rights of way, of which more than 146,000 km are footpaths, just over 32,000 km are bridleways and 3,700 km are byways open to all traffic. An additional 6,000 km of roads are used as public paths or RUPPs—roads used as public paths—and they are currently being reclassified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
  Mr. Forth: I make a plea to my hon. Friend to talk in good old miles rather than these ghastly kilometres to which he seems so wedded. I know that he is a young man with his future ahead of him, but we old folk prefer miles because we do not understand kilometres. How much of that mileage is either in public ownership or is public land has not come out in the debate, and perhaps we can explore that point later with the Minister or in some other way. That distinction must be important, but when I examined the Bill quickly, I did not see it. Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts?
  Mr. Ruffley: On my right hon. Friend's first point, I was as shocked as him to see a Conservative research department scriptwriter use kilometres. If my mathematics were quick enough, I would multiply the distance in kilometres by five eighths to get the proper figure in miles. However, my maths is not quick enough, and I must make some progress.
  I have not examined or considered my right hon. Friend's second point about the proportion of mileage in private ownership as against public ownership, but it is worth delving into.
  Alun Michael: I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on the proportions, but rights of way legislation deals with rights of way, and not with the ownership of land. On considerable amounts of private land, however, evidence of a right of way would, under the current

  1267
  arrangements, lead to a right of access not only for walkers and horses, but for motorised vehicles, so the Bill would benefit private landowners.
  Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the Minister, and I hope that that helps my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Forth: Not much.
  Mr. Ruffley: I could not answer my right hon. Friend's question, but I hope that the Minister's response is of some use.
  The legal rights of access to RUPPs cause a great deal of confusion in the countryside. Many people believe that they have vehicular access to a route, when no such formal right exists. We believe that the Bill is not an attack on legally acquired vehicular access rights, but rather a renewed attempt to establish much needed clarity. The number of off-road vehicles has grown spectacularly over the past 10 years, and some estimate the increase to be more than 400 per cent. In that context, the need for clarification is all the more pressing.
  It cannot be right that the use of a route centuries ago by horse-drawn carts can be used as evidence to grant access to mechanically propelled vehicles, which have a dramatic impact, particularly on unsurfaced roads. We believe that the loophole should be closed, and that the usage of a road over 20 years should not automatically give rise to vehicular access rights.
  Mr. Forth: In our enthralling packed Friday debates in this place, we hear a lot about this or that group lobbying our colleagues. Has my hon. Friend been approached by any interest groups—walkers, horse riders, quad bike users, sport utility vehicle owners, people with horses and carts or perhaps even Prince Philip, as he drives his four, six or eight horses along with great skill—to argue one way or the other about the Bill, or is he completely in the dark?
  Mr. Ruffley: Sadly, I have not been approached by the Duke of Edinburgh—but I have been approached in one of my many constituency advice centres by a man from Woolpit. I confess that I cannot recall his name, but he was extremely exercised by the prospect of the Bill biting and preventing him from using his quad bike on the highways and byways of mid and west Suffolk. I fear that what I am about to say, in what my right hon. Friend rightly described as this packed debate, will not be much to that man's liking—but perhaps he is not watching or listening, so I might get away with it.
  In fact, I am supporting an official Opposition position, and I can say that we, as the official Opposition, have received many representations. Later in my speech, I shall take some time—
  Mr. Forth: Oh yes, please do.
  Mr. Ruffley: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will look forward to that part of my speech, when I shall outline some of the representations that have been made to us on both sides of the argument.
  1268
  The use of routes by mechanically propelled vehicles does not inevitably cause damage, but there are many examples of damage being caused by trail riders and 4x4 vehicles. That has undoubtedly led to the enjoyment and amenity of the countryside being spoilt for many people. In my part of the fair county of Suffolk, there are many walkers of all ages who fear 4x4s and quad bikes tearing down quiet, bucolic country lanes or paths at great speed. That concern has been expressed not only to me but to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  The Ramblers Association has reported how green lanes have been scarred by trail bikes and four-wheel drives, at a cost both to those who use them and to those who try to maintain them. The problem is worst when conditions are wet, and large ruts can be gouged in paths.
  Mr. Forth: Now that my hon. Friend has started to talk about wets and ruts, this is getting a bit more interesting, but has he any details or statistics on the number of people who have been injured by that phenomenon? As he develops his argument—I am sure that he is still only on his preliminary remarks—it strikes me that there is a distinct possibility that people using quad bikes, SUVs or other such vehicles, including even horse-drawn vehicles driven at speed, may be causing risk to innocents who are simply walking. Do we have any figures? Are they part of the argument?
  Mr. Ruffley: It certainly would be an important part of the argument if I had those statistics to hand; my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I am always indebted, as are all of us on the Opposition Front Bench, to my right hon. Friend, because he has a brilliant capacity to ask the most telling and trenchant questions—and his latest intervention is true to form. It is a very important point. We should not just support or pass legislation willy-nilly: we have to drill down into the detail. Should the Bill obtain a Second Reading and go into Committee, I would expect that we would have more statistics to hand.
  Alun Michael: It is difficult to provide statistics on that point, because statistics depend on the way in which information is collected. During the consultation, many people wrote to us about danger and injuries. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about the wider issue of conflicts between different types of users, but the Bill would have only one narrow effect. It would mean that 12 months after it came into effect a claim could no longer be made that would allow use by motor vehicles on the basis of evidence of use by horses or horse-drawn vehicles many years in the past. The Bill would not introduce a complete ban, nor does it seek to try to prevent a wide range of different types of use. It would simply prevent the creation of a new right of way for motorised vehicles on the basis of historic use by horse-drawn vehicles.
  Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the Minister, but it is worth pursuing my right hon. Friend's point. The Bill may address a narrow loophole but it is still a proposed piece of legislation, and we do not want to pass legislation for the sake of it. We must be convinced that it cuts out an abuse, rights a wrong or clarifies the law. My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point by asking

  1269
  what evidence is available of loss of life or injury to walkers and others who may be incommoded by vehicles using certain country routes. How serious is the problem?
  John Mann: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have read of the case earlier this year of the four-year-old boy in south Wales who was killed on one of these roads used as public paths—or RUPPs—by a motorbike travelling at great speed. Doubtless the hon. Gentleman will also be interested to hear of the concerns of hundreds of my constituents whom I met last weekend, in villages such as Clarborough. They fear injury, but also the disruption of their peace and quiet as they attempt to live their lives.
  Mr. Ruffley: I was not questioning whether people were concerned about this issue. Many walkers and ramblers clearly support the Bill, not least for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gives. I was making a slightly different point, which is that if we are to have good law based on a proper rationale, we need to test all the propositions. My right hon. Friend made a good point by asking whether we could quantify the occurrence of danger, injury or fatality. The hon. Gentleman gave a powerful example, about which I recall reading, but we need more empirical data before we make any final decisions on the Bill.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his typically forensic analysis. We do not want to pass laws only on the basis of good intentions: they must be founded on evidence.
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Mr. Ruffley: If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I will make some progress.
  As I said, the problem is at its worst when conditions are wet. It leads to degradation of paths and routes, makes them difficult to use by walkers, many of whom are often deterred from returning to some areas, as they expect these motorised vehicles to return and disturb their peace as they go about their business walking along. The Ramblers Association states that the 85 miles of the Berkshire-Oxfordshire Ridgeway has suffered particularly badly from off-road vehicles, and the damage has cost Berkshire county council many thousands of pounds to repair.
  Earlier, I promised my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that I would refer to some of the representations that we have received. He might be interested to learn that there are arguments on both sides. There has been criticism of the Bill and its implications from the Trail Riders Fellowship—I do not know whether he is familiar with that organisation. In the consultation response to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it said:
  "We are aware that the Minister continues to be lobbied by groups and individuals who wish him to totally eliminate the use of mechanically propelled vehicles from rights of way. We believe that the claims made in support of prohibition are very selective, misinformed and exaggerated"—
  Alun Michael: It would be a great disservice to the House and the public were two things to be confused.
  1270
  One is the question of the suitability of rights of way for particular use—the hon. Gentleman referred, for instance, to the Ridgeway, in which I have taken a considerable personal interest. There is a right of way along the Ridgeway. The damage to the areas that he mentioned needs to be tackled via traffic regulation orders, which local authorities of a variety of political colours and MPs across three parties currently support. That is a coherent way of dealing with damage to a right of way. The Bill does not address those issues, and nor did the consultation, a response to which he was quoting. The Bill simply considers whether, if there has been use of a particular way by horses in the past, that should automatically lead to future use, after the 12-month post-implementation period, so that not only is there no backdating but there is a window of opportunity for using the current legislation. That is the only issue with which the Bill deals. It is important not to confuse the issues because organisations such as the Trail Riders Fellowship have been confused in making representations that have nothing to do with this Bill. The consultation to which he refers is much wider, and is not relevant to the specific proposals that we are considering.
  Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the Minister. I hope that I am not missing anything, but it seems to me that the precedent that certain motorised vehicle users can now pray in aid—that a track had been used by a cart and horse for 400 years—which the Bill seeks to close off, is relevant. If that loophole is kept open, as the trail riders and others wish, they would be able to damage certain pathways and routes. Therefore, the suggestion by the trail riders that they should have a right to go down those routes and do what they like to the surface seems pertinent to the Bill. If the loophole is not closed, they will be allowed to go about their business and to cause damage. The ramblers to whom I will refer shortly object to that. Therefore, I am not quite sure why the Minister suggests that damage to some of those routes is not pertinent to the debate. If the loophole is not closed, more damage will be done. Is that not the point?
  Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman quoted responses in relation to general protection of rights of way and damage to rights of way that exist now. I made the point that traffic restriction orders are the means of dealing with that issue. The question in the Bill is simply whether it should be possible in future for people to claim a right of way for a motorised vehicle where the only evidence of previous use is that by walkers or horses, sometimes in the distant past.
  Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the Minister. I do not think that we are disagreeing, because that is our understanding of the Bill. If that loophole is not closed, which the Bill seeks to do, it seems that there is potential for people who use motorised vehicles to pray in aid a precedent created by horses, for example, which would enable them to use their mechanically propelled vehicles and to cause damage. Therefore, if that loophole is not closed, there could be more damage to the countryside. That is the ramblers' argument.
  May I continue quoting from the response of the trail riders to the consultation? I will be happy for the Minister to intervene if he thinks that this is not

  1271
  pertinent to the Bill—I think that it is. One of the key arguments of those who oppose the Bill is that all vehicles that use rights of way do not necessarily use them in a careless and destructive manner. The trail riders and others think, fairly or unfairly, that they have been tarred with the brush of being destroyers of rights of way and of certain routes. They say:
  "Legislative changes driven by such claims would be disproportionate to the problem and would bear down unreasonably on the law abiding and responsible. It would also be a replication of previous attempts to manage recreational use of countryside by tampering with legislation that have largely failed."
  John Mann: How would the hon. Gentleman respond to the case that has been put in my constituency? It has nothing to do with the Ramblers Association or the Trail Riders Fellowship. If those rights of way were authorised and lawful, those wishing to go lamping and to case isolated farms such as that of my constituent, Mr. Geoffrey Wheatcroft—the story appeared in The Sunday Telegraph—would be able to do so. Concern has been expressed by 80 members of the National Farmers Union in my constituency and by the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague. They are worried not about organised trail riders but about the individuals who would have those rights and therefore would legitimately be in such areas on motorised vehicles, to the detriment of the security, safety and rights of the individuals living and working there.
  Mr. Ruffley: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I repeat that the official Opposition are in favour of the Bill. I am merely trying to ventilate some of the different views. I was referring to the fact that some trail riders and British motorcyclists think that they have been hard done by. It is only fair to air their grievances. This is not a Bill that has universal support and there are arguments on both sides.
  The British Motorcyclists Federation said:
  "The consultation paper proposes measures that will curtail "cowboy" usage. However to be effective in doing this it is likely that any legislation will shape the activities of sensible and authorised users."
  Alun Michael: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is again talking about a consultation that ranged over a wide variety of issues, which go way beyond the limited elements covered by the Bill? By drawing in so many issues that are extraneous to the consideration of the Bill, he gives rise to the suspicion that the official Opposition have decided to talk out the Bill. It would be helpful and interesting to hear whether he has anything to say about the actual provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Ruffley: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I do not agree that my references to the consultation are irrelevant to consideration of the Bill. As I said earlier, if the Bill is successful, it will close off a loophole and will, on balance, reduce the amount of motorised vehicles driven along some of the highways and byways of this country. If, on the other hand, the Bill does not go through, those wishing to use vehicular transport will be able to go down country routes by
  1272
  praying in aid the precedent of usage by horses, carts and so on over many generations. It thus seems to me that the general remarks of motorcyclists on the one hand and ramblers on the other about their view of their activities in the countryside, and their responses to the consultation, are extremely relevant, because the heart of the Bill is whether there should he more or less use of country routes by motorised vehicles.
  Mr. Forth: Notwithstanding the bluster of the Minister, who obviously needs a refresher course in charm and persuasion, is my hon. Friend tempted by the thought that a better way to resolve a Bill such as this would be to test the will of the House in a Division, as the Government did on the last Bill? Does he recall that on six previous occasions this year, on Fridays such as this, it was Ministers who talked out Bills? If someone is still on their feet debating a Bill at 2.30 pm on a Friday such as this, it is more often than not a Minister.
  Mr. Ruffley: As always, my right hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. I make no comment as to whether the official Opposition seek to talk out the Bill. As I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees, I am merely ventilating some of the issues, so that we can give a balanced reflection of who is for and who is against the Bill. The Minister has intervened twice to imply that my remarks were not pertinent to the Bill, but I believe that they are. Depending on whether the Bill goes through, there may be more or less use of motorised vehicles on country routes and that is what I am looking at.
  I shall turn to what the Bill is trying to achieve and the more positive set of remarks about it, which have been amplified by the Ramblers Association. It referred to the Ridgeway and, although the Minister might intervene to say that this case should not be quoted in the context of the Bill, the views expressed reflect the opinion of ramblers generally on the principle of recreational motor vehicle use and how that might affect the use of the countryside by ramblers and others who wish to enjoy the highways and byways. It said:
  "We are not campaigning for a ban on recreational motor vehicles, we are campaigning for a ban on their use on rights of way which came into existence before the motor car was invented, and have never been designed to support such use. There are many sites dedicated to off-reading where this activity can be enjoyed."
  The Ramblers Association has expressed a fair and balanced view in support of the Bill.
  The Friends of the Ridgeway and the Yorkshire Dales Green Lanes Alliance have also made supportive comments. The Friends of the Ridgeway said recently:
  "The 'rights' arise from historical legal anomaly. Until the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, UK law did not distinguish between motorised and non-motorised vehicles when it came to a consideration of rights of way. Once upon a time it was possible to drive through the centres of many of our towns and cities that are now pedestrian precincts. Sometime in the future we will look back on the banning of motor vehicles on The Ridgeway and see it as just another step in protecting the 'rights' of the majority".

  1273
  The Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement—GLEAM—is yet another organization that is in favour of the Bill. About 150 MPs and Members of the European Parliament of different parties are apparently honorary supporters of GLEAM.
  Mr. Forth: Not today.
  Mr. Ruffley: As my right hon. Friend points out, they are not here today. There do not seem to be many people who support the Bill in the Chamber today. None the less, its supporters appear to number more than 100.
  Mr. Forth: In absentia.
  Mr. Ruffley: Yes, in absentia, and demonstrably so.
  Jim Dowd: They are on their way.
  Mr. Forth: Using a byway.
  Mr. Ruffley: There is a lot of sedentary intervention, but I will ignore that and try to press on.
  Mr. Forth: I appreciate my hon. Friend's helpful analysis, because we need to hear the different views. However, before he concludes, will he give us his reaction to the Bill's explanatory notes? He has a distinguished record in the House as a custodian of the public purse and he may be alarmed, as I was, by paragraph 14 of the explanatory notes, which states:
  "Local authorities may experience a surge of applications to record byways open to all traffic on their definitive maps before the legislation is commenced but their longer-term workload will be reduced."

  Does my hon. Friend interpret that to mean, as I do, that there may be a considerable additional burden on the local council tax payer—yet again? The council tax payer will take little comfort from the fact that it may be reduced in the longer term, which never really arrives.
  Mr. Ruffley: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that it will be picked up should the Bill ever be debated in Standing Committee. I know that he pays much attention to the resource implications of all legislation. We need full advertence as regards the cost implications of this Bill, as we do with all pieces of legislation.
  It is important to ensure that there is a balance between the various users of the countryside, including those who walk in it and those who drive their vehicles down highways and byways. The Conservatives have a proud tradition of conserving that which is best. The beauty of the British countryside, not least in Suffolk, which is clearly the most beautiful county, should not be spoilt, but protected. We lean in favour of a regime that protects the environment from spoliation by vehicles. We are not against all vehicular use of byways, but on certain routes vehicles should not have untrammelled access as of right.
  The loophole arising from the precedent set by the historical use of routes by vehicles such as horse-drawn carts exploited by those whose mechanised vehicles might despoil some of the lanes and routes needs to be considered. For that reason, we find merits in the Bill.
  1274
  On balance, it is an appropriate and proportionate response to a muddied—no pun intended—legal situation. We hope that the unjustified conversion of paths for vehicular usage can be stopped. In so doing, we hope that everyone can enjoy our cherished countryside free from disturbance and free from damage. We shall support the Bill should it be put to a vote.
  2.22 pm
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) for trying to tease out some of the things that would be affected by the Bill. When my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) announced her intention to introduce such a Bill, I was unable to be in the Chamber to hear her remarks, although I know that she referred to the fact that I had explained the reasons for my absence. When I read what she had to say, I offered all the help that I could in pursuing her objective.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds raised a number of issues, some of which go wider than the Bill's scope. That is fair; a piece of legislation fits within a wider context. The consultation received many responses and raised many issues. In particular, I was pleased at the large number of Labour and Opposition Members who said that they thought the problem needed tackling in a comprehensive, proper and thoughtful way. They also said that they supported this specific measure.
  The Bill is carefully measured. It effectively attempts to cap the extent to which the public right of way network is open to use by motor vehicles. Essentially, we are dealing with past vehicular use by horse-drawn vehicles long before the invention of the internal combustion engine. In many cases, roads and motorways started off by being used by horse and cart, but they have been subject to continuous use and the development of appropriate surfaces. We are concerned here with routes that have not been used by any sort of vehicle over many years and have never previously been used by mechanically propelled vehicles. Such use does not form part of the evidence for routes to be considered under the Bill.
  I therefore emphasise the support for the limited nature of the Bill to underline the fact that, as was indicated in earlier interventions, it is not retrospective; it does not seek to curtail existing rights of way. It provides a window of opportunity for applications to be made under the current arrangements and for a year after the Bill reaches the statute book, rather than during a period that lasts until 2026, which is the provision in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It merely means that, after that window of opportunity has closed, any rights of way that are asserted on the basis purely of walking and horse-drawn vehicles will give rise to the right to use that route on foot or in a horse-drawn vehicle rather than in a motorised vehicle—it will go no further than that.
  I hope that, with those assurances on points of concern and in the knowledge that it will be widely welcomed as a small step in the direction towards a coherent means of properly protecting and using our rights of way, the Bill will receive the support of the House.
  2.26 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: I suppose I should start by declaring somewhat of an interest, in that I am the happy owner of an SUV. Mine is a pretty little Jeep Wrangler of which I am inordinately proud. It is, of course, derived from the original second world war jeep and it is a true four-wheel drive vehicle. I have to confess, however, on behalf of my Wrangler, that it has never been off-road—it is a London-based SUV—so it has not yet been able to disrupt anyone's quiet or peace and sadly may never do so. I should put that on the record, though, because I have a potential interest in the contents of the Bill, rather than a present one.
  I say for the sake of the record that the Minister has had the gall to stand up and say how many MPs support the measure—something that we often hear in the House on Fridays. You and I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that at the last Division in the House, about an hour ago, only 12 MPs out of 659 voted, and looking around the Chamber now, there are 10 Members present. If we were to divide the House to establish the true level of support for the Bill, I would hazard that we might get 10 or 12 Members voting out of 659.
  Jim Dowd: There are 11 Members here.
  Mr. Forth: I had been intending to mention the hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to bring forward my praise for him. He points out that there may be 11 Members present, and I happily concede that.
  As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am something of an anorak. I still believe in what the House does and in the legislative process. I am here every private Members' Bill Friday, but sadly not many of my colleagues are. I am not impressed by those who say that this or that Bill has the support of many Members of all parties—100 here, 150 there. The true test of support for a Bill, in the legislative sense, is bums on seats or, to put it more accurately, bodies in Division Lobbies. To me, therefore, the proper measure of that support is when we divide the House and see how many people are here. Very sensibly, our forefathers set the quorum for the House at 40 Members. I do not think that it is asking too much to say that 40 Members should be present to make law. Let us clear all that nonsense out of the way before we even get started.
  I had been about to sing the praises of my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd), who so persuasively introduced the Bill on behalf of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson). He said that, were the Bill to make progress, the hon. Lady would be present on some future occasion to promote its interests. That is very encouraging, if I may say so. I am really rather pleased that a Member would be prepared to turn up to support
  1276
  his or her Bill at some stage. The hon. Gentleman did a magnificent job of promoting his colleague's Bill, and, who knows, we may yet find that he has persuaded the House—that remains to be seen.
  Just to clear the decks before I get anywhere near my introductory remarks, never mind the substance of my speech—I am keen to follow others in making my little contribution to the debate—it emerged from the Minister's remarks that our aim today is to repair a cock-up by the Government. Apparently, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act—
  It being half-post Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed on 16 July.

  Remaining Private Members' Bills

    TELECOMMUNICATIONS (PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS) (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Second reading what day?
    Jim Dowd: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg). That is the last time I do him a favour.
    Friday 16 July, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    To be read a Second time on Friday 16 July.

    WILD MAMMALS (PROTECTION) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [6 February], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 15 October.

    CRIMINAL JUSTICE (JUSTIFIABLE CONDUCT) BILL
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    Hon. Members: Object.
    Debate to be resumed on Friday 18 June.

    TELECOMMUNICATIONS MASTS (REGISTRATION) BILL
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  Royal Prerogative of Mercy
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg]
  2.31 pm
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: First, I should like to put on the record how pleased I am to have obtained this Adjournment debate. The matters it deals with might seem somewhat dated, but I think that they are as relevant now as they were when I first became aware of them some eight years ago. The debate arises from a previous Adjournment debate that I had the privilege to introduce on 7 March 2001.
  At that time, I expressed my concerns about the release from prison of two career criminals, John Haase and Paul Bennett, 10 months after they had been sent down for 18 years for conspiring to supply class A drugs. To date, no one in the Government or their agencies has been able to explain satisfactorily to me how that happened. I hope that today's debate will enlighten us as to part of the process involved—the use of the royal prerogative.
  Since that debate, I have met representatives of Customs and Excise and the Home Office—two of the principal agencies involved—but they have added nothing to my understanding of the breakdown in justice. I have to assume either that those concerned are ignorant of the wider context of the Haase-Bennett case, or that they inadvertently stonewalled me in respect of relevant information that I believe should rightly be placed in the public domain.
  I am assured that, since the previous debate, Customs and Excise has changed its rules on the handling of informants—something for which I asked at the time and went into great detail about. However, a Customs and Excise officer, Mr. Kevin O'Sullivan, of the law enforcement drugs policy section, wrote to Sir Andrew Turnbull alleging that there is still a culture of malpractice and, indeed, criminal behaviour within Customs and Excise. I hope that that matter will be pursued and resolved.
  When I initiated that debate three years ago, however, the Paymaster General told me that I had
  "placed much information on the record."
  I was told that she would ensure that the issue that I raised would be "properly scrutinised" and that I would be
  "kept fully appraised of action that is taken and information that is available."
  Finally, I was also told that I was
  "making available additional information that requires a response, and I will assure that he gets one."—[Official Report, 7 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 395–8.]
  But, of course, I never did. Time moved on and so did Ministers. The forces of law and order remained mute on the travesty of justice that was the release of Haase and Bennett.
  I had put on the record how Haase and Bennett set up stashes of guns from within prison to enhance their credibility as informants. I am talking about not just shotguns and small handguns, but assault weapons—AK47s, Ml6s, Kalashnikovs and Uzis. A large number
  1278
  of guns were set up in those stashes. Subsequently, the two men informed the authorities of where those guns were, thus enhancing their credibility as informants.
  At the time, I pointed out that no convictions were involved in the retrieval of those guns. They were found in cars or empty houses. All the information came courtesy of Haase and Bennett from within prison while on remand. It beggars belief that those people could somehow be aware of those stashes in cars, which could be towed away and moved around, but they were always spot on, in the right place at the right time with the right weapons. Of course, the reason was that the stashes had been organised by them, through their confederates outside. That is common knowledge among the underworld fraternity in Liverpool, and I believe that it is commonly understood by the police.
  In fact, I also pointed out three years ago that Scotland Yard's directorate of intelligence alerted the agencies to that scam. I believe that it was not new at that time. That information had come from a man known, oddly enough, as the Vulcan— a Turkish baba, or godfather, who was the Turkish connection in drug-dealing activities. I understand that he did the same thing when he was incarcerated in Italy, where he got himself out of prison by doing deals with the authorities in return for information on that kind of set-up gun stash.
  No one questioned what was going on at the time because everyone was obviously a winner. The informants gained credibility. That was the purpose of the exercise. The officers involved could show the seized guns as successes. The media trumpeted position outcomes in the war against organised crime. However, I repeat that no one was ever convicted for involvement with all those guns. To anyone with any sense of what life is like on the street, the idea that those guns could somehow remain in the stashes for months and months, while those people were in prison, waiting for the informants to come along and say where they were just beggars belief.
  When Paul Cooke, the men's Customs handler petitioned the judge in their case, David Lynch, it even caused consternation and outrage among some of Cooke's colleagues in the Customs and Excise squads—two squads were involved as it was such a big case—as it affected the arrests in a major crackdown on drug importation. I have spoken to members of those squads. They still do not understand why the recommendation was made to allow those two people out of prison. But of course, under normal procedure, Paul Cooke, the officer in charge, together with the defence counsel, approached the trial judge, David Lynch, to set out the reasons why they believed that those two people should be pardoned. In turn—again, under normal procedure—that information would be passed on to the Home Office for its consideration. Of course, the key in all this was the gun seizures—that was the supporting evidence.
  Following that procedure, the net result was that the two prisoners were released under the royal prerogative. It was a very strange release, because there were only five pardons in 1996 in total—Haase and Bennett received two of them. I should have thought that, with such a small number of cases getting to that stage, there would be intensive scrutiny of the backgrounds to those cases,

  1279
  the people involved, the way in which their credibility had been established and how the guns had been seized by the police.
  Jim Dowd: It is unusual to intervene in such a debate, but the tale my hon. Friend is outlining is scandalous, to put it mildly. Can he remind the House of who was the Home Secretary when those releases were authorised?
  Mr. Kilfoyle: That happened in 1996 when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was the Home Secretary.
  What made the case so special as to merit the release of Haase and Bennett? My hon. Friend the Minister will rightly quote the judge. I know that he, in turn, quotes the arguments of what I would consider a rather undependable alliance of the defence counsel and Paul Cooke, the Customs and Excise officer in charge of what happened.
  The repeated allegation on the streets of Liverpool—it is not a new allegation—is that in some way large sums of money were involved in arranging matters. After all, Haase and Bennett had it. The authorities had seized only half the stock of "brown"—heroin—from that importation. I put it on the record that the street value at the time was £18 million. They had a lot of money at their disposal, if that was the case, to buy weapons and to buy influence.
  I should also put it on the record that one name that is always mentioned in this context is that of a local criminal, Simon Bakerman, a man who has done time for drug offences. He is the son of Warner Bakerman, who was also arrested on drug-related charges. I cannot argue the veracity of the claims that are made by people who I have already said are practised liars, well able to do deals, and always seeking to do deals to minimise the effects of the sentences handed down to them. Nevertheless, the allegation is repeated time and again, ad nauseam. It merits somebody, somewhere, looking into what, after all, would be conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. The people involved are not only well known to the underworld. They are well known to the police in the area, and I believe they are well known to senior members of national agencies.
  That gives rise to the question that I am often asked: have those repeated allegations been investigated, and if so, what was the outcome? Back in 2001 when I first raised the issue, I asked a series of questions seeking information to fill in the blanks in this unsavoury tale. As the House has heard, the Minister responding for the Government at the time promised me answers, but sadly, for reasons that I am prepared to accept were in good faith, because the election came along and ministerial roles changed, I never got those answers. I repeat for my hon. Friend the Minister, to see whether he can be of assistance, some of the pertinent questions that go to the heart of the so-called information provided by Haase and Bennett in order to give credibility to their application for the royal pardon.
  Was Paul Ferris interviewed about the gun purchases of Haase and Bennett? What information is available on John Lally, Dominic Donnelly and Roger Jordan in
  1280
  relation to the smuggling of a gun into Strangeways jail? Was a report compiled on the gun in Strangeways jail? Has it been or will it be published anywhere, and if not, why not? Was there a failure by Customs and Excise to liaise with Merseyside police about the arms stashes pointed out by Haase and Bennett while they were on remand? Finally, who in the Home Office, if anyone, made the recommendation that Haase and Bennett should be released back on to the streets to carry on their perfidious work?
  Three years ago I asked for two inquiries. One was into the procedures of Customs and Excise for dealing with informers. As I have already said, I am assured that that has been done and the necessary changes effected. My second request was for an inquiry into those cases touched upon by Haase and Bennett and their information, relating in particular to their release, the basis for it and any questions arising from it, and also into cases where their evidence was allegedly used and was crucial in securing convictions.
  There have always been problems with so-called supergrasses, and, as I have said before, criminals always argue that they are innocent of the crimes of which they have been convicted. Nevertheless, there remains a deep concern on Merseyside that no one in authority seems to care about the uncertainty surrounding the information allegedly provided by Haase and Bennett with regard to others convicted of serious crimes.
  We live in an age of increasing violence and frequent resort to firearms on the street. That is a commonplace fact of life today in my home city, as it is in other cities in the United Kingdom, and it is a tragedy. Here is a case where hundreds of weapons were bought on behalf of Haase and Bennett and turned in to the authorities, yet no one appears to have asked the appropriate questions about the stashes and the arrangements surrounding them.
  I cannot believe that everyone touching on this case missed the obvious. To a simple-minded lay person such as myself, there can be only two possible conclusions. The first is that Customs and Excise, the Prison Service, the police, the judiciary and the Home Office were all duped by Haase and Bennett. The alternative is that there was, at some stage, some truth in the allegations that bribery played a part in securing Haase and Bennett's release. I do not want to believe that. All of my instincts say that that is not possible. Yet I also find it difficult to believe that no one within the system smelled a rat in the way in which the gun stashes were set up. I just hope that today the Minister can throw some real light on this sordid saga, so that I can explain to my constituents why it is that these people were allowed out.
  2.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) on obtaining this debate and providing the House with an opportunity to discuss an issue that reaches back into our history.
  By constitutional convention, the Home Secretary is, in England and Wales, responsible for recommending to the Sovereign the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy. Indeed, the Home Secretary is personally involved in all decisions relating to any application for the use of the royal prerogative of mercy.

  1281
  The Home Secretary's discretion in providing advice on the exercise of the royal prerogative has to be exercised having regard not only to the legal restrictions on the prerogative power, but to those imposed by constitutional convention and the allocation of ministerial responsibilities.
  It might be helpful if I set out my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's policy and powers, as well as the conventions relating to the royal prerogative, and the particular factors that have a bearing on the granting of the three different forms of pardon that exist.
  A decision by my right hon. Friend to recommend the use of the royal prerogative of mercy to grant a free pardon is restricted to cases that meet the following conditions. The first is where it is impractical for the case to be referred to an appellate court, and the second is where new evidence has arisen that has not been before the courts, which demonstrates beyond any doubt that no offence was committed or that the defendant did not commit the crime.
  The effect of a free pardon is that the conviction is disregarded to the extent that, as far as possible, the person is relieved of all penalties and other consequences of the conviction. Of course, only the courts have the power to quash a conviction, and length of sentence is entirely a matter for the trial judge. The sentencing process must be as transparent as possible. Only in the most exceptional circumstances would it be appropriate to recommend an exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy, subsequent to conviction, on the strength of mitigating factors that were in fact known to the sentencing judge. That is an important point to which I shall return later.
  The criteria currently used by my right hon. Friend in considering whether to make a recommendation to Her Majesty appear to have been applied by his predecessors for the past 100 years. Those criteria reflect a proper regard for the constitutional position, namely, that the courts decide whether a person is guilty of an offence, not the Government.
  Thus, the Home Secretary would not generally consider recommending the grant of a free pardon until an appeal had been dismissed or leave to appeal had been refused, and it would be impractical for the case to be otherwise referred back to an appellate court.
  Three forms of the royal prerogative of mercy are used to grant pardons to convicted criminals. The first is what is commonly known as a free pardon, which in this context means that the pardon is free from any conditions. The last free pardon was granted in 1996 and involved summary driving offences. Hon. Members will recall that, at that time, there was no other form of redress for a miscarriage of justice in summary cases.
  The second form is a conditional pardon, whereby the penalty is removed on condition that a lesser penalty is served. Back in the 18th century, this form of pardon was used to substitute transportation for life in place of the death penalty. With the withdrawal of capital punishment, such pardons are no longer required. Indeed, the last conditional pardon to be granted was given posthumously in 1993 in respect of the death sentence passed on Derek Bentley, although this did not, of course, pardon his conviction for murder.
  The third form of the royal prerogative of mercy is what is known as a remission pardon. This provides for the mitigation of punishment by releasing a prisoner
  1282
  from having to serve some or all of the remainder of their sentence or releasing someone who has been subject to a monetary penalty from the obligation to pay all or part of it. Remission pardons are usually considered in cases where the applicant has provided assistance to the authorities or in recognition of meritorious conduct, such as saving the life of a fellow prisoner or a member of the prison staff. It is this form of pardon that I know is of particular interest to my hon. Friend, given his concerns about the cases that he has mentioned. It might be helpful, therefore, if I say a little more about how the procedures work in such cases.
  In the case of an individual providing information or assistance to the authorities prior to sentence, it would be normal for those authorities to inform the trial judge of the nature and extent of the assurances given. The trial judge would then reflect these representations in any sentence handed down. In some cases, such as where doing that might draw attention to the fact that the offender had been very helpful to the authorities and in turn might place that particular individual at great personal risk, and especially where that risk might be life threatening, the judge may decide not to impose a reduced sentence but write instead to the Home Secretary asking him to consider the use of the royal prerogative of mercy.
  When that happens, the Home Secretary should not simply take the information at face value, but seek a detailed report from all the authorities involved in order to satisfy himself as to the value of the assistance given, and indeed as to what use that information has been put, before going back to the trial judge for his opinion as to what level of reduction in sentence would be justified in the circumstances. In cases where information has been provided after sentence, the same processes should take place, in that the Home Secretary should seek a detailed report with regard to the validity and use of the information as well as any outcome that may have occurred.
  With regard to recommendations for the use of the prerogative in respect of meritorious conduct, this would normally relate to behaviour in prison, such as preventing the suicide of a fellow inmate, rescuing prison officers during a riot, preventing a fire, or some similar highly creditable behaviour. In such cases, it would be for the prison authorities to confirm the action taken by the prisoner and to recommend a suitable period of reduction in sentence. In most cases, this is a matter of a few days.
  My hon. Friend has reiterated his close interest in the cases of John Haase and Paul Bennett, both of whom were granted remission pardons in 1996. He has raised his concerns on a number of occasions in the years since; indeed, this is not the first Adjournment debate he has initiated on this particular topic. I appreciate my hon. Friend's deep disquiet that in this case both men— despite the sensitivities involved and the possible danger to themselves—decided to make public the fact that they had received a reduction in sentence. It will be of great concern to my hon. Friend and his constituents that those men continued, after their release, to engage in further serious criminal activity. I note, too, my hon. Friend's allegation that those two men had deceived the authorities in their efforts to obtain a reduction in sentence.

  1283
  I know that the then Paymaster General wrote to my hon. Friend following the earlier debate, to assure him that Customs had re-examined its handling of the case and concluded that it had been dealt with appropriately. I also understand that earlier this year my hon. Friend met my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to discuss his continuing concerns.
  My hon. Friend asked a number of specific questions, but I am sure that he understands that I am unable to go into detail on the facts of those cases. In particular, I emphasise the well-established policy and practice that no one—whether they be the police, Customs, Home Office officials or indeed Ministers—should comment publicly on whether an individual has or has not given information in confidence to the authorities. However, the House should be in no doubt that the impetus for the reduction in sentence in those cases came entirely and properly from the trial judge, and in supplying material to the judge, Customs and the police were properly fulfilling their obligations to the court.
  Indeed, the Court of Appeal in the case of Sinfield laid great emphasis on the public interest in ensuring remissions of sentences in such instances, making it clear that even if the defendant is a major criminal—as he was in that particular case—a reduction in sentence still remains appropriate. Given the concerns that my hon. Friend raised, he will want to know whether we are considering any changes to the procedures in relation to the use of the royal prerogative of mercy.
  I know that my hon. Friend is aware that at the time of his Adjournment debate in March 2001, an internal Home Office review was in progress. The review was completed soon after the debate and, although the conclusions were never made public, I can inform the House that they confirmed an earlier decision of the then Home Secretary that the royal prerogative of mercy should not normally be used to shorten sentences in recognition of information supplied to the authorities and known to the trial judge at the time of sentence.
  The review did not, however, conclude that the prerogative should never be used in such circumstances, given that there may be very rare cases in which it is important for the Home Secretary to retain this discretion. Take, for example, a case in which co-defendants were all sentenced together in open court for the same offences, and where all might expect to receive the same or at least very similar sentences. It might simply be too obvious, not to say dangerous, to be seen to be lenient with just one. There can be particular
  1284
  difficulties when co-defendants plead guilty, but not all have given assistance, since a marked disparity of sentence may be impossible to explain, and any attempt to explain it would put the informer and their families at risk and so discourage informers from giving assistance.
  I am led to understand that there have been recent improvements in the way customs officers handle their informants. The Butterfield review of criminal investigations and prosecutions, conducted by Customs and published in July 2003, revised arrangements for handling human intelligence sources. These new arrangements were put into place in September 2003 and extensive new law enforcement training commenced in April this year.
  There have, of course, also been legislative changes that have affected the use of the royal prerogative of mercy and provided alternative means of redress. Prior to the implementation of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, the only way that those who were wrongfully convicted had to remove the stain against their character was to seek a free pardon. Now, such people are able to appeal against summary conviction to the Crown Court and in the case of indictable offences to the Appeal Court. If they are unsuccessful, they can also seek the assistance of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The commission, having investigated an allegation of injustice, may, if it determines that it is appropriate, refer the case back to the Court of Appeal.
  That has clearly reduced the need to resort to the royal prerogative of mercy, and as a consequence no free pardons have been issued since 1997, when the Criminal Cases Review Commission came into being. Remission pardons have continued to be granted, but as my hon. Friend is aware from replies to recent questions that he has tabled, they are extremely rare, and only five have been granted since 1997, excluding grants for meritorious conduct in prisons.
  The royal prerogative of mercy is, therefore, used only sparingly, and only in cases that are truly exceptional in character, in which no other route of redress is available.
  It should not surprise any of us when public controversy accompanies a remission pardon. The cases are rare, and the people involved are convicted offenders who have sometimes committed very serious crimes. I appreciate, therefore, not least in relation to his constituency responsibilities, why my hon. Friend continues to press his concerns, and I remain happy to respond should he have further questions in future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many abandoned vehicles were removed by local authorities in England in(a) 2001–02 (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [173407]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 May 2004]: The number of abandoned vehicles removed by local authorities in England was as follows:

  Number of vehicles recovered by local authorities

  2001–02

  284,400

  2002–03

  298,900

  Note:

  Figures for 2003–2004 will be available in early 2005

  Disposable Nappies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 6 May,Official Report, column 1658W, on disposable nappies, whether the Waste Implementation Programme Manager met representatives of the Nappy Alliance at Ashdown House on 23rd March; and if she will make a statement on the outcome of the meeting. [174743]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: I can confirm that the Waste Implementation Programme (WIP) Manager met with representatives of the Nappy Alliance on 23rd March. The meeting was a useful opportunity to discuss the work WIP is already taking forward through the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) to promote re-usable nappies. This work stream forms an essential part of Government's renewed drive to minimise the amount of household waste generated in England.

  One of the issues raised in the course of the meeting was the need to ensure that this element of Defra's waste strategy has full support across Government. In particular, this means working closely with the Department of Health to ensure that hospitals are in a position to encourage the supply of re-usable nappies, and that healthcare professionals give new parents the facts they need to make their own informed choice. Following the meeting on 23 March and the subsequent publication of the Women's Environmental Network's report 'Nappies and the NHS: Waste Prevention and a Fair Choice for Parents', I have written to the Under-Secretary at the Department of Health to make the case for a strong lead from hospitals and health trusts on this important initiative.

  Farm Income
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) crops, (b) vegetables, (c) fruit and (d) plants the growing of which will not qualify for single farm payment. [166026]

  Alun Michael
  Under the Single Payments Scheme, farmers will be allocated 'entitlements' against which they may make an annual claim for payment. Such claims must be supported by an equivalent number of hectares of agricultural area, except those used for forestry, permanent crops (eg fruit trees) or used for non-agricultural activities.

  In addition, the amount of land used in support of a claim on which horticultural crops (those referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 2200/96 and Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 2201/96 and potatoes other than those intended for manufacture of potato starch) are grown will be limited by authorisations allocated to individual growers.

  Flooding
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding the recent increased assessment of flood risk in the South East; and if she will make a statement. [170837]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government welcome the report "Foresight Future Flooding" by Professor Sir David King published through the Office of Science and Technology on 22 April.

  Currently nearly two million properties are at risk of flooding in the UK from rivers and the sea and a further 80,000 are at risk from heavy downpours that overwhelm drains in urban areas. Under future scenarios in the report and assuming our approval to flood risk management does not change then annual damages could rise substantially by the 2080s. The areas at greatest risk include the South East Coast. We therefore face major challenges in managing these potential risks and associated costs.

  The Government are considering the implications of the report and we intend to address the findings in an initial response through a consultation document for a new flood and coastal defence strategy that I hope to publish in the summer.

  Each major stakeholder is committed to delivering a number of actions and my Department will oversee progress.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will request the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Subsidiary Bodies to undertake an exploratory study of contraction and convergence as a potential basis for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. [171229]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 17 May 2004]: The UK, as part of the EU, sought to open a technical dialogue on possible approaches to long-term action to tackle climate

  1221W
  change at the UN climate change negotiations in Milan last December. The aim was to begin technical discussions on different methodologies, including contraction and convergence, to promote better understanding of the challenge facing the international community.

  We achieved recognition of better access to data and analytical tools relevant to implementing commitments under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, plus a scoping phase to develop a shared data interface to help with this, and a process to exchange further views on these issues in July 2004. The UK will continue to press for technical discussions relevant to the assessment of different methodologies.

  Negotiations on climate change action beyond the end of the first Kyoto Protocol commitment period in 2012 are due to commence in 2005. In the meantime, we will continue to exchange views informally with other countries on how to promote further action.

  Hazardous Waste
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to use BSE and foot and mouth disposal facilities for the handling of hazardous waste. [1712871287]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 10 May 2004]: We have no plans to use such facilities for the handling of hazardous waste. Sites for handling hazardous waste would have to have the appropriate authorisations under the Waste Framework Directive and the Landfill Directive. The disposal by burial of animal carcases during the FMD epidemic was subject to control under the Animal Waste Directive which has now been superseded by the EU Animal By-Products Regulation. BSE infected carcases are disposed of by incineration in approved incinerators.

  Household Waste
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will impose a statutory obligation on local authorities to ensure weekly collections of household waste. [174088]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 18 May 2004]: We have no plans to require local authorities to collect household waste on a weekly basis.

  Decisions on the frequency of collection are a matter for each local authority, which needs to have in place a collection regime which enables it to meet its statutory duties in a way which is consistent with Best Value and takes full account of local circumstances.

  Hunting
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what research the Department is undertaking into the impact of land used for hunting under the single farm payment; [169742]

  (2) what discussions she has had with the (a) Countryside Alliance and (b) Master of Foxhounds on the impact of the single farm payment on hunting; and whether this will qualify as an activity which will derive payments under the new scheme. [169743]
  1222W
  Alun Michael
  I am not aware of any research or discussions with any organisations on an inter-relationship between hunting and the new Single Payment Scheme. Hunting is not an activity that would attract payment under the Scheme, but agricultural land on which hunting takes place may be used by a farmer in support of a Single Payment claim if that activity does not lead to a breach any of the Scheme's conditions, including the obligation on the farmer to maintain the land in good agricultural and environmental condition.

  Insects
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in what ways she proposes that agri-environment schemes will contribute to maintaining the UK's biodiversity, with particular reference to insects. [165305]

  Mr. Morley
  We regularly monitor our existing Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and Countryside Stewardship (CS) schemes to assess their environmental benefits. This has demonstrated substantial benefits for many Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats and species, including mammals, birds, plants and insects.

  Recent Defra-sponsored research has shown that simple measures such as planting a seed mix of flowers in field margins to provide pollen and nectar can attract huge numbers of insects (bumble bees, butterflies, and others) relative to the in-field crop. Full details are available at http://www.f-e-c.co.uk/Buzz/index.htm.

  Defra has also sponsored specific research on butterflies. This has shown that ESAs and CS schemes are slowing, and in some cases reversing, the long-term decline in numbers of England's rarer butterflies. Further details are available at http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/020806a.htm.

  Recent Defra-funded reports on 'Managing priority habitats for invertebrates' will help inform targeting and formulating of future agri-environment agreements. `Environmental Stewardship' (ES) will rationalise and replace ESAs and CS in 2005. ES will be divided into two levels: an Entry Level (ELS) and a Higher Level (HLS). ELS should include measures beneficial for biodiversity, including insects, in the wider countryside. The HLS Scheme will continue the work of ESAs and CS by targeting management on the most valuable and vulnerable farmland habitats. The options available under these new schemes will also have the advantage of having greater generic benefits for insects. Further details of these schemes can be found at http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/reviews/agrienv/entrylevel.htm and http://www.defra. gov.uk/erdp/reviews/agrienv/higherlevel.htm.

  Methyl Bromide
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is on the use of methyl bromide in farm and food production. [166574]

  Mr. Morley
  Methyl bromide is an ozone depleting substance and its production and supply are controlled under the Montreal Protocol. Its production is due to be phased out in developed countries after 31 December 2004, except for quarantine and pre-shipment purposes.
  1223W
  In addition, under the Protocol and the equivalent EC legislation, methyl bromide can be authorised for "critical uses" after 2004, including use in relation to farming and food production.

  The Government's view is that methyl bromide is being phased out by the Protoco1 and should not be phased back in by excessive critical uses. Every effort should be made therefore to identify possible alternatives to methyl bromide use in relation to farm and food production.

  Oil Care Campaign
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the progress of the Oil Care Campaign in halving the number of oil pollution incidents in the United Kingdom by 2005. [166052]

  Mr. Morley
  The Oil Care Campaign is a voluntary initiative which brings together the oil industry, regulators, local authorities and other stakeholders with an interest in reducing the number and severity of oil pollution incidents affecting inland waters in the UK. It does not have any specific target for the reduction in incidents.

  In relation to oil pollution incidents in England and Wales, figures for the last three years provided by the Environment Agency were deposited in the House of Commons Library in January 2004.

  Radioactive Waste
  David Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which(a) Government Departments and (b) external organisations are responsible for the long-term management of high-level radioactive waste. [159026]

  Mr. Morley
  High-level waste (HLW) is held and managed by British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) at its Sellafield site and by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) at its Dounreay site. Responsibility for this HLW is due to be taken over by the new Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) when it comes into being in April 2005. Government sponsorship of both the nuclear industry and the NDA is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Radioactive waste management policy is the joint responsibility of The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and the devolved Administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The main nuclear site regulators are the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the environment agencies (the Environment Agency (EA) in England and Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in Scotland) and the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS).

  Refrigerants
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs what quantity of(a) chlorofluorocarbons, (b) hydrochlorofluorocarbons and (c) hydrofluorocarbons have been recovered from equipment other than domestic refrigerators in each year since 1995. [169582]
  1224W
  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is not available, as the data on the recovery of these substances do not distinguish the equipment from which they were recovered.

  Single Farm Payments
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what basis the single farm payment will be established for farmers who were in the dairy sector prior to the foot and mouth disease outbreak whose flocks were slaughtered because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease and who restocked with(a) dairy cows and (b) beef and sheep. [169465]

  Alun Michael
  Dairy farmers whose flocks were slaughtered because of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, and who restocked with:

  (a)dairy cows will be able to claim entitlements whose initial value will be based on the milk quota available on their holding on 31 March 2005.

  (b)beef and sheep before 29 September 2003 will be able to claim entitlements from the National Reserve.

  Sustainable Development
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what definition of sustainable development has been agreed for application across Government; and what mechanism is in place to ensure that the term is applied and claimed appropriately. [169856]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 April 2004]: The UK Government's current sustainable development strategy "A better quality of life", launched in May 1999, describes sustainable development as 'ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come'. It also refers to a widely used international definition, from the Brundtland Report of the 1987 World Commission on Environment and Development, of
  'development which meets the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'.

  Government publications usually refer to the 'better quality of life' description as given in our 1999 Strategy. Examples would include the departmental sustainable development strategies for the Department of Health, the Department for Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and HM Treasury's 2002 Spending Review Report.

  We are currently consulting, in partnership with the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly Government and Northern Ireland, to develop new sustainable strategy for the UK. As part of this we are reviewing our explanation of what sustainable development means.

  Two Tree Island
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list(a) the works and (b) the cost of works on (i) Canvey Island's sea defences and (ii) Two Tree Island which are envisaged; and if she will make a statement. [170826]
  1225W
  Mr. Morley
  Decisions on which projects are promoted and their timing rests with the operating authorities.

  (i) Canvey Island's Sea Defences

  Defra is not aware of any proposals for works to Canvey Island's tidal defences. The tidal flood defences around the Island are regularly monitored by the Environment Agency.

  (ii) Two Tree Island

  Southend borough council has recently secured planning permission for coast protection works around the south and northeast sides of the Island. The works are estimated to cost around £1 million and are due to be submitted for Defra grant aid consideration under the Coast Protection Act.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the increased risk of flooding to Canvey Island; and what(a) research and (b) action she plans to take in the light of the increased assessment of flooding risk. [170827]

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

  The Environment Agency has been researching the need for capital renewal of the internal flood defences on Canvey Island and a draft Project Appraisal Report is due to be presented to the Agency's National Review Group during this summer.

  Works will include the upgrading of all 12 land-drainage pumping stations on the Island. The works programme will take approx. 3 years and cost up to £6 million.

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

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether she has assessed the case for closing beaches in the vicinity of Two Tree Island as a result of the pollution from the old waste dump. [170828]

  Mr. Morley
  The closure of beaches is a matter for local authorities. Local authorities are advised by the Environment Agency on prevailing water quality levels. The nearest designated bathing beach is at Leigh Bell Wharf which met the EU guideline standards in 2003 and is classed as 'excellent' quality.

  Warm Zones
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding has been allocated in(a) 2004–05, (b) 2005–06 and (c) in total to Warm Zones. [163648]
  1226W
  Mr. Morley
  The Government provided £1 million funding for the pilot programme of five Warm Zones to run from 2001–04.

  An independent evaluation of the pilots is being carried out by the Energy Saving Trust on behalf of the Department to assess the effectiveness of Warm Zones.

  No additional funding has been allocated to Warm Zones by the Government.

  World Oceans Day
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department will be taking to mark World Oceans day on 8 June. [168469]

  Mr. Morley
  Around the time of World Oceans day Defra plans to publish an updated delivery plan setting out the steps that the Government are taking to achieve the conservation and sustainable management of marine and coastal biodiversity and to promote better oceans governance and partnership initiatives, in line with the commitments made at the World Summit on Sustainable Development.

  To help progress this delivery plan the UK, together with EU partners, will be calling for the United Nations to take urgent action to protect vulnerable marine biodiversity in areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction at the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law of the Sea. World Oceans day coincides with this meeting.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Department Branding
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department spent on branding the Department between 1997–98 and 2003–04, broken down by(a) consultancy fees, (b) design and orders for new stationery, (c) website design and (d) other material featuring new logos. [154064]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office logo has not been subject to redesign in 2003–04, but in the previous years you refer to, work was undertaken. The logo was redesigned to ensure the Home Office work was clear to the public and stakeholders.

  Costs involved were as follows:
  (a) and (b) research, project management and design and orders for new stationer y–£147,505.06.
  (c)website design–£18 024.50.
  (d)The logo element of 'other material featuring new logos between 1997–98 and 2003–04' would be covered in individual project/publication/media initiatives and were not funded by or attributed to the corporate logo change initiative.

  No costs were written off due to lack of use or destruction of materials featuring previous logos, as the low levels of old stock continued to be used.

  Departmental Response Times
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average length of time was
  1227W
  for a substantive response his Department to (a) written questions, (b) hon. Members' written correspondence and (c) public correspondence in 2003–04. [1705291]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The last published performance figures for the Home Office showed that 37 per cent. of all parliamentary questions and 56 per cent. of Members written correspondence were answered within parliamentary deadlines. I have been very clear this is not acceptable and needs to he substantially improved.

  As a result, last year the Department introduced a new correspondence tracking system and in the last few months our performance in meeting the targets for answering Members written correspondence to Ministers increased substantially. In relation to parliamentary questions, we are currently in the process of introducing a new system, the electronic Parliamentary Questions System (ePQS) to better monitor and manage the Department's performance.

  In relation to public correspondence, we are currently looking at how to improve the tracking and monitoring of performance across the Department. Figures are not currently available except at disproportionate cost.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the consequences of delays in dealing with cases of appeals against withdrawal of United Kingdom nationality before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. [169803]

  Mr. Browne
  To date only one appeal against withdrawal of United Kingdom nationality has been lodged with the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The administrative process for such appeals is subject to continuous review to ensure compatibility with both the public interest and the independent appeals process.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 10 May to Question reference 169812, what the reasons are for the delay in making progress with appeals over the exercise of his powers concerning removal of nationality and indefinite leave to remain. [174144]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) has one appeal before it in relation to Deprivation of Citizenship proceedings. Such cases involve significant and complex evidence and require due consideration of public funding applications. Importantly, as with any appea1, parties need to be available and prepared to proceed. The timetable for the resolution of cases is necessarily a function of all these factors The administrative processes for appeals against Deprivation of Citizenship proceedings are subject to ongoing review to ensure compatibility with both the public interest and the independence of the judicial process.

TRANSPORT

  Railways
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the Answer of 22 April 2004,Official Report, column 651W, how many of the Department of Transport's PFI projects listed on the Treasury website met the criteria for special purpose vehicles set out in the Strategic Rail Authority's strategic plan. [171521]

  Mr. McNulty
  None of the Department for Transport projects listed on the Treasury website falls within the remit of the Strategic Rail Authority. The Highways Agency is responsible for the strategic roads, Vehicle and Operator Services Agency for the MOT privatisation, Transport for London for London Underground and the Docklands Light Rail projects and the relevant local authority for the other light rail, local roads and street lighting PFI projects.

  The selection criteria used to assess special purpose vehicles tendering for transport projects varies to take account of the nature of the work, the project size and duration.

  The legal, economic, financial and technical information required is set out in the contract advert in the Official Journal of the European Union. The information requested complies with Office of Government Commerce advice, departmental procedures and Treasury guidance on Private Finance Initiative practice.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the Network Rail Volume Incentive; and if he will make a statement. [174075]

  Mr. Darling
  The 'Volume Incentive' was first introduced by the Rail Regulator in his Access Charges Review 2000. The SRA set out its views on the continuing effectiveness of a Volume Incentive for Network Rail as part of its response to the Initial Consultation Paper of the Access Charge Review 2003. The SRA's view was that for a number of reasons, the Volume Incentive would no longer be cost effective or appropriate given the changes to the industry since it was first introduced. The Rail Regulator considered this view and the supporting reasons, along with the views of other consultees, in the course of the Access Charge Review 2003. His view was that the Volume Incentive would continue to be an effective way of encouraging Network Rail to make efficient use of a constrained network so that additional traffic could be accommodated. He therefore retained the Volume Incentive, with a number of modifications (including only rewarding Network Rail for growth above a certain threshold level) in the Final Conclusions to the Access Charge Review published in December 2003. This decision is entirely for the Rail Regulator, taking into account his statutory duties as set out in the Railways Act. 1993.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the(a) Strategic Rail Authority's submission to the rail regulator in December 2002 that the Network Rail Volume Incentive be removed and (b) the Rail Regulators' response. [1174076]
  1229W
  Mr. Darling
  The documents referred to are available from the Office of the Rail Regulator's website at the following address:

  (a) http://www. rail-reg. gov.uk/upload/pdf/ir2-sra. pdf

  (b) http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/162.pdf

  The Final Conclusions from the Access Charge Review 2003 and other related documents are also available from this website.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 410W, on railways, what operational performance trajectory was set for the train operating companies between December 2003 and November 2004; and what the current performance is against that target. [174239]

  Mr. Darling
  The performance trajectory, developed by the National Task Force on behalf of the rail industry, consists of Network Rail's performance forecasts and Train Operating Companies (TOC) performance plans. The trajectory is the industry's own internal performance monitoring process and will be reviewed in October 2004.

  TOC performance statistics are published quarterly by the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) in "National Rail Trends", the most recent edition of which was published in March 2004. Copies of "National Rail Trends" are placed in the House of Commons Library and published on the SRA's web site.

  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what international models of railway safety he has considered in the context of the Rail Review. [174815]

  Mr. McNulty
  The rail review is considering several international models of railway safety in the course of its work.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what criteria his Department is using to evaluate options for reorganising the structure of the railways as part of the Rail Review. [173798]

  Mr. McNulty
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport said in his statement to the House on 19 January2004, the principles for the review are that railways must operate in the public interest, maintain commitment to public and private partnership and maintain commitment to independent economic regulation.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he will ensure that rail safety continues to improve following changes arising from the Rail Review. [173799]

  Mr. McNulty
  The European Railway Safety Directive requires that member states ensure that railway safety is generally maintained and, where reasonably practicable, continuously improved.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that the recommendations from Lord Cullen's public inquiry following the Ladbroke Grove rail accident are fully delivered following changes arising from the Rail Review. [173800]
  1230W
  Mr. McNulty
  Lord Cullen recommended that the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) should review compliance with his public inquiry recommendations and publish the outcome of such reviews. The safety regulator will be expected to continue to review compliance following the rail review.

  Blackpool Tram System
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the regeneration effects of(a) proceeding and (b) not proceeding with the proposed upgrade of the Blackpool tram system. [173914]

  Mr. McNulty
  The regeneration impacts of proceeding and not proceeding with the tramway upgrade were assessed in an Economic Impact Report provided by the promoters. The Department has not made its own assessment.

  Bristol Airport
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on proposals to expand the capacity of Bristol airport. [175098]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Air Transport White Paper stated that the main potential for growth in the South West would be at Bristol Airport. We support the Airport's development to around 12 million passengers per annum to include a runway extension and new terminal south of the existing runway, when these are required, having due regard to the environmental impacts that would accompany its expansion.

  Bus Users (London)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the socio-economic breakdown of bus users in London. [174715]

  Mr. McNulty
  The National Travel Survey provides the information for people aged 16 and over living in households in Great Britain for the period 1998–2000, according to their area of residence.

  The table shows the percentage of users in each socio-economic group, both inside and outside London. Note that tourists are not included in this breakdown:

  All persons aged16 and over

  Bus users1

  socio-economic group(SEG)

  Inside London

  Outside London

  Inside London

  Outside London

  Professional/managerial

  18

  14

  16

  8

  Intermediate non-manual

  12

  9

  12

  8

  Junior non-manual

  13

  12

  13

  13

  Skilled manual

  10

  12

  8

  8

  Other manual/other SEGs

  11

  14

  12

  17

  Retired

  21

  27

  23

  30

  Other economically inactive

  15

  12

  16

  15

  All persons

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1Use a local bus more than twice a year (in London this is 72 per cent. of all persons aged 16 and over and outside London it is 43 per cent.).

  Car-Sharing
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has undertaken into the(a) growth and (b) popularity of formal car-sharing through online systems. [173314]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 13 May 2004,Official Report, column 490W.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much clay will be produced as a result of excavations to build the new Channel Tunnel link station at Stratford; and how it is proposed to dispose of it. [175030]

  Mr. McNulty
  About 270,000 cubic metres of clay have been excavated to form the station box at Stratford. The clay was deposited on the Stratford Lands, where the surface is being raised by about 6 m for the redevelopment of the lands.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil servants were employed by communication division in his Department on the last date for which figures are available. [174326]

  Mr. McNulty
  As at 1 May 2004, the number of staff employed in the Department's Communication Directorate was 73.1 (full time equivalents). This figure breaks down as follows:

  Number

  Director

  1

  Press Officers

  15

  Publications (print, publishing and external websites)

  12

  Publicity (campaigns)

  10.8

  Strategic Communications

  8.8

  Internal Communications

  9.5

  Business Management (finance, procurement, human resources, IT, business and secretarial support)

  16

  Total

  73.1

  Consultants and Advisers
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on external consultants and advisers in each of the last three years. [172434]

  Mr. McNulty
  Details of spend on external consultants and advisers by the central Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies is shown in the following table.

  £million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Central Department

  1—

  122.2

  58.5

  Highways Agency

  179.8

  157.5

  169.7

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  3.3

  4.0

  3.4

  Driving Standards Agency

  1.2

  4.2

  4.0

  Vehicle and Operator Services Agency

  2.8

  3.3

  3.0

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Marine and Coastguard Agency

  1.5

  1.2

  0.8

  Strategic Rail Authority

  32.0

  54.1

  53.0

  1232W

  £million

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Trinity House Lighthouse Service

  0.3

  0.5

  1.0

  The Northern Lighthouse Service

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Total

  221.1

  347.2

  293.6

  1The Department was formed in May 2002. Figures for the central Department are not available for 2001–02 or prior years.

  Light Rail
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what assessment he has made of the levels of private sector investment in(a) commercial and (b) housing property along the lines of light rail routes in each year since 1997; [171947]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect that light rail systems have had on urban regeneration since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [171948]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department makes no annual assessment of the levels of private investment along light rail routes. The Department part funded a programme of research on the regeneration impacts of Sheffield Supertram which concluded in 1997. This showed little effect, however the tram only became fully operational in 1995 and any significant changes would be more gradual.

  Rolling Stock Companies
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) annual capital lease charge and (b) annual heavy maintenance charge made by rolng stock companies to train operators are for (i) a two carriage class 142 Pacer train, (ii) a two carriage class 143 Pacer train, (iii) a two carriage class 156 Sprinter train, (iv) a two carriage class 150 Sprinter train and (v) a four car class 333 train. [173467]

  Mr. McNulty
  The rate to be paid for a particular type of rolling stock for use on a particular franchise is a commercial matter between the rolling stock owner and the train operator.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Education Funding
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public money was spent on education in Chorley in each year between 1992 and 1997. [164183]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted according to local education authority areas rather than districts within an area. Chorley is a district of Lancashire Local Education Authority. The information for Lancashire LEA is as follows:

  £000

  Total net current expenditure

  1992–93

  649,469

  1993–94

  594,252

  1994–95

  596,785

  1995–96

  583,921

  1996–97

  590,313

  1997–98

  600,316

  1233W
  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from Lancashire LEA's RO1 statement submitted to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  2. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.

  3. In 1992–93 Net Current Expenditure after recharges was not collected on RO1. In this year Net Recurrent Expenditure is used and consequently figures for this year may not be strictly comparable with those for future years.

  4. Figures are for Lancashire LEA prior to the local government reorganisation in 1998–99.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent per pupil in Heywood and Middleton in each of the last seven years. [168580]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than districts within an area. Heywood and Middleton is a district of Rochdale local education authority. The information for Rochdale LEA is as follows:

  Net current expenditure per pupil

  £

  Pre-Primary Education

  Primary Education

  Pre-Primary and Primary Education

  Secondary Education

  Special Schools

  1996–97

  n/a

  n/a

  1,800

  2,605

  12,959

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  1,841

  2,658

  13,211

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  1,952

  2,685

  13,276

  1999–2000

  5,105

  2,100

  2,161

  2,804

  13,438

  2000–01

  12,322

  2,315

  2,509

  3,070

  15.180

  2001–02

  21,017

  2,551

  2,747

  3,381

  16,007

  2002–03

  —

  —

  2,793

  —

  3,690

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from Rochdale LEA's Section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's RO1 statement previously. Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the Section 52 outturn statement in 1999–2000. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance.

  2. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  3. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.

  4. The NCE per pupil figures for pre-primary and primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.

  5. The NCE per pupil figures for secondary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.

  6. The NCE per pupil figures for special schools relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained special schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained special schools sector.

  7. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.
  1234W
  James Purnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent per pupil in Stalybridge and Hyde in each of the last seven years. [168759]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than districts within an area. Stalybridge and Hyde is a district of Tameside local education authority. The information for Tameside LEA is as follows:

  Net current expenditure per pupil

  £

  Pre-Primary Education

  Primary Education

  Pre-Primary and Primary Education

  Secondary Education

  Special Schools

  1996–97

  n/a

  n/a

  1,743

  2,304

  12,097

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  1,779

  2,449

  12,876

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  1,929

  2,528

  13,371

  1999–2000

  11,672

  2,065

  2,116

  2,579

  22,081

  2000–01

  21,005

  2,237

  2,334

  2,860

  24,175

  2001–02

  25,103

  2,690

  2,794

  3,221

  21,455

  2002–03

  —

  2,786

  —

  3,260

  —

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from Tameside LEA's Section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's R01 statement previously. Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the Section 52 outturn statement in 1999–2000. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance.

  2. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA. Figures are adjusted to 2002–03 prices using the March 2004 GDP deflators.

  3. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEAs.

  4. The NCE per pupil figures for pre-primary and primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.

  5. The NCE per pupil figures for secondary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.

  6. The NCE per pupil figures for special schools relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained special schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained special schools sector.

  7. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public money was spent on education in the constituency of West Derbyshire between(a) 1992 and 1997, (b) 1997 and 2001 and (c) 2001 and 2004. [163736]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than districts within an area West Derbyshire is a district of Derbyshire Local Education Authority. The latest information for Derbyshire LEA is contained in the following table. Information on the current year 2004–05 will not be available until the end of 2005.
  1235W

  Net Current Expenditure

  £

  1992–93 to 1996–97

  1,740,789

  1997–98 to 2000–01

  1,104,187

  2001–02 to 2002–03

  728,225

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from Derbyshire LEA's Section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–00 onwards and the ODPM's RO1 statement previously. Figures up to and including 1996–97 are for Derbyshire LEA prior to local government reorganisation. From 1997–98 onwards Derbyshire LEA was split into Derbyshire and Derby LEAs. 1999–00 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance.

  2. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  3. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.

  4. In 1992–93 Net Current Expenditure after recharges was not collected on RO1. In this year Net Recurrent Expenditure is used and consequently figures for this year may not be strictly comparable with those for future years

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent per pupil in Birkenhead in each of the last seven years. [166300]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than districts within an area. Birkenhead is a district of Wirral local education authority. The information for Wirral LEA is as follows:

  Net current expenditure per pupil

  Pre-primary education

  Primary education

  Pre-primary and primary education

  Secondary education

  Special schools

  1996–97

  n/a

  n/a

  1,830

  2,570

  12,350

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  1,780

  2,570

  13,350

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  2,020

  2,690

  13,450

  1999–2000

  20,060

  2,120

  2,220

  2,850

  15,100

  2000–01

  28,700

  2,360

  2,510

  3,060

  16,180

  2001–02

  34,050

  2,680

  2,850

  3,420

  18,400

  2002–03

  —

  2,980

  —

  3,760

  —

  Notes:

  1. The financial data are taken from Wirral LEA's section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's RO1 statement previously. Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the section 52 outturn statement in 1999–2000. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance.

  2. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers. 2002–03 data are subject to change by the LEA. All figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  3. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEAs.
  1236W
  4. The NCE per pupil figures for pre-primary and primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.

  5. The NCE per pupil figures for secondary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.

  6. The NCE per pupil figures for special schools relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained special schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained special schools sector.

  7. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent per pupil in Wirral, South in each of the last seven years. [166624]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than districts within an area. Wirral, South is a district of Wirral local education authority. The information for Wirral LEA is as follows:

  Net current expenditure per pupil

  Pre-primary education

  Primary education

  Pre-primary and primary education

  Secondary education

  Special schools

  1996–97

  n/a

  n/a

  1,830

  2,570

  12,350

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  1,780

  2,570

  13,350

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  2,020

  2,690

  13,450

  1999–2000

  20,060

  2,120

  2,220

  2,850

  15,100

  2000–01

  28,700

  2,360

  2,510

  3,060

  16,180

  2001–02

  34,050

  2,680

  2,850

  3,420

  18,400

  2002–03

  —

  2,980

  —

  3,760

  —

  Notes

  1. The financial data are taken from Wirral LEA's section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's RO1 statement previously. Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the section 52 outturn statement in 1999–2000. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance.

  2. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers. 2002–03 data are subject to change by the LEA. All figures are rounded to the nearest £10.

  3. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEAs.

  4. The NCE per pupil figures for pre-primary and primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.

  5. The NCE per pupil figures for secondary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.

  6. The NCE per pupil figures for special schools relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained special schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained special schools sector.

  7. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.
  1237W
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public money was spent on education in the constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey between(a) 1992 and 1997, (b) 1997 and 2001 and (c) 2001 and 2004. [159487]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than districts within an area. Sittingbourne and Sheppey is a district of Kent local education authority. The latest information available for Kent LEA is as follows.

  Net current expenditure

  £000

  1992–93 to 1996–97

  2,514,790

  1997–98 to 2000–01

  2,138,194

  2001–02 to 2002–03

  1,411,520

  Notes:
  1. The financial data are taken from Kent LEA's Section 52 Outturn Statements submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's R01 statement prior to then. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance. Figures up to and including 1997–98 are for Kent LEA prior to local government re-organisation. From 1998–99 onwards parts of Kent LEA became Rochester and Gillingham LEA.
  2. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
  3. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.
  4. In 1992–93 NCE after recharges was not collected on R01. In this year Net Recurrent Expenditure is used and consequently figures for this year may not be strictly comparable with those for future years.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent per pupil in Burnley in each of the last seven years. [167917]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than districts within an area. Burnley is a district of Lancashire local education authority. The information for Lancashire LEA is as follows:

  Net current expenditure per pupil

  £

  Pre-primary education

  Primary education

  Pre-Primary and Primary Education

  Secondary Education

  Special Schools

  1996–97

  n/a

  n/a

  1,805

  2,594

  15,988

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  1,824

  2,631

  17,315

  1998–99

  n/a

  n/a

  2,002

  2,701

  17,768

  1999–00

  7,130

  2,108

  2,173

  2,763

  18,487

  2000–01

  11,033

  2,326

  2,437

  2,914

  18,768

  2001–02

  16,391

  2,629

  2,797

  3,230

  20,597

  2002–03

  —

  2,898

  —

  3,399

  —

  1238W
  Notes:
  1. The financial data are taken from Lancashire LEA's Section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's RO1 statement previously. Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the Section 52 outturn statement in 1999–2000. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance. Up to 1997–98 figures are for Lancashire LEA prior to local government reorganisation. From 1998–99 onwards parts of Lancashire LEA became Blackpool and Blackburn LEAs.
  2. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers. 2002–03 data are subject to change by the LEA. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10.
  3. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEAs.
  4. The NCE per pupil figures for pre-primary and primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.
  5. The NCE per pupil figures for secondary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.
  6. The NCE per pupil figures for special schools relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained special schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained special schools sector.
  7. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding was spent per pupil in the Lancashire Local Education Authority in each year since 1997. [165541]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is contained in the following table:

  Net Current Expenditure per pupil

  Pre-primary education

  primary education

  Pre-Primary and primary education

  Secondary education

  Special schools

  1997–98

  1—

  1—

  1,824

  2,631

  17,315

  1998–99

  1—

  1—

  2,002

  2,701

  17,768

  1999–2000

  7,130

  2,108

  2,173

  2,763

  18,487

  2000–01

  11,030

  2,326

  2,437

  2,914

  18,768

  2001–02

  16,391

  2,629

  2,797

  3,230

  20,597

  2002–03

  —

  3,399

  —

  —

  —

  1Non Applicable

  Notes:
  1. The financial data are taken from Lancashire LEA's section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–00 onwards and the ODPM's RO1 statement previously. Expenditure was not distinguished between pre-primary and primary sectors until the inception of the Section 52 outturn statement in 1999–00. 1999–00 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance. Up to 1997–98 figures are for Lancashire LEA prior to local government reorganisation. From 1998–99 onwards parts of Lancashire LEA became Blackpool and Blackburn LEAs.
  2. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of

  1239W
  LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.
  3. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEAs.
  4. The NCE per pupil figures for pre-primary and primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the pre-primary sector and maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained nursery and primary schools sector.
  5. The NCE per pupil figures for secondary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.
  6. The NCE per pupil figures for special schools relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained special schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained special schools sector.

  Education Services (Essex)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers were employed in state 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. [173323]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information is shown in the following tables. The first table shows the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) regular teachers in maintained schools in Essex LEA in each January between 1980 and 19981. Data for 1987 are not available. The second table show s the number of FTE regular teachers in Essex, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock LEAs after local government re-organisation in April 1998, in each January between 1999 and 2003.

  Essex

  1980

  13,080

  1981

  13,040

  1982

  12,820

  1983

  12,640

  1984

  12,440

  1985

  12,620

  1986

  12,000

  1987

  —

  1988

  12,390

  1989

  12,190

  1990

  12,360

  19912

  12,320

  1992

  12,390

  1993

  12,050

  1994

  11,980

  1995

  12,040

  1996

  12,370

  1997

  12,580

  1998

  12,560

  1 Sixth form colleges are included up to 1992

  2 Estimated

  Essex

  Southend-on-Sea

  Thurrock

  Total

  1999

  10,580

  1,270

  1,060

  12,910

  2000

  10,400

  1,380

  1,110

  12,890

  2001

  10,520

  1,410

  1,180

  13,100

  2002

  10,920

  1,520

  1,210

  13,650

  2003

  10,890

  1,560

  1,230

  13,670

  Source:

  Annual survey of teachers in service and teacher vacancies.

  Essex Schools
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much it cost to educate a pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Essex in 2003–04. [172462]

  Mr. Miliband
  The latest date for which this information is available is 2002–03 and is given in the table. The information requested for 2003–04 will not be collected by the Department until October 2004 but I will write to the hon. Member when it is available.

  Net Current Expenditure per pupil

  Primary Education

  Secondary Education

  2002–03

  2,950

  3,600

  Notes:
  1. The financial data are taken from Essex LEA's Section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES. 2002–03 data is subject to change by the LEA. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
  2. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. Consequently the unit costs per pupil in 2002–03 are not strictly comparable with earlier years as they include an apportionment of LEA expenditure based on pupil numbers.
  3. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA.
  4. The NCE per pupil figures for primary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in the maintained primary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained primary schools sector.
  5. The NCE per pupil figures for secondary relate the net current expenditure (after recharges) in maintained secondary schools to the total number of financial year pupils who are educated in the maintained secondary schools sector.
  6. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.

  Further Education
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what his projection is of funding for adult learning and skills provision by colleges of further education in rural areas; [175372]

  (2) what funding provision is made for further education colleges in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [175373]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department allocates funds to the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) for the provision of education and training in the post-16 learning and skills sector. The Department does not provide a specific budget to the LSC for further education colleges in rural areas. The LSC decides on allocations at individual college and regional levels from the funds allocated to it for learning participation. Information about these allocations is not collected by the Department. This is a matter for the LSC. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the Honourable Gentleman on this matter. A copy of his reply will be placed in the House Library. The Government have set out its investment plans for 2003–04 to 2005–06 which should enable the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) to increase funding for further education significantly.

  Pre-schools
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his answer of 17 May 2004,Official Report, column 705W, on pre-schools, what plans he has to make a degree qualification essential for teaching under-8s; and if he will make a statement. [175173]

  Mr. Miliband
  All qualified teachers in maintained primary schools or non-maintained special schools will hold a first degree or equivalent qualification. Adults who are not qualified teachers and who do not necessarily have a degree qualification may also teach in such schools in specific circumstances set out in the Education (Specified Work and Registration) (England) Regulations 2003.

  Table A: Capital allocations: Warrington local education authority.

  All figures in £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Assistance wth AMPs

  27

  Basic L C Vap

  49

  276

  Basic Need

  1,189

  829

  2,389

  3,434

  2,453

  Class Size initiative

  347

  1,261

  282

  640

  176

  Condition

  1,040

  1,517

  Devolved Formula

  1,438

  1,172

  1,786

  Energy

  62

  Modernisaton (Primary)

  Modernisation LEA

  Modernisation LEA

  611

  Modernisation VA

  148

  NDS2

  1,083

  NDS3

  1,500

  NDS4

  2,660

  Outside Toilets

  56

  School Labs

  149

  149

  School Security

  66

  67

  67

  47

  40

  Schools Access Intitiave

  69

  100

  140

  229

  298

  Secondary Learning Support Units

  43

  47

  58

  Seed Challenge

  152

  167

  274

  Specialist Schools

  100

  100

  Staff Workspace

  60

  Supplementary Credit Approvals

  193

  503

  219

  Supplementary NDS for VA Schools

  116

  Voluntary Aided School Grant

  207

  438

  505

  584

  630

  Total

  3,272

  4,222

  8,041

  8,061

  8,646

  So far Warrington LEA has also been allocated £10.2 million over the two years 2004–05 and 2005–06

  School/College Funding
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to equalise funding between schools and colleges for 16 to 19-year-olds in the Worthing area. [175448]

  Alan Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) on 14 May 2004,Official Report, column 623W.

  Specialist Schools
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the schools in England that have a specialist status in primary musical education. [175428]
  1242W

  School Funding
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much capital money has been allocated to schools in Warrington, North in each year since 1997. [174659]

  Mr. Miliband
  Since 2001 the majority of capital support has been allocated to schools and local education authorities by formula, and they decide how to invest it in line with their asset management plans. The Department does not, therefore, have complete information about capital investment at constituency level. This should be held at local authority level. Table A sets out the capital support made by the Department to Warrington local education authority (LEA) and its schools since 1998–99, in total and by programme.

  Mr. Miliband
  Specialist school status is available for secondary (but not primary) maintained schools in England. Of the 259 secondary schools designated as specialist Arts Colleges, 181 are Performing Arts Colleges, providing an enhanced curriculum in music, dance and drama. Following the launch of the new Music specialism last year, the first two specialist Music Colleges (one of which is a combined Music and Mathematics and Computing College) will become operational in September 2004.

  Specialist schools must spend at least a third of their specialist school funding on delivering community development plans. These plans require schools to work in close partnership and to share enhanced facilities and curriculum expertise with a minimum of five other local schools—including feeder primary schools.
  1243W
  In a separate initiative, in 2002, 42 primary schools were included in pilots, with subsequent evaluation by Ofsted, of models to widen opportunities for primary pupils to learn musical instruments. Earlier this year, I announced an extra £1.5 million for music services to help all authorities to develop their own models in this area.

  £

  School Name

  LEA

  Amount of BID (net cost)

  Purpose of Bid

  The Nottingham Bluecoat School

  Nottingham

  1,728,100

  New Accommodation

  Holy Trinity CE VA Primary School

  Calderdale

  937,067

  Replacement School

  Akiva School

  Barnet

  6,758,100

  New VA School

  Our Lady of the Visitation RC Primary School

  Ealing

  1,012,712

  Replacement Accommodation

  The Avenue School

  Brent

  3,420,000

  New VA School

  Hemingfield Ellis CE Primary School

  Barnsley

  1,602,400

  Replacement School

  Richard Challoner School

  Kingston upon Thames

  4,306,781

  Remodelling of School

  Holy Trinity School

  West Sussex

  3,000,000

  Expansion of School

  Montesorri School

  Brighton and Hove

  3,736,000

  New VA School

  St. Mary of the Angels Catholic Primary School

  Cheshire

  1,828,444

  Replacement School

  Four schools—reorganisation

  Devon

  13,236,880

  Reorganisation of four Schools

  St. Andrew CE Primary School

  Devon

  1,812,000

  Replacement School

  Larmenier and Sacred Heart RC Primary School

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  5,285,345

  Replacement School

  St. Gregory's Catholic Primary School

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,551,518

  Extension to School

  Alderman Cogan's School

  Kingston upon Hull

  1,015,120

  Alterations to Existing School

  St. Bede's RC School

  North Lincolnshire

  700,019

  Independent Learning Centre

  Bethany Junior School

  Bournemouth

  1,261,171

  Remodelling and Improvements

  Notre Dame High School

  Norfolk

  3,984,632

  14–19 Excellence Centre

  St. George's School

  Hertfordshire

  4,124,876

  Growth in Pupil Numbers

  Sacred Heart RC Primary School

  Hillingdon

  4,993,469

  Growth in Pupil Numbers

  Ashlands Ecumenical Primary School

  North Somerset

  2,072,171

  Growth in Pupil Numbers

  St. George's Primary School

  North Somerset

  2,072,171

  Growth in Pupil Numbers

  Holy Trinity Catholic School

  Cornwall

  2,790,000

  Growth in Pupil Numbers

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support his Department gives to UK citizens living abroad who would like to return to the UK in order to undertake teacher training. [174992]

  Mr. Miliband
  Eligibility for support from public funds in respect of Bachelor of Education and Postgraduate Certificate in Education courses in England normally depends on whether or not a person is ordinarily resident in this country or the wider European Economic Area (EEA) Employment-based teacher training schemes, the largest of which is the Graduate Teacher Programme, offer an alternative route to Qualified Teacher Status which allows candidates to be employed in schools as unqualified teachers and paid accordingly while they train. Candidates who are not ordinarily resident in EEA country can take part in these programmes on exactly the same basis as those who are.

  Teachers
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate the Government has made of the likely increase in salary costs of requiring all teachers to work up to the age of 60 years. [174846]

  Mr. Miliband
  There is no existing or proposed requirement on teachers to work to the age of 60.

  Vocational Training
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of the cohort of

  Targeted Capital Fund
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the 23 voluntary-aided projects which were successful in their bids to the 2004–05 Targeted Capital Fund. [174735]

  Mr. Miliband
  The details are as follows:

  (a) 16, (b) 17, (c) 18, (d) 19, (e) 20 and (f) 21-year-olds (i) commenced and (ii) completed (A) NVQ level 3 courses and (B) modern apprenticeships in each year since 1992. [172625]

  Alan Johnson
  The proportions of 16 to 21-year-olds to have commenced either a NVQ level 3 in Learning and Skills Council (LSC) funded further education, an advanced apprenticeship or an apprenticeship in 2001/02 and 2002/03 are shown in the following table.

  Commencement rates of 16 to 21-year-olds on NVQ level 3 courses in LSC funded further education and on apprenticeships by programme and age—England: 2001/02 and 2002/03

  Percentage

  Programme/Age at 31 August

  2001/02

  2002/03

  NVQ 3 in LSC funded FE

  16

  0.2

  0.1

  17

  0.6

  0.6

  18

  0.7

  0.8

  19

  0.4

  0.5

  20

  0.3

  0.4

  21

  0.3

  0.4

  All 16 to 21-year-olds

  0.4

  0.5

  Advanced apprenticeships1

  16

  1.6

  1.4

  17

  1.3

  1.2

  18

  1.5

  1.3

  19

  1.2

  1.1

  20

  1.0

  0.8

  21

  0.8

  0.7

  All 16 to 21-year-olds

  1.2

  1.1

  1245W

  Commencement rates of 16 to 21-year-olds on NVQ level 3 courses in LSC funded further education and on apprenticeships by programme and age—England: 2001/02 and 2002/03

  Percentage

  Programme/Age at 31 August

  2001/02

  2002/03

  Apprenticeships2

  16

  5.3

  5.2

  17

  3.4

  3.7

  18

  2.6

  2.8

  19

  1.8

  2.1

  20

  1.3

  1.5

  21

  1.0

  1.1

  All 16 to 21-year-olds

  2.6

  2.8

  All apprenticeships

  16

  6.9

  6.6

  17

  4.7

  4.9

  18

  4.1

  4.1

  19

  2.9

  3.2

  20

  2.2

  2.3

  21

  1.8

  1.9

  All 16 to 21-year-olds

  3.8

  3.8

  Sources:

  LSC Individualised Learner Record

  LSC Individualised Student Record

  Office for National Statistics

  The proportions of 16 to 21-year-olds to have achieved either an NVQ level 3 qualification in LSC funded further education, or the NVQ component of an apprenticeship are shown in the following table.

  Achievements by 16 to 21-year-olds of NVQ level 3 courses in LSC funded further education and of NVQ components of apprenticeships as a proportion of the relevant age cohort by programme and age—England: 2001/02 and 2002/03

  Percentage

  Programme/Age at 31 August

  2001/02

  2002/033

  NVQ 3 in LSC funded FE

  16

  —

  n/a

  17

  0.3

  n/a

  18

  0.3

  n/a

  19

  0.2

  n/a

  20

  0.1

  n/a

  21

  0.1

  n/a

  All 16 to 21-year-olds

  0.2

  n/a

  NVQ 3 component of an advanced apprenticeship1

  16

  —

  —

  17

  0.1

  0.1

  18

  0.5

  0.4

  19

  1.0

  1.0

  20

  0.9

  1.0

  21

  0.6

  0.7

  All 16 to 21-year-olds

  0.5

  0.5

  NVQ 2 component of an apprenticeship2

  16

  0.1

  0.1

  17

  1.3

  1.3

  18

  1.4

  1.5

  19

  0.9

  1.1

  20

  0.5

  0.7

  21

  0.4

  0.5

  All 16 to 21-year-olds

  0.7

  0.9

  NVQ component of all apprenticeships

  16

  0.1

  0.1

  17

  1.3

  1.4

  18

  1.8

  1.9

  19

  1.8

  2.1

  20

  1.4

  1.6

  21

  1.0

  1.2

  All 16 to 21-year-olds

  1.2

  1.4

  1246W

  '—' = less than 0.05 percent.

  Notes to tables:

  1 Advanced apprenticeships were until recently known as advanced modern apprenticeships.

  2 Apprenticeships were until recently known as foundation modern apprenticeships.

  3 2002/03 outcomes data for LSC funded further education are not yet available. 2002/03 outcomes data for apprenticeships are provisional.

  Sources:

  LSC Individualised Learner Record

  LSC Individualised Student Record

  Office for National Statistics

  Please note that direct comparisons should not be made between the proportions in the two tables as individual learners will have their programmes of learning delivered over different years. For example, some of the 17-year-olds to have commenced an NVQ 3 course in 2001/02 will finish as 17-year-olds in 2001/02, others will finish in 2002/03 as 18-year-olds, while others will finish the year after as 19-year-olds.

  The percentages in both these tables are produced using post-census population estimates. However we are currently unable to provide a historical series on a comparable population basis. Further information can be found in the Department's Statistical First Release, "Participation in Education, Training and Employment by 16–18 Year Olds in England: 2001 and 2002" available online at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000426/index.shtml.

  Watford Grammar School for Boys
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of students at Watford Grammar School for Boys are selected by aptitude or ability. [175426]

  Mr. Miliband
  This information is not collected centrally by the Department.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to the answer of 9 December 2003,Official Report, column 422W, on Iraq, whether the complete review of missing drugs and supplies has finished; what the findings were; whether new drug supply systems are now fully operational; whether supply accounting and reporting systems are in place; what the new national drug formulary comprises; whether shortages of medicine in Iraq are continuing; when he expects full medical supplies will get through to the Iraqi people; and if he will make a statement. [173385]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently presented a report to the Iraqi Ministry of Health (IMOH) assessing the national drug and supply system, which is currently being considered. In parallel, the IMOH have also been provided with essential drug policy and quality guidance and support to the assessment of the national drug regulations and registration systems. Plans for strengthening the IMOH National Drug Regulatory Authority have been agreed and guidelines for good storage practices are being prepared. Additional strategies for upgrading the Drug
  1247W
  Information Centre have been finalised and procurement of equipment is underway. A new National Formulary, comprising over 1,000 medicines has been produced and is available from the IMOH.

  New procurement and distribution management teams have been set up by the IMOH, replacing the previous system under the corrupt, state-owned Kimadia Company. Procurement of essential medical supplies has been initiated and a delivery is expected in the next few days. Further shipments, including critical medical supplies for the Governorates, are on order.

  Significant progress has been made to improve national drugs supplies and systems: The WHO report that stocks of 23 drugs for chronic diseases out of the 32 commonly used, are in sufficient supply to meet patient demand. The IMOH, WHO and the CPA continue to work to further improve both drug supplies and systems in Iraq.

  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid and assistance his Department is giving to the Iraqi people. [173932]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has committed over £278 million for humanitarian and reconstruction assistance to Iraq since March 2003, of which £70 million has been channelled through the International Reconstruction Fund Facility for Iraq (IRFFI). DFID has also provided a number of staff, filling a range of posts, to the Iraqi ministries and the Coalition Provincial Authority (CPA).

  On 19 February, I published DFID's plans to contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq over the next two years in our interim Country Assistance Plan. It has been placed in the House of Commons Library and can be found on the DFID website: www.dfid.gov.uk

  Liberia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance his Department has(a) pledged and (b) delivered to assist Liberian refugees to (i) return to and (ii) re-integrate into society in Liberia; and if he will make a statement. [175475]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's relief and reconstruction strategy for Liberia, in 2003 and 2004, has concentrated on helping to relieve the humanitarian crisis, provide security, and restore basic services so that both refugees and internally displaced persons can return to their places of origin. Over this period, DFID has committed a total of £10.6 million for these purposes and has so far disbursed £3.6 million for humanitarian programmes, £0.4 million in support of the UN security coordination agency and interim care centres for children, and £2.7 million for rehabilitation of basic services. For 2004, DFID is discussing with various agencies proposals totalling £1.7 million for humanitarian support, and £2.2 million for reactivation of health care, water supplies, and agricultural livelihoods.

  In addition, DFID has pledged a total of £6 million to support Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration programmes over 2003–05, of which we have so far disbursed £1 million. These funds are intended to assist the re-integration into their communities of ex-combatants and others affected by war.

  Staff with Disabilities
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what reasons the Service Delivery Agreement target to have 3.3 per cent. of senior Civil Service posts filled with staff with disabilities has not been met. [174140]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is an equal opportunities employer. We value diversity. DFID's policy on recruitment is to stimulate and encourage applications from all sections of the community specifically including candidates with disabilities. We word our advertisements accordingly. Final selection, however, is on merit, and the composition of the Senior Civil Service group is a reflection of appointments made on this basis, through open competition or internal promotion.

  There are currently 79 members of the Senior Civil Service in DFID, so performance against the target is very sensitive to small changes in the actual number of staff with disabilities in post.

  In general, DFID is aware that there are more disabled people in the Department than declare their impairment and is actively pursuing a number of measures to develop a more open culture on disability. However, it will remain the individual's choice to define themselves as disabled or not.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Maintenance
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many British citizens avoid paying child maintenance because they have left the country; and how many of these reside in the EU. [166728]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 21 May 2004:

  In replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many British citizens avoid paying child maintenance because they have left the country; and how many of these reside in the EU.

  I do not have the information you seek. I can however say at 30 November 2003 there were around 300 cases where further action was suspended because the non-resident parent was living abroad. I am unable to determine how many of those cases reside in the EU.

  Child Support
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the new Child Support Agency formula will be applied to all absent parents, irrespective of the date of claim; and if he will make a statement. [170823]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave him on 18 December 2003,Official Report, column 1092W.
  1249W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his Written Statement of 21 April,Official Report, columns 19–21WS on child support, for what reasons some new cases were unable to be progressed on the new system. [171098]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 21 May 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his Written Statement of 21st April, Official Report, columns 19–21WS on child support, for what reasons some new cases were unable to be progressed on the new system.

  Some cases were unable to be progressed on the new system because of problems within the computer service provided to the Child Support Agency by EDS. The Agency is working closely with EDS to remedy those problems and as it does so it will become possible to progress those cases.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his Written Statement of 21 April 2004,Official Report, columns 19–21WS on the child support scheme, when he estimates that reliable figures on (a) compliance and (b) throughput will be available. [171099]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 21 May 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his Written Statement of 21st April, Official Report, columns 19–21WS on the child support scheme, when he estimates that reliable figures on (a) compliance and (b) throughput will be available.

  Whilst EDS have made significant progress in relation to correcting defects within their computer service we are still working through with them how these can be applied retrospectively to provide the type of information you seek. We do not yet have detailed plans for this work and I am therefore unable to provide the estimate requested.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his written statement of 21 April 2004,Official Report, columns 19–21WS, for what reasons his Department has increased the amount retained from the monthly payments to EDS from 15 per cent. to 15 to 20 per cent. [171288]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 21 May 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  1250W
  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his Written Statement of 21st April, Official Report, columns 19–21WS, for what reasons his Department has increased the amount retained from the monthly payments to EDS from 15 per cent, to 15 to 20 per cent.

  In the last quarter the Department has retained between 15% and 20% of the monies that would otherwise be due to EDS. The amount of the retention actually made each month reflects the service levels achieved by EDS in the provision of their contracted service to the Agency.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his Oral Statement of 11 February 2004 to the Work and Pensions Select Committee on the Child Support Agency reforms, when the IT recovery programme(a) began and (b) will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [169399]

  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 21 May 2004:

  In reply to your recent Parliamentary questions about the Child Support Agency the Secretary of State promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his Oral Statement of 11th February, to the Work and Pensions Select Committee on the Child Support Agency reforms, when the IT recovery programme (a) began and (b) will be completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Since November 2003 we have been involved with EDS to agree the scope, design and development schedule for their programme to remedy issues associated with their provision of a computer service to support the Child Support Reform programme. This has led to enhancements to the main system in January and March and to the work management and telephony system (again in January and March). They have currently planned a further major software release in June. We are still discussing the final content and delivery timetable of subsequent enhancements.

CABINET OFFICE

  Obesity Initiative
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office for what reason the Government discounts to private health club membership for firemen, nurses, police and ambulance workers as part of its initiative to cut obesity have not been extended to all categories of Civil Servants. [173321]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government are committed to looking after the occupational health of Civil Servants. Having pro-active occupational health policies not only benefits employees but can also assist the organisation by helping to reduce levels of sickness absence.

  As part of programmes to raise awareness of health issues, Government Departments and agencies are free to negotiate membership discounts on behalf of their staff with private health club providers, or provide their own fitness facilities.

DEFENCE

  Aircraft Carrier Programme
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the new aircraft carrier programme. [173703]

  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. We expect to make an announcement when these deliberations are complete.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement concerning the Future Carrier Programme, the Alliance Strategy and the timetable for the demonstration and manufacture phases; and if he will make a statement. [173704]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ministers are currently considering proposals on the overall CVF programme, the alliance strategy and on when to proceed to the Demonstration and Manufacture phases. We expect to make an announcement when these deliberations are complete.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department's policy in respect of the proposal to build a high-powered laser facility at AWE Aldermaston has changed since 5 July 1999. [173861]

  Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence is currently considering a new proposal for a laser facility at AWE to replace the existing HELEN laser. In 2001, because of time and cost overruns on the United States National Ignition Facility, it was decided not to continue with plans, announced on 5 July 1999, Official Report, column 341W, to build a United Kingdom target chamber attached to that facility.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will promote the benefit of Eurofighter to the Singapore Government. [173771]

  Mr. Ingram
  This Government are actively involved in promoting Eurofighter Typhoon to the Government of Singapore through the work of the Defence Export Services Organisation. The aircraft has been included on the shortlist to be evaluated for the Singaporean next Fighter Replacement Programme, and a decision is expected early in 2005.

  International Committee of the Red Cross
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, when the administration of Camp Bucca was handed back to the British Armed Forces, they began to investigate the allegations of ill-treatment detailed to the International Committee of the Red Cross by detainees. [173455]
  1252W
  Mr. Hoon
  No. The United Kingdom took over the running of Camp Bucca from the United States on 25 September 2003, and continued to run the facility until the opening of the Divisional Temporary Detention Facility at Shaibah on 15 December 2003.

  The two incidents concerning prisoners at Camp Bucca, detailed in the ICRC's report on the Treatment by the Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and other Protected Persons by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq during Arrest, internment and Interrogations, both allegedly occurred while the facility was run by the US. These are matters for the US.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the death mentioned at paragraph 44 of the International Committee of the Red Cross Report on the Treatment by the Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and other protected persons in Iraq said to have occurred on 22 September 2003 was the result of actions by British armed forces. [173020]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: The United Kingdom took over the running of Camp Bucca from the United States on 25 September 2003. The incident referred to in Paragraph 45 of the ICRC Report on the Treatment by the Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and other Protected Persons by the Geneva Conventions in Iraq during Arrest, Internment and Interrogations, occurred before the UK took over the facility, therefore was not the result of action by British Armed Forces.

  Investigation Techniques
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance has been provided by the British Special Air Services to the United States military forces in investigation techniques of military personnel since 1984. [175139]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am withholding details under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  IT Outsourcing
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the schedule is for the plan to outsource IT support and provision across his Department; [168293]

  (2) what the projected budget is for the (a) outsourced support and provision of IT services for his Department and (b) cost of terminating existing contracts; [168291]

  (3) what weighting will be given to the previous track records in other areas of the civil and public sector of the consortia that are bidding for the support and provision of IT services in his Department; [168290]

  (4) what his contingency plan is for the possibility that an outside contractor wins the contract for the support and provision of IT in his Department and then fails during the term of that contract. [168289]

  Mr. Ingram
  These questions have been answered with respect to the Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) programme. The Ministry of Defence is in negotiations with two potential commercial Delivery
  1253W
  Partners (DP) for the provision of Information Systems services. The DII programme is currently in the Assessment Phase of the Smart Procurement cycle.

  In terms of cost, the MOD currently spends over £450 million per annum on its information infrastructure. It is anticipated that the DII Public/Private Partnership contract will cost in the region of £4 billion over 10 years.

  Track record is one of a number of factors included in the evaluation of bids. The Department's Supplier Relations Group has conducted research of bidding consortium members' performance both in Defence and across Government. In addition, the project has taken up references, by telephone and through visits, from existing customers of the key companies in the bidding consortia. Further reference visits will be conducted during the final phase of the procurement, targeting customers in receipt of a similar volume and range of services.

  10 major legacy contracts for IT infrastructure have been identified and these will be subsumed within, or superseded by, the DII contract. The majority of these contracts are due to expire naturally over the next 18 months. An options appraisal has been conducted for each contract and an appropriate scenario agreed for each during subsequent mitigation planning. Where the risks, liabilities or known termination charges are unacceptably high, the preferred option is to allow a contract to run to expiry and then assimilate the activity within DII. Any contracts that currently lie beyond the next three years, which in the main are PFI contracts, will be subsumed on expiry. Residual liabilities will be assessed more fully following negotiations with bidders in the later stages of procurement but generally we would expect to be in no worse a position than now and would seek to be in a better position through negotiation.

  Support to deployed operations will continue to be supplied by Service personnel. For all other elements of IT infrastructure provision and support the MOD will mitigate the risk of supplier failure by contracting with a consortium which will provide the services through a range of service providers. This will ensure that in the event that one member of the consortium fails, there is capacity available for another consortium member to pick up the service provision. In addition, the MOD will retain rights to step in and use its own staff or other third party contractors to remedy major service failures. Ultimately, the MOD will have rights to terminate the contract for material breaches in performance, with options to take services back in-house or contract with another commercial provider for their delivery.

  King's Regiment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the postings were of the lst Battalion, The King's Regiment for the last two years; and what postings are planned in the next year. [174740]

  Mr. Ingram
  1st Battalion, The King's Regiment has been based at Catterick since March 2001. The Regiment deployed to Iraq from June to October 2003. One Company has since deployed to Kosovo, where they remain. During the period the unit has exercised in
  1254W
  Canada (in the summer of 2002) and was involved in Operation Fresco (towards the end of 2002 and the start of 2003).

  It is currently planned that a Company from the unit will deploy to the Falkland Islands later this year. The remainder of the unit is scheduled to undertake a number of routine tasks in support of the training of other units.

  Missiles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what armaments are to be fitted to the Future Surface Combatant. [171862]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Future Surface Combatant is currently in its concept stage. As such, no decisions have yet been taken on specific armaments. However, it is envisaged that its roles will include Anti-Surface Warfare, Anti-Submarine Warfare, Anti-Air Warfare and Land Attack, and the ships will be equipped accordingly.

  Overseas Bribery
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many allegations of overseas bribery involving UK companies his Department has received from the US Administration since February 1999; on what dates these allegations were received; and what action his Department took on each allegation. [151401]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe on 3 February 2004,Official Report, column 844W.

  Procurement
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the long-term costings for the equipment programme. [172741]

  Mr. Ingram
  The detailed financial data and planning assumptions about the proposed content and timing of the future equipment programme form part of internal advice to Ministers on the overall affordability of the defence programme and of individual projects at the time they come forward for approval. This information therefore anticipates decisions still to be taken by Ministers. In parts it also contains information which is commercially sensitive. I am therefore withholding such information under Exemptions 2 and 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Information is, however, routinely made available on a range of major equipment projects, which together form the substantial part of the Department's forward equipment programme, for example in support of the PAC's annual Major Projects Report and the HCDC's annual inquiry into defence procurement. This detail is set in broader context by the publication every two years of the Department's overarching Defence Investment Strategy.

  Refuelling Tanker Aircraft
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government plan to work jointly with the French Government in the CVF programme; and if he will make a statement. [170352]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are continuing to explore opportunities with the French for potential Carrier co-operation. We believe there could be potential political, military and economic benefits to be gained through such co-operation, but we must ensure that the United Kingdom's CVF programme is not disrupted.

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the Type 45 destroyer programme. [174251]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Type 45 will be the biggest and most capable class of air defence destroyers ever built for the Royal Navy, and will be equipped to carry out a range of tasks. Six ships are on order with the prime contractor BAE Systems, providing stability for the shipbuilding work force on the Clyde, and at the new VT facility at Portsmouth, for the remainder of the decade. The programme is in full production against a mature design, a first for a UK warship project at this stage of its development.

  UN Operations
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library transcripts of the media interviews he gave on 10 May 2004 on the situation in Iraq and investigations into alleged abuse of detainees in British custody in Iraq. [173344]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence does not routinely hold full transcripts of interviews given by Ministers on radio or television programmes.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vehicles have been transported to Iraq for use by British armed forces, broken down by type. [173860]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information would require extensive manual retrieval and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what length of deployment UK military personnel are required to serve in Iraq. [174353]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 19 April 2004,Official Refort, column 11W, to the hon. Member for Romford (Mi. Rosindell).

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of each of the(a) B1u-97B, (b) 20 mm Phalanx Sea-to-Air, (c) 25 mm M791, (d) 30 mm PGU-14/B, (e) 120 mm MV Charm, (f) Tow 2 A/B A/tank, (g) AGM-65 G Maverick, (h) Hellfire II/Brimstone, (i) AGM-84 SLAM-ER, (j) AGM-154C JSOW, (k) AGM-158 JASSM, (l) BGM-109 Tactical Tomahawk, (m) Storm Shadow/Scalper, (n) GBU-15, (o) GBU-24, (p) GBU-27, (q) GBU-28B/B, (r) GBU-31JDAM, (s) GBU-37 B/B, (t) GBU-118/B and (u) SSB weapon types were used in Iraq; and which were used against targets in urban areas. [174375]
  1256W
  Mr. Ingram
  The numbers of each weapon type used by British forces during Op. Telic are as follows:

  Weapon type

  Total used

  20 mm Phalanx

  0

  120 mm CHARM

  850

  TOW (I and FI variants)

  83

  AGM-65 G Maverick

  38

  Storm Shadow

  27

  GBU-27

  9

  In respect to the numbers of (l) BGM-109 Tactical Tomahawk, and; in relation to the breakdown of numbers used against urban targets, I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which relates to defence, security and international relations.

  With the exception of the Tactical Tomahawk, those weapon types included in the question but not listed in the table above are not in UK service.

  Vaccination
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the practice of informed consent for the administering of vaccines became standard practice; [174191]

  (2) pursuant to the letter from the Under-Secretary of State of 1 December 2003, under what guidelines vaccines were administered that did not have a product licence at that time. [174197]

  Mr. Caplin
  We are currently assembling the information but it is taking time. I will therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  Chronic Disease
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expenditure has been allocated by his Department to projects to improve chronic disease management over the next three years. [171233]

  Mr. Hutton
  The management of chronic conditions and the provision of treatment and support to people with such conditions consume substantial national health service resources within primary care trusts' existing allocations. Our recently announced initiative, improving chronic disease management, is intended to make better use of those resources and offer better care to people with chronic conditions. The Department of Health has, however, allocated a total of £5 million in funding to nine primary care trusts participating in the Evercare pilot scheme to test potential ways in which these improvements might be achieved.

  Clinical Advisers (IT Forum)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the reasons are for the disbandment of the NHS IT forum for clinicians; and if he will make a statement. [173093]
  1257W
  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service's national programme for information technology is currently considering options to strengthen the arrangements for providing advice from clinicians and patients' representatives to inform its work. Members of the National Clinical Advisory Board are fully involved in discussions about its future role. The National Clinical Advisory Board has not been disbanded.

  Dental Treatment
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists working within the London borough of Wandsworth provide national health service dental treatment within their practice; and if he will make a statement. [173077]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data for number of dentists are not collected by London borough area. The number of national health service dentists in Wandsworth Primary Care Trust (PCT) at 30 September 2003 is shown in the table.

  National health service: Number of dentists in Wandsworth PCT area—30 September 2003

  Primary care trust

  Wandsworth PCT

  General dental service (GDS)

  121

  Community dental service (CDS)

  27

  Salaried

  4

  Total

  152

  Dentists can work in more than one PCT area. GDS dentists numbers are for those whose main dental work is in the Wandworth PCT area. Therefore, dentists who do some work in this area but more in another PCT have not been included.

  Adult dental registrations as a percentage of the population at 30 September for each year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  159.6

  54.0

  52.0

  51.4

  51.0

  n/a

  n/a

  Bolton PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  45.6

  45.7

  Greater Manchester SHA area

  160.3

  53.9

  52.2

  52.3

  51.9

  50.6

  49.7

  England

  51.0

  43.8

  43.3

  43.4

  43.4

  44.2

  44.0

  n/a = not available.

  1 Registration figures are not on the same basis as those for later years because of the change in registration period.

  Patients wishing to register with a NHS dentist can obtain details of dentists accepting new patients in their area by accessing www.nhs.uk, contacting NHS Direct or contacting their local PCT. Currently 93 per cent. of callers to NHS Direct are being directed to sources of NHS dental treatment within locally agreed distance standards.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in(a) Bolton, (b) Greater Manchester and (c) England treated NHS patients in the past seven years; and how many treated only private patients in each year. [172621]
  1258W
  Dentists in the GDS include principals, assistants and vocational dental practitioners. These figures are on a headcount basis rather than whole-time equivalent basis and therefore take no account of part-time working.

  Dentists
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of adults in(a) Bolton, (b) Greater Manchester and (c) England were registered with an NHS dentist in each of the last seven years. [172598]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information available is for general dental service (GDS) dentist registration rates for adults in the Wigan and Bolton Health Authority at 30 September 1997 to 2001, and for Bolton Primary Care Trust (PCT), which is part of the Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority (SHA) for 30 September 2002 and 30 September 2003. Figures for the Greater Manchester SHA area are also shown.

  Registrations cover patients who have been to a general dental service dentist within the past 15 months. These will exclude patients who choose to attend occasionally who have not been to a dentist during that period. Registrations are included in the area of the dentist. Patients may choose to have their dental services in a different PCT area from the one in which they live. The registration period was changed for new registrations and registrations extending from September 1996. Previously the period for adults was 24 months while children's registration lapsed at the end of the following calendar year. This caused registration numbers to fall between November 1997 and August 1998.

  National health service dental services are also provided by the community dental service, personal dental service, the salaried service of the GDS and hospital dental service. These services do not require the patient to be registered with a dentist before treatment.

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The table shows the number of dentists in the general, personal, community, and hospital dental services.

  The figures given are for 30 September for each year. Before 2002 Bolton was part of the Wigan and Bolton Health Authority. In 2002 health authorities (HAs) were replaced by primary care trusts (PCTs).

  Figures for the number of dentists who treat private patients only are not available. Few dentists are purely private. 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.

  Figures are also given for England.
  1259W

  Number of dentists at 30 September of each year

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  205

  210

  211

  219

  207

  n/a

  n/a

  Bolton PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  85

  84

  Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority area

  1,115

  1,127

  1,162

  1,155

  1,150

  1,161

  1,203

  England

  20,483

  21,041

  21,556

  21,902

  22,438

  23,051

  23,490

  n/a = not available

  Dialysis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) average and (b) maximum waiting time for vascular access surgery for dialysis patients for (i) England, (ii) each region and (iii) each strategic health authority in each year since 1996. [159780]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on waiting times for vascular access surgery is not centrally available. Waiting times for consultant led in-patient elective admissions and consultant led first out-patient appointments following general practitioner referral are collected on the consultant's main specialty not by procedure.

  Diets
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation he has made of studies into long-term calorific restriction diets and their effectiveness in reducing the risk of(a) cancer, (b) coronary heart disease, (c) diabetes and (d) strokes. [169236]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has not specifically evaluated the long-term effects of calorie restricted diets, but animal research has consistently shown that calorie restriction can increase lifespan by about 30 per cent. and protect against cancer. The longterm effect of calorie restriction in humans has yet to be established.

  Obesity increases the risk of developing coronary heart disease, diabetes, some cancers and hypertension. Evidence indicates that maintaining a healthy weight is a key element in the prevention of these conditions.

  Food Standards Agency
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) Parliamentary Questions, (b) adjournment debates and (c) urgent Questions on the work of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) the Department has answered since it was established; and if he will make a statement on the accountability of the FSA to Parliament. [171860]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: Ministers have answered 1,281 Parliamentary Questions, two adjournment debates and no urgent questions on the
  1260W
  work of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) since it was established. There has been one Opposition Day debate, eight European Scrutiny Debates in European Standing Committee C, one debate on a prayer against a Statutory Instrument in the House of Commons and one in the House of Lords, seven Select Committees where both oral and written evidence was provided and six Select Committees where written memoranda only were provided. FSA policy areas have not been debated in Westminster Hall. Health Ministers have not taken Primary Legislation through Parliament on behalf of FSA.

  The FSA is a United Kingdom non-Ministerial department established by the Food Standards Act 1999. It is accountable to the Westminster Parliament through the Secretary of State for Health and to the administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland through the relevant Health Ministers. Under the 1999 Act, the FSA's expenditure is paid out of money provided by Parliament and the administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its Annual Report and Accounts is laid before the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Its Chief Executive is the FSA Principal Accounting Officer.

  Correspondence to Health Ministers from hon. and right hon. Members about issues for which the FSA is responsible normally receives a reply from the relevant Minister. The Chairman and Chief Executive of FSA reply to correspondence addressed directly to them.

  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) is an executive agency of the FSA. It is responsible for enforcement of meat hygiene and BSE-related legislation in licensed meat plants in Great Britain. It also carries out certain functions on behalf of the Environment and Rural Affairs Departments.

  Health Service
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of women in Bootle with suspected breast cancer saw a specialist within two weeks in each of the last five years. [171481]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected on a constituency basis. The information in the table relates to national health service organisations serving the Bootle constituency.
  1261W

  Waiting times for patients referred urgently by their GP with suspected breast cancer Crosby to 1st outpatient appointment: NHS Trusts in Crosby

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage of patients seen in two weeks

  Total patients seen

  Patients seen in two weeks

  1999–2000

  1

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  76.2

  101

  77

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  80.4

  97

  78

  1999–2000

  2

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  88.2

  102

  90

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  166

  166

  1999–2000

  3

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  95.0

  120

  114

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.5

  210

  209

  1999–2000

  4

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  118

  118

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.5

  209

  208

  2000–01

  1

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.0

  102

  100

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust

  92.6

  190

  176

  2000–01

  2

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  155

  155

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  295

  295

  2000–01

  3

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  155

  155

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  270

  270

  2000–01

  4

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  143

  143

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  96.8

  250

  242

  2001–02

  1

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.4

  157

  156

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.2

  276

  271

  2001–02

  2

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  175

  175

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  92.2

  258

  238

  2001–02

  3

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  225

  225

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  84.7

  320

  271

  2001–02

  4

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  198

  198

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.4

  319

  314

  2002–03

  1

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  234

  234

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.0

  307

  304

  2002–03

  2

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.1

  223

  221

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.6

  272

  271

  2002–03

  3

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.6

  255

  254

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  96.7

  391

  378

  2002–03

  4

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  229

  229

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  98.9

  285

  282

  2003–04

  1

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  221

  221

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.4

  320

  318

  1262W 1263W

  Waiting times for patients referred urgently by their GP with suspected breast cancer to 1st outpatient appointment: NHS Trusts in Crosby

  Quarter

  NHS Trust

  Percentage of patients seen in two weeks

  Total patients seen

  Patients seen in two weeks

  2003–04

  2

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  265

  265

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  99.7

  373

  372

  2003–04

  3

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  271

  271

  Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  100.0

  374

  374

  Source:

  DH form QMCW.

  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of elective admission to the NHS in South Ribble in the past five years. [171269]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Count of in-year elective (waiting time, booked, planned) admissions—PCT of responsibility5F5 Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust—NHS Hospitals, England 1998–99 to 2002–03. Excluding regular attenders.

  PCT of responsibility

  5F2 Chorley and South Ribble

  1998–99

  30,440

  1999–2000

  32,827

  2000–01

  34,386

  2001–02

  24,687

  2002–03

  32,671

  Notes:

  1. An in-year admission is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one health care provider, excluding admissions beginning before 1 April at the start of the data year. Periods of care on-going 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.

  2. Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed).

  3. PCT and strategic health authority (SHA) data was added to historic data-years in the HES database using 2002–03 boundaries, as a one-off exercise in 2004. The quality of the data on PCT of Treatment and SHA of Treatment is poor in 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99, with over a third of all finished episodes having missing values in these years. Data quality of PCT of general practitioner practice and SHA of GP practice in 1997–98 and 1998–99 is also poor, with a high proportion missing values where practices changed or ceased to exist. There is less change in completeness of the residence-based fields over time, where the majority of unknown values are due to missing postcodes on birth episodes. Users of time series analysis including these years need to be aware of these issues in their interpretation of the data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many rapid access chest pain clinics there are in Workington constituency. [170713]
  1264W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no rapid access chest pain clinics based in Workington. However, there is a clinic in Whitehaven.

  Health Tourism
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the scale of health tourism; and if he will make a statement. [160665]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national health service has never been required to provide statistics on the number of overseas visitors treated under the provisions of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989. It is therefore not possible to give a definitive assessment of the scale of this matter. Nevertheless, NHS staff operating the charging regime have told us that there are significant issues in some areas, which we are taking action to deal with. We are taking forward a study of 12 NHS trusts across England, the results of which will, over time, help to give us a better understanding of the level of inappropriate use of the NHS by overseas visitors.

  In addition, on 14 May I launched a public consultation on proposals to exclude overseas visitors from eligibility for free NHS primary medical services. We are also commissioning a study of the use of these services by overseas visitors which will inform our consideration of the responses to the consultation.

  Heart Bypass Operations
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many heart bypass operations there were per million population in(a) England and (b) each strategic health authority in each year since 1997. [172700]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Heart bypass operations have increased in number over the past six years. However, angioplasty is increasingly being used to treat patients who would have undergone bypass surgery in the past and the procedures performed in national health service hospitals in England have increased from 17,291 in 1997–98 to 34,986 in 2002–03.
  1265W

  All operations (ICD–10 K40–K46) Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts (CABGs). Count of Finished Consultant Episodes by Strategic Health Authority (SHA) of Residence. NHS Hospitals, England 1997–98 to 2002–03

  SHA of Residence

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Q01

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire HA

  976

  1,148

  1,111

  1,015

  1,040

  1,134

  Q02

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire HA

  928

  728

  624

  721

  849

  728

  Q03

  Essex HA

  475

  600

  552

  752

  580

  638

  Q04

  North West London HA

  940

  921

  852

  929

  824

  852

  Q05

  North Central London HA

  397

  415

  410

  357

  417

  405

  Q06

  North East London HA

  496

  575

  528

  698

  616

  591

  Q07

  South East London HA

  586

  620

  506

  460

  500

  517

  Q08

  South West London HA

  447

  446

  476

  501

  593

  566

  Q09

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear HA

  844

  867

  825

  837

  912

  772

  Q10

  County Durham and Tees Valley HA

  842

  875

  732

  751

  650

  772

  Q11

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire HA

  417

  874

  868

  878

  844

  1,070

  Q12

  West Yorkshire HA

  975

  1,108

  916

  977

  1,097

  998

  Q13

  Cumbria and Lancashire HA

  1,137

  1,158

  1,045

  1,179

  1,232

  1,437

  Q14

  Greater Manchester HA

  1,050

  1,160

  1,185

  1,301

  1,395

  1,515

  Q15

  Cheshire and Merseyside HA

  996

  1,018

  1,084

  1,104

  1,137

  1,421

  Q16

  Thames Valley HA

  641

  801

  819

  793

  916

  931

  Q17

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight HA

  623

  752

  749

  947

  852

  769

  Q18

  Kent and Medway HA

  702

  738

  702

  674

  739

  707

  Q19

  Surrey and Sussex HA

  1,057

  974

  1,211

  1,194

  1,191

  1,141

  Q20

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire HA

  829

  1,012

  1,117

  1,048

  1,073

  940

  Q21

  South West Peninsula HA

  660

  795

  941

  987

  1,061

  918

  Q22

  Dorset and Somerset HA

  586

  656

  592

  568

  502

  494

  Q23

  South Yorkshire HA

  518

  523

  630

  632

  639

  769

  Q24

  Trent HA

  652

  1,044

  1,039

  1,088

  1,025

  1,124

  Q25

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland HA

  626

  690

  625

  560

  615

  588

  Q26

  Shropshire and Staffordshire HA

  585

  633

  645

  801

  736

  825

  Q27

  Birmingham and The Black Country HA

  1,153

  1,095

  1,030

  1,132

  983

  1,226

  Q28

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire HA

  669

  717

  682

  716

  643

  686

  U

  England Not Otherwise Specified

  —

  2

  —

  4

  2

  6

  England

  20,807

  22,945

  22,496

  23,604

  23,663

  24,540

  Notes:

  1. A finished admission episode is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  2. Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (ie the data are ungrossed).

  3. All operations count of episodes—these figures represent a count of all FCE's where the procedure was mentioned in any of the 12 (four prior to 2002–03) operation fields in a HES record. A record is only included once in each count, even if an operation is mentioned in more than one operation field of the record. Population figures are not available so only operation counts can be provided.

  4. Strategic Health Authority (SHA) Data Quality—SHA data were added to historic data-years in the HES database using 2002–03 boundaries, as a one-off exercise in 2004. The quality of the data on SHA of treatment is poor in 1998–99, with over a third of all finished episodes having missing values in these years. Users of time series analysis including 1998–99 need to be aware of these issues in their interpretation of the data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Hepatitis C
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to finalise compensation arrangements for those who contracted hepatitis C from blood transfusions. [173232]

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a further statement on the payment of compensation to patients who were infected with hepatitis C as a result of NHS treatment. [173377]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Work is progressing to finalise the arrangements, to begin making ex-gratia payments. The company that will disburse payments, the Skipton Fund, was incorporated on 25 March. The four United Kingdom health departments expect the Skipton Fund to be operational shortly.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what code of practice is in place to prevent conflicts of 1266W
  interest concerning solicitors whose practices undertake medical negligence cases who are a (a) board member and (b) chairman of a health trust. [173308]

  Mr. Hutton
  The codes of conduct and code accountability for national health service boards require that all board members should declare any conflict of interest that arises in the course of conducting NHS business. The codes also requires that board members should declare any business interests in the field of health and social care which should be formally recorded in the minutes of the board and entered into a register which is available to the public. When a conflict of interest is established, the board member involved is also required to withdraw from any related board discussion and not play any part in the relevant discussion or decision All NHS board members are required on appointment to sign an undertaking that they will comply with the provisions of the codes. A copy of the codes is available in the Library.

  NHS Information Technology
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) clinical and (b) non-clinical NHS staff had access to e-mail and web browsing by (i) March 2003 and (ii) March 2004. [R] [171825]

  Mr. Hutton
  Numbers of national health service staff with email and web browsing access are shown in the table.

  March 2003

  March 2004

  Clinical staff

  715,888

  874,813

  Total NHS staff

  1,022,488

  1,048,485

  NHS Staff (Wirral, South)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of elective admissions to the NHS in Wirral South in the past five years. [172690]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response I gave on 10 May 2004, Official Report, columns 162–63W.

  Nurse Training
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent(a) health visitors, (b) school nurses, (c) district nurses and (d) community psychiatric nurses were in training in each region in September of each year since 1997, broken down by (i) gender and (ii) ethnic origin. [172707]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of whole-time equivalent health visitors, school nurses, district nurses and community psychiatric nurses in training in each national health service region as constituted until 31 March 1998 is shown in Table 1, for each national health service region as constituted between 1 April 1998 and 31 March 2001 is shown in Table 2, and for each Government office region between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2002 is shown in Table 3.

  Information on the gender and ethnic origin of health visitors, school nurses, district nurses and community psychiatric nurses, in training is not available.

  Table 1: Student populations by regional office area, 1997–98

  Whole-time equivalents

  School nurses

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  Community psychiatric nurses

  England

  128

  603

  623

  333

  Northern and Yorkshire

  35

  120

  115

  51

  Trent

  —

  42

  52

  —

  Anglia and Oxford

  8

  75

  73

  71

  North Thames

  16

  76

  84

  65

  South Thames

  34

  119

  117

  73

  South and West

  —

  57

  61

  —

  West Midlands

  35

  62

  53

  43

  North West

  —

  53

  69

  31

  Source:

  Finance and Workforce Information Returns.

  1268W

  Table 2: Student populations by regional office area

  Whole-time equivalents

  School nurses

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  Community psychiatric nurses

  1998–99

  England

  119

  542

  580

  250

  Northern and Yorkshire

  31

  103

  129

  13

  Trent

  7

  50

  55

  3

  West Midlands

  19

  62

  52

  40

  North West

  14

  64

  76

  37

  Eastern

  5

  38

  38

  26

  London

  24

  93

  101

  55

  South East

  19

  96

  89

  64

  South West

  1

  36

  42

  13

  1999–2000

  England

  137

  572

  598

  252

  Northern and Yorkshire

  27

  127

  142

  38

  Trent

  9

  43

  53

  3

  West Midlands

  18

  67

  52

  34

  North West

  23

  71

  84

  30

  Eastern

  10

  46

  53

  38

  London

  24

  101

  99

  43

  South East

  20

  89

  81

  51

  South West

  7

  28

  34

  16

  2000–01

  England

  162

  560

  710

  207

  Northern and Yorkshire

  18

  80

  190

  6

  Trent

  14

  49

  59

  —

  West Midlands

  20

  67

  60

  34

  North West

  23

  71

  84

  30

  Eastern

  18

  53

  68

  29

  London

  28

  103

  105

  67

  South East

  21

  96

  101

  34

  South West

  20

  42

  44

  7

  Source:

  Finance and Workforce Information Returns.

  Table 3: Student populations by Government regional office area, 2001–02

  Whole-time equivalents

  School nurses

  District nurses

  Health visitors

  Community psychiatric nurses

  England

  147

  520

  622

  160

  North East

  10

  61

  69

  6

  North West

  31

  84

  96

  21

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  25

  102

  99

  —

  East Midlands

  6

  —

  61

  —

  West Midlands

  24

  68

  64

  41

  East of England

  4

  14

  18

  12

  London

  28

  100

  113

  57

  South East

  20

  92

  104

  24

  South West

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Source:

  Finance and Workforce Information Returns.

  Statins (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Warrington North are being treated with statins. [172846]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected on a constituency basis and neither is the number of people currently being prescribed statins. However, the number of statins prescribed for Warrington Primary Care Trust is shown in the table.
  1269W

  Total number of statins prescribed by general practitioner practices in the community, in England, for the year beginning January 2003.

  Region/type of region

  Prescription items

  prescription items per 1,000 population

  Warrington (PCT)

  99,462

  522

  Cheshire and Merseyside (SHA)

  1,363,439

  582

  England Total1

  21,606,624

  441

  1The England total includes a small number of prescription items, prescribed by GPs, that the PPA have been unable to allocate to a PCT or SHA.

  Notes:
  1. The information, by PCT and strategic health authority (SHA), was obtained from the Prescribing Analysis and Cost (PACT) system, which covers prescriptions prescribed by general practitioner practices and dispensed in the community. Prescriptions written within a GP practice but dispensed outside the PCT or SHA will be included in the PCT or SHA in which,

  In-patient waiting list by provider for the Burnley area (1996–2004)

  Months waiting to be seen

  Unit name

  Total

  0–2

  3–5

  6–8

  9–11

  12–14

  15–17

  1997–98

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  6,157

  3,061

  1,470

  968

  625

  33

  0

  1997–98

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  6,569

  3,224

  1,844

  1,087

  412

  2

  0

  1998–99

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,895

  2,908

  1,092

  546

  288

  61

  0

  1998–99

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  5,357

  3,231

  1,103

  691

  318

  14

  0

  1999–2000

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,803

  2,458

  1,190

  639

  377

  120

  19

  1999–2000

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  5,084

  2,977

  1,202

  606

  251

  48

  0

  2000–01

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,554

  2,335

  1,207

  686

  326

  0

  0

  2000–01

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  5,032

  2,924

  1,283

  593

  232

  0

  0

  2001–02

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,749

  2,266

  1,165

  778

  405

  135

  0

  2001–02

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  4,883

  2,532

  1,303

  692

  356

  0

  0

  2002–03

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  4,595

  2,219

  1,223

  761

  392

  0

  0

  2002–03

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  3,968

  2,375

  1,078

  432

  83

  0

  0

  2003–04

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

  8,100

  5,045

  2,200

  855

  0

  0

  0

  Out-patient waiting list by Provider for the Burnley area (1996–2004)

  Weeks waiting to be seen from a GP referral to consultant appointment

  Unit name

  Not seen 13 to 25

  Not seen 26 plus

  1997–98

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,266

  69

  1997–98

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  66

  0

  1998–99

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,371

  895

  1998–99

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  815

  258

  1999–2000

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,158

  1,455

  1999–2000

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  516

  147

  2000–01

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,548

  521

  2000–01

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  283

  24

  2001–02

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,094

  0

  2001–02

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Healthcare NHS Trust

  246

  0

  Weeks waiting to be seen from a GP referral to consultant appointment

  Unit name

  Not seen 13–17

  Not seen 17–21

  Not seen 21–26

  Not seen 26 plus

  2002–03

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  603

  273

  0

  0

  2002–03

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  164

  55

  0

  0

  2003–04

  East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust

  291

  0

  0

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health QM08

  1270W
  respectively, the GP pr ictice is based. Prescriptions written in England but dispensed outside England are included. Prescriptions written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in England are excluded.

  2. Prescriptions are written on a prescription form. Each single item written on the form, is counted as a prescription item.

  3. The figures for Statins represent data on the following chemical entities: atorvastatin; cerivastatin; fluvastatin sodium; lovastatin; pravastatin sodium; rosuvastatin calcium; simvastatin.

  Writing Lists/Times
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been to NHS waiting list times in the last seven years for the residents of Burnley. [167953]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on national health service waiting list times is not gathered on a constituency basis. The tables show information based on NHS organisations serving the Burnley area.
  1271W
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what medical treatment there is the longest waiting time for(a) consultation and (b) treatment at NHS hospitals within the Greater London area. [173078]

  Mr. Hutton
  The treatment area with the longest wait to receive a first out-patient appointment with a consultant within the five London strategic health authorities (SHAs) is clinical immunology and allergy.

  Of a selection of common, elective, surgical operations, the one with the longest average wait to receive admitted treatment within the five London SHAs is knee replacement.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will estimate how many Iraqi(a) women, (b) children and (c) civilians have been (i) killed and (ii) injured in the recent siege of Fallujah. [171976]

  The Prime Minister
  The Coalition always take great care to minimise the risks to civilians in all areas of Iraq. It is not always possible to confirm whether casualties have occurred, as Coalition forces are not always able to enter the areas from which they are being fired on. There are further difficulties in estimating numbers of deaths when those deaths have been caused by terrorist attacks.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2004, Official Report, column 385W, on Iraq, whether the three UK military personnel were working in the military intelligence section of Abu Ghraig prison; [174330]

  (2) whether the three UK military personnel who worked in Abu Ghraib prison between January and April were under the command of (a) British and (b) US authorities during that time; and to which authority they reported. [174328]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. The three military personnel were under British Command at all times, reporting to the Senior British Military Representative in Baghdad. They assisted in gathering information important to the Coalition's aim of establishing stability in Iraq through interviewing detainees.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Chapelcross
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer on Chapelcross, of 13 May 2004,Official Report, column 489, whether a breach of the air exclusion zone around Chapelcross took place in 2003; and if she will make a statement. [175147]

  Mr. Timms
  No breach of the air exclusion zone at the Chapelcross nuclear power station took place in 2003.

  Mail Services (Northern Ireland)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of mail items which were not delivered in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months. [173591]

  Mr. Timms
  Delivery services are the operational concern of Royal Mail Group and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Research Assessment Exercise
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take steps to bridge the funding gap for research projects consequent on implementation of the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise. [174183]

  Ms Hewitt
  The 2002 Spending Review announced the largest sustained growth in science for a decade, providing an additional £1.25 billion a year by 2005 06, including:a dedicated stream of capital for Higher Education Institutions to develop their science research infrastructure;
  substantial new resources to Research Councils to enable them to make a higher contribution to the full costs of the research they sponsor;
  increased funding for the Higher Education Funding Council for England for the research component of HEI block grants, to underpin project funding.

  Alongside this, changes are being implemented, following consultation, to make explicit the responsibility of HEIs for ensuring the long-term sustainability of their research enterprises and to enable them to cost and price research projects more effectively, whether publicly or privately funded. Taken together these measures will, over time, make a substantial impact on the quality and sustainability of the research base.

  The Government will set out its future priorities for science and innovation in a 10-year Investment Framework for Science and Innovation, to be published in the summer.

  Advantage West Midlands
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the cost was of(a) developing and (b) maintaining (i) the Advantage West Midlands website and (ii) each regional development agency's website in each financial year since 1999. [172372]

  Mr. John Smith
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: The information requested is set out in the following table.

  £

  East of England Development Agency

  1999–2000

  Not available

  Not available

  Not available

  2000–01

  Not available

  Not available

  Not available

  2001–02

  Not available

  Not available

  7,000

  2002–03

  Not available

  Not available

  8.900

  2003–04

  Not available

  Not available

  5,675

  East Midlands Development Agency

  1999–2000

  26,000

  20

  46

  2000–01

  26

  20

  46

  2001–02

  26

  20

  46

  2002–03

  26

  20

  46

  2003–04

  26

  20

  46

  1273W

  £

  London Development Agency

  1999–2000

  0

  0

  0

  2000–01

  0

  0

  0

  2001–02

  0

  0

  0

  2002–03

  36,515

  18,000

  54,515

  2003–04

  36,515

  21,000

  57,515

  Northwest DevelopmentAgency

  1999–2000

  Not available

  Not available

  Not available

  2000–01

  Not available

  Not available

  Not available

  2001–02

  Not available

  Not available

  5,000

  2002–03

  Not available

  Not available

  51,214

  2003–04

  Not available

  Not available

  37,964

  ONE North East

  1999–2000

  20,735

  0

  20,735

  2000–01

  45,127

  11,388

  56,515

  2001–02

  71,204

  17,520

  88,724

  2002–03

  12,050

  17,520

  29,570

  2003–04

  50,275

  17,520

  67,795

  South East England Development Agency

  1999–2000

  Not available

  Not available

  7,954

  2000–01

  Not available

  Not available

  20,160

  2001–02

  Not available

  Not available

  39,234

  2002–03

  Not available

  Not available

  48,242

  2003–04

  10,457

  27,213

  37,671

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  1999–2000

  8,400

  2.000

  104,700

  2000–01

  14,465

  32,735

  47,200

  2001–02

  0

  30,000

  30,000

  2002–03

  145,200

  15,000

  160,200

  2003–04

  27,000

  30,000

  57,000

  Yorkshire Forward

  1999–2000

  Not available

  Not available

  0

  2000–01

  Not available

  Not available

  23,275

  2001–02

  Not available

  Not available

  14,306

  2002–03

  Not available

  Not available

  58,000

  2003–04

  Not available

  Not available

  36.647

  Note:
  A breakdown is not available as the services were contracted out.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the salary bill was of(a) Advantage West Midlands and (b) each regional development agency for staff employed in a press office or public relations capacity in each financial year since 1999; and what the average salary was for staff employed in a press office or public relations capacity in each case in each year. [172373]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: The information requested is set out in the following table:

  RDA

  Total salary of relevant RDA staff

  Average salary of RDA relevant RDA staff

  Advantage West Midlands

  1999–2000: N/a

  N/a

  2000–01: N/a

  N/a

  2001–02: 24,136

  24,136

  2002–03: 80,519

  26,839

  2003–04: 96,692

  32,230

  East of England Development Agency

  1999–2000: 77,000

  31,000

  2000–01: 100,000

  33,000

  2001–02: 99,000

  30,000

  2002–03: 104,000

  32,000

  2003–04: 112,000

  32,000

  East Midlands Development

  1999–2000: N/a

  N/a

  2000–01: Outsourced

  N/a

  2001–02: Outsourced

  N/a

  2002–03: 52,000

  26,000

  2003–04: 52.000

  26,000

  1274W

  London Development Agency

  1999–2000: Nil

  Nil

  2000–01: Nil

  Nil

  2000–02: Nil

  Nil

  2002–03: 195,000

  39,000

  2003–04: 193,000

  39,000

  Northwest Development Agency

  1999–2000: Nil

  Nil

  2000–01: Nil

  Nil

  2001–02: 71,123

  17,780

  2002–03: 88,582

  17,716

  2003–04: 109,078

  15,582

  ONE North East

  1999–2000: 106,305

  17,717

  2000–01: 111.900

  18,650

  2001–02:117.790

  19,361

  2002–03: 135,103

  22,517

  2003–04: 175,242

  25,034

  South East England Development Agency

  1999–2000:75,130

  35,956

  2000–01: 87,530

  37,510

  2001–02:87,122

  29,408

  2002–03: 151,423

  33,694

  2003–04: 187,737

  30,288

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  1999–2000: 24.754

  19,877

  2000–01: 68,989

  28,830

  2001–02:110,965

  27,741

  2002–03: 184,280

  31,782

  2003–04: 263,465

  29,583

  Yorkshire Forward

  1999–2000:41,666

  20,833

  2000–01: 82,623

  20,655

  2001–02: 83,549

  23,871

  2002–03: 70,561

  20,160

  2003–04:82,992

  23,712

  Disconnections
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if site will make a statement on actions being taken by(a) Ofgem and (b) industry to minimise disconnections made in error; [174361]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of energy disconnections for debt; [174362]

  (3) how many household (a) gas and (b) electricity disconnections were made in each year from 2000; and how many were made in error in each case in each year. [174363]

  Mr. Timms
  Disconnection remains an appropriate action of last resort where a customer has repeatedly failed to respond to efforts to secure payment or to make specific repayment arrangements. However, this power must be subject to appropriate safeguards. I welcome the arrangements proposed by Ofgem and energy suppliers in April to improve those safeguards to protect vulnerable customers. The total number of disconnections for debt between 2000 and 2003 was:

  Gas

  Electricity

  Total

  2000

  16,500

  300

  16,800

  2001

  26,088

  375

  26,463

  2002

  21,780

  995

  22,775

  2003

  15,973

  1,361

  17,334

  Ofgem does not collect data about disconnections made in error. Such disconnections are plainly unacceptable. If the hon. Member or other have information about such cases, they should provide the evidence to Energy watch, which is responsible for

  1275W
  investigating complaints against gas and electricity suppliers. Energywatch may provide evidence to, and recommend regulatory action by, Ofgem.

  European Research Council
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how close to the market the research is in which the European Research Council will be involved. [174130]

  Ms Hewitt
  The possible establishment of a European Research Council is still at an early stage, and no proposal has yet been made by the European Commission, but it should not detract from the more directly industry-oriented research, historically funded by the Framework Programme. The Government are currently consulting about the matter as part of its overall consultation on Framework Programme 7, a copy has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Fireworks Ban
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her proposals to ban category 4 firesworks from consumer sale. [174382]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 19 May 2004]: The supply of category 4 fireworks to the general public was banned in 1997 with the coming into force of the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations. Only fireworks professionals may purchase this type of firework.

  Additionally, under these Regulations only fireworks that comply with the British Standard—BS 7114—are to be supplied to ordinary consumers.

  Insolvency
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases have been handled by the Insolvency Service Protracted Realisations Unit in each year since 1998; what the(a) gross and (b) net flow of cases was in each year; and what the average professional fee charged by an insolvency practitioner handling a protracted realisations unit case during that time was. [173277]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Protracted Realisations Unit was created in October 1999, the figures in the table list how many cases had been handled in each year by the Unit from October 1999 to 31 March 2004.

  Year to 31 March

  B/fwd

  Input

  Sent IPs

  Closings

  C/fwd

  1999

  None

  —

  —

  —

  —

  September 1999 to 31 March 2000

  33,027

  1,355

  519

  1,724

  32,139

  2001

  32,139

  4,727

  1,382

  3,205

  32,279

  2002

  32,279

  3,816

  1,926

  3,303

  30,866

  2003

  30,866

  3,816

  2,762

  5,078

  26,842

  2004

  26,842

  1,566

  3,876

  3,200

  21,332

  Total

  —

  15,280

  10,465

  16,510

  —

  The Insolvency Service does not hold details of the average Insolvency Practitioner fee for handling a protracted realisations unit case. The fees are charged by the Insolvency Practitioner which may vary on a case-by-case basis.

  International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) the siting and (b) cost sharing of the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. [174579]

  Mr. Timms
  The international partners are trying to reach a compromise on the two proposed locations for ITER that will be acceptable to the whole ITER partnership. Currently the €4.5 billion budget for the construction of the ITER facility is to be shared as follows:

  Percentage

  €

  Europe or Japan as host

  48

  2.2 billion

  Europe or Japan as non-host

  12

  540 million

  US

  10

  450 million

  China

  10

  450 million

  Russia

  10

  450 million

  South Korea

  10

  450 million

  This is likely to change if more countries join the ITER partnership.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what level of fusion research funding she will make available after the decision on the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor has been taken; and if she will make a statement. [174580]

  Mr. Timms
  Funding for the UK's national fusion programme is determined by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, which took over this function in April 2003. It is currently in the region of £16 million per year. Europe's participation in ITER will be funded through the Framework Programme.

  Mail Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions her Department has had with(a) Royal Mail and (b) Postwatch on the disappearance of mail. [174530]

  Mr. Timms
  DTI Ministers and officials meet representatives from the Royal Mail and Postwatch on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of issues, including quality of service and lost mail.

  Nuclear Installations
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the operation to date of the Sellafield MOX plant. [173347]

  Mr. Timms
  The Sellafield Mox Plant (SMP) is currently undergoing plutonium commissioning prior to meeting its first overseas orders. I understand from BNFL that various technical challenges, which are not unduly surprising in such a sophisticated plant, are being addressed by the company.

  Post Office
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last discussed the question of deprived wards with reference to the application of the
  1277W
  urban reinvention programme by Post Office Ltd.; and what interpretation the Post Office uses of the term deprived ward; and if she will make a statement. [173919]

  Mr. Timms
  In accordance with the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit's year 2000 report 'Counter Revolution—Modernising the Post Office Network', the Government have provided support for post offices in deprived urban areas of England in the form of the Deprived Urban Post Office Fund administered by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Similar schemes are administered by the devolved Administrations of Scotland and Wales while the merits of such a scheme are being considered in Northern Ireland. I announced on 5 February details of changes agreed by Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch to the current programme to restructure the post office network in urban areas which includes clarification of criteria to define exceptional circumstances under which Post Office Ltd. might propose to close a post office branch in a deprived urban area without an alternative within a half a mile. I understand that the Post Office uses the Indices of Deprivation 2000 to define its interpretation of an urban deprive ward.

  Sellafield
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what timescale is being applied to the decommissioning of the B30 ponds at Sellafield. [173462]

  Mr. Timms
  HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) has issued a number of Specifications for remediation activities at Sellafield.

  A Specification issued by NII in 2000, requires BNFL to retrieve at least 90 per cent. of the potentially mobile intermediate level radioactive waste sludge from the B30 ponds and bays by 2010.

  BNFL is continuing work to develop detailed plans necessary to meet that deadline.

  Winkleigh Biomass Project
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much direct or indirect expenditure by(a) central Government and (b) regional development agencies (i) has been incurred and (ii) is planned in connection with the proposed Winkleigh Biomass Project; and on what the expenditure was or will be incurred. [169461]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 April 2004]: In relation to payments by the Department and the South West of England Regional Development Agency (SWRDA), the information requested was set out in the answer provided by my hon. Friend the Minister for State for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services on 11 March 2004, Official Report, column 1674W.

  The grant undertaking awarded under the Bioenergy Capital Grants Scheme will provide £11.05 million conditional on successful construction and commissioning of the plant.

  The funding approved by the South West of England Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) is to support the costs of feasibility studies (an Environmental Impact
  1278W
  Assessment, a Biomass Study and an Economic Impact Assessment) and associated technical studies. These do not commit the Agency to any further expenditure. In addition SWRDA has bought land which, if the project were to go ahead, could be resold to the project at open market value.

  I am not aware that any other Regional Development Agency or Department has made any payments to this project or has any plans to do so.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Council Tax
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost to(a) the Valuation Office Agency, (b) the Valuation Tribunals and (c) central Government of administering (i) council tax and (ii) council tax benefit was in financial year 2001–02. [174359]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information is as follows:

  (a)

  (i) The Valuation Office Agency (VGA) budget for council tax costs in 2001–02 was £13.3 million,

  (ii) The VGA does not deal with council tax benefit cases.

  (b) The cost of Valuation Tribunals administering council tax is not separately identified. The overall expenditure of the valuation tribunal in 2001–02 was £9.31 million.

  (c) The Government are responsible for the policy and legislation rather than the administration of council tax and council tax benefit.

  Council Tax Revaluation
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated cost to(a) his Department, (b) the Valuation Office Agency and (c) other Government agencies and bodies was of council tax revaluation for financial years (i) 2003–04, (ii) 2005–06 and (iii) 2006–07. [174358]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The cost of council tax revaluation for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not separately identified.

  (b) The Valuation Office Agency estimated council tax revaluation costs are:

  (i) 2003–04 is £7.6 million;

  (ii) 2005–06 is £50.2 million, and

  (iii) 2006–07 is £50.5 million.

  (c) The cost of council tax revaluation for the Valuation Tribunal Service is not significant for these years. Some preparation work will be required in 2005–06 and 2006–07 but this is not separately identified.

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which former officials of the Department have asked for permission to join(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers,(b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst & Young and (d) KPMG. [156901]
  1279W
  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. Since that date there have been no requests from former officials seeking permission to join Pricewaterhouse Coopers, Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young and KPMG.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what secondments(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte & Touche, (c) Ernst & Young and (d) KPMG has made to his Department since 2001; for what (i) periods and (ii) tasks the secondments were made; whether secondments of staff from his Department have been made to those firms; and for what (A) periods and (B) tasks. [156930]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. Since that date there has been one inward secondment from PricewaterhouseCoopers, and none from the other organisations specified. The inward secondee, working in Local Government Efficiency Unit, started work in September 2001 and their secondment ended on 31 March 2004.

  No staff from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been seconded to any of the organisations specified.

  Secondments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations. Before an Interchange can occur all parties must be satisfied that no conflict of interests arises.

  Employment Agencies
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the employment agencies which his Department and its predecessors have used to supply temporary staff in each financial year since 1996–97 to the most recent date for which figures are available. [163807]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. The Office has contracts for the supply of temporary staff with three recruitment agencies: Adecco, Brook Street and Reed. These contracts were awarded as a result of an invitation to tender by the Office.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans the Government have for inter-brigade co-operation in the Fire Service in the event of a serious emergency. [174674]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are keen to ensure a co-ordinated response from the fire and rescue service in the event of a major emergency. That is why all fire and rescue authorities have been invited to sign a Mutual Aid Agreement, which will enable individual fire and rescue authorities to ask for assistance from another authority in the event of a serious emergency.

  The development of the Mutual Aid Agreement forms part of the Government's commitment to improving resilience and the fire and rescue service's response to a major incident. The Fire and Rescue Services Bill, currently progressing through Parliament, should make such an agreement easier to establish in
  1280W
  future as it will extend authorities' ability to enter into mutual reinforcement schemes to include new duties such as responding to the increased terrorist threat.

  The Government have also established the New Dimension programme, which will help to ensure a co-ordinated response to any terrorist incidents on a national scale by providing suitable equipment and training to deal with such incidents. A national co-ordination centre is being established in order to provide central command and control when the New Dimension equipment is utilised. This will remain in place until such time as the regional control rooms are operational, when they will direct resources on a regional basis.

  Housing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether his Community Housing Task Force has yet been integrated within the Government office network; how many of its staff are(a) civil servants and (b) consultants; and what services they provide to local authorities whose tenants have voted to reject the Government's three options for council house privatisation. [174661]

  Keith Hill
  From 1 June, the Task Force advisers will be allocated to their respective Government office regions and will fall under the line management of their respective Government office housing directors. The practical arrangements are being agreed and formalised.

  There are 13 civil servants on fixed term contracts and three on secondments arrangements from local authorities and the National Housing Federation. There are no consultants working in the task force.

  Where tenants have rejected the options to deliver the decent homes target, the Community Housing Task Force will continue to support local authorities and its tenants to investigate other options within the decent home policy framework to achieve decent homes by 2010.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) for what reasons North East Lincolnshire was not granted the full sum for gap funding for its housing transfer for which it had applied; what assessment he has made of the effect this has on the business plans for the new housing association; and what plans he has to make supplementary gap funding available to North East Lincolnshire under the new arrangements for gap funding for areas of negative equity; [174500]

  (2) whether the supplementary gap funding he announced in the week beginning 10 May for housing transfers in areas with negative equity will be made available to North East Lincolnshire. [174663]

  Keith Hill
  North East Lincolnshire sought £6 million, £2 million annually for three years, from the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Housing Board transitional commissioning as gap funding to cover the negative valuation of its stock to enable its Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSVT) proposal to proceed. The Board has agreed in principle to such a level of funding, with years two and three subject to the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. It has invited the Council to submit a final proposal by 4 June 2004 with
  1281W
  a view to the Board making its final decision on 14 July 2004. Discussions will take place with the Board as to whether there is merit for their commitment to be absorbed within the central gap funding arrangements.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what councils, how many houses and how much land have been admitted to the Stock Transfer programme for each year since 2002–03; how many applied for inclusion; and what assessment he has made of what this means for future financing of councils which submit proposals by his deadline of July 2005. [174655]

  Keith Hill
  The following lists and tables show those councils which have applied for and/or been granted places on the Large Scale Voluntary Transfer (LSVT) programmes since 2002 and also the number of dwellings involved.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold information on how much land has been involved in stock transfer.

  Local authorities transferring their housing stock under the LSVT programmes will have no impact on the future financing of social housing in other local authorities.

  Names of local authorities granted places on LSVT programmes since 2002:
  2002 programme

  Amber Valley

  Bromsgrove

  Cannock Chase

  Cherwell

  Forest of Dean

  London Borough of Ealing

  London Borough of Hackney

  London Borough of Islington

  London Borough of Southwark

  Liverpool County Council

  Maidstone Borough Council

  Manchester City Council

  Middlesbrough Council

  North Hertfordshire

  Nuneaton and Bedworth

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Rushcliffe Borough Council

  Scarborough Borough Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  South Norfolk Council

  Stockport

  Teignbridge

  Worcester.

  2003 programme

  Copeland

  Forest Heath District Council

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  London Borough of Hackney London

  Borough of Islington

  London Borough of Lambeth

  1282W

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  Manchester City Council

  Middlesbrough

  North East Lincolnshire

  Peterborough County Council

  Purbeck District Council

  Royal Borough of Kingston

  South Norfolk

  Stroud District Council

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

  Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.

  2004 programme

  Broxbourne Borough Council

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  Halton Borough Council

  Hyndburn

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council

  Lambeth

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  Macclesfield

  Mid Devon

  North Somerset

  Sedgefield Sheffield

  Stafford Borough Council

  West Lancashire District Council.

  Number of dwellings gr ented places on LSVT programmes since 2002

  Programme

  Number

  2002

  180,794

  2003

  123,543

  2004

  76,052

  Names of local authorities applying for places on LSVT programmes since 2002:

  2002 programme

  Amber Valley Borough Council

  Bromsgrove District Council

  Cannock Chase

  Cherwell District Council

  Copeland Borough Council

  Forest of Dean District Council

  London Borough of Hackney

  London Borough of Islington

  London Borough of Southwark

  Liverpool County Council

  Maidstone

  Manchester Council

  Middlesbrough Council

  North Hertfordshire

  Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Rushcliffe Borough Council

  Scarborough Borough Council

  Sheffield County Council

  Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council

  1283W

  South Norfolk Council

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  Teignbridge District Council

  Worcester.

  2003 programme

  Forest Heath District Council

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  London Borough of Hackney

  London Borough of Islington

  London Borough of Lambeth

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  Manchester City Council

  Middlesbrough

  North East Lincolnshire

  Peterborough County Council

  Purbeck District Council

  Royal Borough of Kingston

  Stroud District Council

  Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Wakefield Metropolitan District Council

  Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.

  2004 programme

  Broxbourne Borough Council

  Copeland

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  Halton Borough Council

  Hyndburn

  Kings Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council

  Lambeth

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  Macclesfield

  Manchester City Council

  Mid Devon

  North Norfolk

  North Somerset

  Preston

  Sedgefield Sheffield

  Stafford Borough Council

  Teesdale

  West Lancashire District Council

  Number of dwellings applying for places on LSVT programmes since 2002

  Programme

  Number

  2002

  180,794

  2003

  125,806

  2004

  115,063

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what(a) support, (b) advice and (c) guidance his officials have provided to North East Lincolnshire in connection with its campaign for the large-scale voluntary transfer of its housing stock; what estimate he has made of the cost of (i) staff time, (ii) travel and (iii) other expenditure in connection with such support, advice and guidance; and how much of that cost is payable by North East Lincolnshire. [174549]
  1284W
  Keith Hill
  As with any local authority on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Disposals Programme, North East Lincolnshire council have discussed their stock transfer proposals with officials of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at each stage of the process, including seeking advice and guidance on all public consultation material. We make no specific estimate of the cost of staff time, travel or other expenditure in connection with the giving of support, advice or guidance to any particular local authority. No payment has been made by the council for any advice or support.

  Land Developers
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice is given to local authorities on how best to assess whether developers have sought brownfield site alternatives before proposing back land development. [174462]

  Keith Hill
  Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: "Housing" (PPG3) says that the country's housing needs should be met in the most sustainable way possible, giving priority to re-using suitable brownfield land in preference to the development of greenfield sites. PPG3 advises local planning authorities, in preparing their local plans, to adopt a systematic approach to assessing the development potential of sites and the redevelopment of existing buildings, deciding which are most suitable for housing development and the sequence in which development should take place. It is for local planning authorities to consider whether proposals for back land development are in principle consistent with the local plan (or where this is not up-to-date, the relevant criteria set out in PPG3) and are well-designed.

  Local Authorities Complaints Fees
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will restrict the maximum fee which a local authority can charge persons who make a complaint against a nuisance hedge grower to £100; [174581]

  (2) when he will report on his consultation on the maximum fee which a local authority can charge persons who wish to make a complaint against a nuisance hedge grower. [174582]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will not be deciding the maximum fee which local authorities will be able to charge people making a complaint about a nuisance high hedge until we have analysed the responses to the current public consultation on implementing Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. The consultation period runs until 30 June. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to report the results of the consultation and to bring the legislation into operation towards the end of 2004.

  Local Authority Leisure Services
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the saving to local authorities of contracting out leisure services to the private sector. [174052]

  Phil Hope
  The information requested is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many press officers were employed in his Department in each year from 1990–91 to 2003–04; what the total cost was in each year; and if he will make a statement. [162851]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002.

  On 1 April 2003, ODPM (c) employed 21.8 full-time equivalent press officers. Salary costs for the period 1 June 2002 to 31 March 2003 were £0.86 million.

  On 1 March 2004, 23 full-time equivalent press officers were employed. Salary costs for the period 1 April 2003 to 29 February 2004 were £0.96 million.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total cost to his Department was of the event on elected regional assemblies held in Barrow on 5 May 2004; how many staff from his Department were involved; how many staff from Government Office North West were involved; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the speech delivered by the Minister for Local and Regional Government. [172756]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister estimates that the Barrow hearing cost £3,900. This includes costs associated with venue hire and catering. Four members of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and three members of the Government office for the north-west were involved.

  As on previous occasions, I spoke extempore, rather than from a prepared text.

  Register of Interests
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the requirements are on officials in his Department to declare current interests; and what register of interests is kept for his departmental officials. [164707]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Civil Service Management Code sets out the general principles and rules governing the conduct of civil servants declaring any conflict of interest. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Staff 1286W
  Handbook states that staff are required to seek permission from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister before undertaking any activity that might result in a conflict of interest and all applications are kept on file.

  Timber Purchases
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how(a) the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, (b) its regional offices, (c) the Fire Service College, (d) the Ordnance Survey, (e) the Planning Inspectorate, (f) the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre and (g) the Rent Service monitor and audit purchases of timber and timber products to ensure that they meet the Department's stated commitment to being obtained from legal and sustainable sources. [164676]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, its regional offices and its agencies are committed to the Government Policy on the purchase of Legal and Sustainable forested wood and this is fully supported in our Greening Operations Policy Statement.

  Contracts where the use of timber and timber based products is anticipated, contain clauses that require the supplier to actively seek legally sourced and sustainable timber and to supply physical evidence that supports this. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has the use of framework contracts for the purchase of furniture, which are subject to supply chain audit by officials.

  Timber and timber based products have been adopted within the certificated and independently audited Environmental Management Systems which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has developed to manage our response to the "Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate".

  It is expected that Government targets associated with Timber Procurement will be published in the coming months and officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will be incorporating this into our procurement processes.

  Although the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has overall responsibility for the buildings occupied by Government Offices, they carry out functions on behalf of 10 Departments.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Experiments
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  The Government believe that current developments in science are providing significantly more opportunities to do work on the reduction of the number of animals used, the refinement of the procedures involved to minimise suffering, and the replacement of animal use (the 3Rs), and that to take advantage of these opportunities we should put more resources into this area and broaden the community of interest.

  I am, therefore, pleased to inform the House that the Government are setting up a new national centre for research into the 3Rs and animal welfare. The Centre for Best Practice for Animals in Research (CBPAR), established by the Medical Research Council, will form the core of the new centre. The new centre will be called the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, and will act as a focal point for research into the 3Rs.

  This decision implements the recommendation by the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, in its report published in July 2002, that such a centre should be established, which we broadly accepted in the Government's reply in January 2003. The Government have today published a report prepared by the inter-departmental group on the 3Rs (IDG3Rs) on the implementation of the Select Committee recommendation and has accepted its recommendation that responsibility the new national centre should rest with the Office of Science and Technology, with its wider scientific remit, rather than with the Home Office, whose role is constrained by its regulatory function under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. A copy of the inter-departmental group's report has been placed it the Library of the House.

  Placing the lead responsibility with the Office of Science and Technology emphasises that the 3Rs, humane experimental techniques, and the development of advanced research methods are part of the mainstream United Kingdom science base. It also acknowledges that Department's leading role in signalling both the financial and scientific benefits of such developments. In the initial stages the Centre will need the wider support and structure that the MRC can offer.

  A new board will be set up to direct the centre and I am delighted to announce that Lord Turnberg has agreed to chair this board, aided by Professor Paul Flecknell as vice-chair. The remaining membership of the board will be appointed shortly It is envisaged that
  70WS
  all major stakeholder groups will be represented, including academics, Government, industry and animal welfare groups.

  The mission statement for the Centre will be:
  The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research is dedicated to the 3Rs—replacing, refining and reducing the use of animals in research and testing licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
  Replacement is the ultimate aim for the Centre, but for so long as the use of animals continues to be necessary, it is essential that every effort is made to minimise their use and improve welfare. Ensuring that laboratory welfare is optimised is critical for scientific, legal and ethical reasons.
  The Centre's mission is to advance and promote the 3Rs in research and testing using animals. This will be progressed by:
  Developing a UK strategy for the implementation of the 3Rs;
  Supporting high-quality research that advances the 3Rs;
  Promoting a co-ordinated approach to 3Rs research;
  Providing advice and guidance on the 3Rs and animal welfare to the scientific community;
  Supporting the UK scientific community's commitment to best practice in all aspects of laboratory animal science and welfare;
  Working with regulators on the acceptance of alternative methods for regulatory toxicology.

  The first task of the new board will be to develop the mission statement into a detailed action plan.

  The Centre will require more funding than currently being made available to CBPAR. The Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have both agreed to double the level of funding provided this year and the Home Office will transfer its budget for research into the 3Rs currently administered by the Animal Procedures Committee to the Centre once current commitments have been honoured. It is envisaged that funding for the centre will increase further in future years and Lord Turnberg will be discussing this with Government. He will also discuss funding commitments with other funders of research involving animals.

  Fatalities in Emergencies
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears)
  Guidance on dealing with fatalities in emergencies has been published today on the UK resilience website www.ukresilience.info. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The purpose of this guidance—which is directed primarily at local planners and responders—is to reaffirm, update and consolidate what emergency officers should consider when planning the response to an emergency involving fatalities. It is the product of consultation with a range of stakeholders—central and local government, and the emergency services amongst others—and builds on earlier guidance in "dealing with disaster", revised third edition.

  Thankfully mass fatality incidents have not occurred frequently in the United Kingdom. The emphasis of any response will focus on saving lives—but we must be prepared should the worst happen.

  But the guidance is by no means intended to be a stand-alone solution to ensure that there is sufficient

  71WS
  capacity across the country to deal with such incidents. Work is being taken forward by the Home Office, in collaboration with the regions, the devolved administrations, planners and responders to establish existing levels of national capability. This should inform the development of a framework for a national response.

  The guidance will be revisited in light of developments stemming from the Civil Contingencies Bill, currently before Parliament, and a review of the coroner system, set out in the Home Office position paper "Reforming the Coroner and Death Certification Service". We will also update and revise the guidance as findings emerge from research and scientific projects, and lessons are learned from incidents both at home and abroad.
  72WS
  Feedback on the guidance should be sent to: feedback.massfatalitiesguidance@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk. It would be helpful to have these by 30th June 2004.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Petroleum Act
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  I am pleased to announce to the House that I am today offering a petroleum exploration and development licence (PEDL 133) to Composite Energy plc to cover acreage in the counties of Falkirk and Clackmannanshire (Blocks NS88, NS89, NS97, NS98 and NS99).

  The company will have a fixed period in which to decide whether or not to accept the offer.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of. Salisbury.

European Court of Justice (EUC Report)
Lord Scott of Foscote Lord Scott of Foscote rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on The Future Role of the European Court of Justice (6th Report, HL Paper 47).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I express my gratitude on behalf of the European Select Committee, of which I have the honour of being a member, to those responsible for arranging this debate this morning. The debate is on the Select Committee's report published on 15 March, on The Future Role of the European Court of Justice. I express my gratitude also to the Government for making their response to the report available to us this week in time for the debate. That was most helpful.
The inquiry that led to this report was embarked on at a time when the negotiations and discussions on the draft constitutional treaty proposed by the Giscard d'Estaing Convention were still in progress. We assumed that a constitutional treaty somewhat along the lines of the draft would eventually emerge, and we thought it opportune to examine the role that the European Court of Justice would play and the jurisdiction that it would have under the new constitution.
As your Lordships will know, discussions on the proposed constitution were adjourned in December last year, but are continuing now in Dublin under the Irish presidency. I imagine that there will, in due course, be some agreed constitution, and the issues relating to the future role of the ECJ are as important now as they were when we began our inquiry. The only difference is that the time in which to consider what should be done about some of the difficulties that we perceive to be presented by the proposed constitution is rapidly running out. In due course, and perhaps soon, any agreed constitutional treaty must be brought before Parliament for endorsement, but by then it might be too late for any changes in the proposed treaty to be made. Parliament, and eventually the electorate, will be presented with an agreed package to be approved or rejected as a whole. Therefore, while there is still time, the issues that need attention are that much more important.
There is very little said in the proposed treaty about the role of the ECJ. In their response to our report, the Government said:
"The court's jurisdiction and role will remain essentially the same as under the European Community Treaty although the scope of the Constitutional Treaty itself will, of course, he different".
This statement is correct as far as it goes, but I respectfully suggest that it gives inadequate recognition to the increase in importance of the role of the ECJ. There are a number of particular features to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention this morning.
First, perhaps the most important issue of all, is the jurisdiction of the Court. At present, the ECJ has jurisdiction to give authoritative interpretations of European law falling under the first pillar—in short, European Community law. The ECJ does not, at present, have jurisdiction in respect of second or third pillar matters. The second pillar is common foreign and security policy matters; the third pillar is police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Under the new constitution, the three pillars will be collapsed. There will simply be European Union law which, according to Article 10.1 of the proposed constitution, will have primacy over domestic, national law.
In respect of all European Union law, the ECJ will have jurisdiction except where the jurisdiction is expressly excluded by the constitution. There are a number of important exclusions. Jurisdiction in common foreign and security policy matters is excluded under Article 282. Police and law enforcement matters, and matters relating to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of national security, are also excluded under Article 283. Outside these specifically excluded areas, the ECJ will have jurisdiction.
Even in the areas from which ECJ jurisdiction is excluded, European law will have primacy—Article 10.1 says so. It is an oddity that European law will have primacy over member states' domestic law, even in the areas where the ECJ does not have jurisdiction. I will return to that oddity. An important jurisdictional issue, which is left unresolved by the proposed constitution, and which may receive different answers in different member states, is whether, in a case where there is a challenge to the competences of the Union institutions, the ECJ will be entitled to give the definitive ruling.
The competences of all the European Union institutions including the ECJ, are subject to the important principle of conferral. This principle has perhaps always been present, but is spelled out in the proposed new constitution. Article 9.1 says:
"The limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral".
That means that the Union has only the competences conferred on it by member states. Article 9.2 says:
"Competences not conferred upon the Union … remain with the member states".
It is obviously inevitable that issues will from time to time arise as to whether particular European Union legislation is within the competences of the Union. The categories of competences shared between the Union and member states are set out in Article 13. In Article 16, one finds what are called "areas of supporting, co-ordinating or complementary action" that may be taken by the European Union, but where the member states will have the main competency. There are a number of possible overlaps between the listed items under these two

1003
categories. So, issues about competences are inevitable. What courts will have the final word on such issues when they arise?
Under the principle of conferral, the ECJ itself has competence only if the matter is one in which competence has been conferred. In their response to our report, the Government have said that the ECJ should, in the event of any dispute about competence, have the final word on the matter. That is, in my view—and in that of the committee—the only sensible solution. The constitutional courts of some member states have taken the view that, in the last resort, it is for them, not the ECJ, to resolve an issue about what competences have been conferred by their national parliament on European Union institutions. The German courts and the Danish courts, in particular, have taken that view.
The existence of the issue is well known and has been for many years, but it is simply ducked in the draft Constitutional Treaty. I suggest that it should not be ducked. We in the United Kingdom should not accept a position in which we attribute to the ECJ a breadth of jurisdiction to decide our competences, when we know well that several other member states deny that jurisdiction. Surely, the issue should be addressed and dealt with in the proposed constitution, as it could be, with the appropriate political consent. Could the Minister indicate the Government's view on that point? At the moment, it is simply being left outstanding.
I draw your Lordships' attention to another side of the same coin. European Union law has primacy over domestic law in the areas of conferred competences, as set out in Article 10.1. European Union law is part of our domestic law and, as such, must be applied by our domestic courts. So what must our domestic courts do if faced with domestic legislation, passed by this Parliament, that appears to the courts not to be consistent with existing European Union law? The logic of the primacy rule, if it becomes part of our domestic law through the adoption of the treaty, is that the domestic court should treat as invalid domestic statutory provisions that the court perceives to be inconsistent with European Union law. That, after all, is what the Appellate Committee of the House did in the Factortame case in 1991. It is not clear from the Government's
response to the report what their view is on that point. Parliament can, of course, repeal the statutes under which European Union law is part of domestic law and is given primacy, but do the Government accept that, short of such a repeal, the courts of this country, in order to give effect to the primacy rule, may from time to time have to treat domestic legislation as invalid?
I now come back to the areas where the jurisdiction of the ECJ is excluded, notwithstanding that they are areas where the European Union institutions are given legislative and executive competence. Surely, we cannot tolerate a situation in which there are black holes in which no courts have jurisdiction. We could take for an example the CFSP. The European Union has competence over,
"all areas of foreign policy".
That is what Article 15.1of the draft constitution says. If, pursuant to that competence, the European Union sends troops to some foreign country to assist in peacekeeping operations—an entirely likely future scenario, I suggest—and, in the conduct of those operations, individuals are or perceive themselves to have been injured by misconduct on the part of EU troops, it cannot possibly be suggested that the injured individuals would have no legal remedy. But what courts would have jurisdiction? Surely, the EU courts should have jurisdiction to deal with misfeasances alleged to have been committed by persons acting on behalf of the EU. If EU institutions are to be given CFSP competences, which is what is proposed, the EU courts must be given corresponding jurisdiction.
We do not yet know what the United States Supreme Court will say about the jurisdiction of federal courts to deal with complaints made by Guantanamo Bay prisoners, but we cannot possibly justify creating a comparable jurisdictional black hole here in Europe. Yet, that is what we risk, if the ECJ is denied any CFSP jurisdiction. I respectfully invite the Government to think again about the issue. Either the EU should not have CFSP competence at all, or the exercise of that competence should, like all other competences, be subject to the rule of law.
The black hole problem does not apply on the exclusion of ECJ jurisdiction in police and law and order matters which I have already referred to—the Article III-283 exclusions. Each member state can apply its own domestic law with regard to the resolution of issues arising from EU legislation in those areas. However, if disputes about the boundaries of EU competencies in that area arise—and they may—the domestic courts of member states may produce different answers, none of which will be binding on the others. Here, too, therefore, the consequences of divorcing legislative and executive competence, on the one hand, from judicial competence, on the other, are potentially chaotic.
Finally, I shall say a word or two about the standing rule, which determines when individuals, persons or companies can commence proceedings before European Union courts challenging European Union measures that, they think, adversely affect them. Their ability to do so at present is severely limited. The draft constitution proposes a slight relaxation in the standing rule, but nothing very much. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights requires that every person whose rights and freedoms are guaranteed by Union law should have the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal.
When giving evidence to the inquiry that we conducted preceding the report, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, explained that, in her view, any further relaxation of the standing rule than currently proposed would be impracticable because the ECJ and its subsidiary courts would risk being swamped by such a volume of cases that they would be unable to cope. She suggested that the national courts should therefore act as a filter of cases before they reached European Court level. Of course, that is a question of time. Should a case really have to work its way through the national

1005
courts up to the Appellate Committee of this House; then be referred to the European Court of Justice and join the long queue that is already there?
The counter side of the present proposal is the danger that on the adoption of the new constitution, in which the Charter of Fundamental Rights will be incorporated, the EU may find itself at once in breach of Article 47 of the Charter. The absence of any effective remedy in relation to the time within which the remedy can be obtained must be an important factor. If the EU accedes to the European Convention on Human Rights, as is also proposed, without first reforming the EU court system that has led to an excessive backlog of cases, it may also find itself in breach of Article 6 of that convention, which refers expressly to the availability of a remedy within a reasonable time.
Many other matters are referred to in the report, which, in the view of the committee, are of importance. Some of them are fairly technical. In the short time that I have had today, I have mentioned those matters which seem to me to be of the greatest importance. I commend the report to the House.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Union Committee on The Future Role of the European Court of Justice (6th Report, HL Paper 47). — ( Lord Scott of Foscote.)
11.22 a.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I do not think that any Member of your Lordships' House, having heard the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, can be under any illusion about the significance of the report that we are discussing today or, indeed, having heard his exposition of some of its points, be unaware of the far-ranging implications that some of those matters may have for us all.
Before embarking on my remarks proper, while I share with the noble and learned Lord the fact that we each of us passed Bar exams, that is where our legal careers diverge considerably. I also think that in the context of this debate we should bear in the mind the possibility that there will not be a treaty in June. Many seem to take it as axiomatic that that will happen, but I am far from certain.
The great achievement of the European Union has been to achieve a single legal area across a series of distinct sovereign states. That contrasts with many empires—for example, the Austro-Hungarian empire, the Russian empire or even our own empire—where there was a single ruler, but within the empire there were completely distinct legal regimes. That achievement of the European Union is a very remarkable political development. It vindicates those who say, as is commented on in the report, that the European Union has created a new legal order.
That being so, it seems that there are two crucial points: first, it exists, which may sound obvious; and, secondly, if we want to learn about it, we have got to learn about it from looking at it. That should not pose any problems to this country, given our unwritten and evolving constitution. A criticism made about the development of the European political order is that it
1006
is novel. I merely ask: Why not? After all, the traditional western European way of doing things is of relatively recent origin. If one looks, for example, at the East, where I have worked recently, the perspective on a lot of the developments that we are seeing in Europe has been entirely different over the years.
Where there is a single Europe legal area, there must be a court at its head. That, of course, is what the European Court of Justice is. Briefly, I should like to touch on, first, the primacy of European Union law; secondly, the issue of "Kompetenz-Kompetenz"; thirdly, the doctrine of direct effect; and, fourthly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on which I shall make a few comments.
Again, it seems to be axiomatic that where there is a single jurisdiction, the law of that jurisdiction must have primacy. Where that jurisdiction encompasses distinct different sovereign states, the constitutional arrangements of the single order—that is, the European Union—must be subordinated to the constitutions of the member states. Of course, it is on the interface between the two where the problems arise, as the noble and learned Lord said so eloquently. That is often described in the shorthand German phrase, "Kompetenz-Kompetenz".
It is interesting that, basically, whichever jurisdiction determines the questions, the questions will be the same. At least, in theory, we are discussing the same law. In one sense, it is merely a question of jurisdiction.
In the interesting summary in the report, the debate begins by seeing those issues in terms of legal questions. Then the discussion evolves, and it ends by suggesting that perhaps it is as much a political issue as a legal one. Certainly, as an academic legal point it would he good for consideration in university finals. As someone who is not a distinguished or academic lawyer—indeed, only just a lawyer at all—I should like to ask: how much of a real question is this actually? Ultimately, this matters only if it matters politically.
Of course, political problems have to be solved, ultimately, by political solutions. It may be that a court's decision can provide the political solution, which it frequently does, in which case there is no further difficulty. But even if there is a judicial ruling, if it does not solve the underlying political problem, a political solution still has to be found regardless of what the law may say at the time. Here, we are talking about hypothetical issues. As we all know, until the matter arises, the courts cannot address it because courts do not, in general, deal with hypothetical problems.
It is an extremely interesting topic to debate, but I just wonder how much we should worry about it at this stage. If a problem of that kind occurs in the future, it will occur because there is a real political problem precipitating it. I am not sure that one can necessarily solve that real political problem in advance of it occurring because it is too hypothetical.
Certainly, the kind of political problem that could emerge from debates about "Kompetenz-Kompetenz" and serious disputes could, under certain circumstances, explode the European Union. But is that really what will happen or is the nature of the political legal process in

1007
which we are all engaged in countries across western Europe one which contains within it sufficient slack and flexibility to be able to deal with the issues as they arise?
Turning now to the doctrine of direct effect, as someone who has been—indeed, still is, just—a Member of the European Parliament, at public meetings, when talking about the workings of the single market, I often say, "Everyone cheats. All foreigners cheat". Then I go on to say, "Of course, if you make this speech as I have done in other countries, we are some of the foreigners". It is important that where we have a legal order of the kind that is the single market, the citizens' rights in respect of the state of affairs that their legislators have put in place should not simply depend on transposition.
The best way to guarantee the integrity of the system is to give those affected rights of access to courts. Perhaps we may take, for example, the relatively recent incident of the ban on British beef. Eventually, UK farmers won access to British beef in France under the provisions of European law. But it was a very drawn out and, in my opinion, unsatisfactory process. Would it not have been much better if the importer had been able simply to go to the equivalent of the Calais county court to obtain an injunction? But I agree that a second problem arises in saying that this will solve all the problems because there is no guarantee that the Calais county court would give effect to European law.
In my capacity as an MEP I have looked to see whether any research has been undertaken on how well European law is implemented in the lower courts in other member states. The short answer is that it is very unclear. The right response to these problems is not, in the long run, for political pressure to be brought to bear on other political organisations, rather it should be for the citizens to be able to gain redress in the place where they have suffered damage.
However, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, the more that European law is determined, the more disputes about it will arise. One of the major problems we now face, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out so lucidly, is that the workload in the European Court of Justice is extremely heavy. For that reason, I think that the conclusion reached by the committee that one wants to be careful about granting direct access to the Court regarding all these matters should be taken very seriously. No court is any good if it takes ever longer for the justice it dispenses to be handed out.
Finally, I turn to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. I have absolutely no problem with the concept of judicially enforceable rights. Many common law countries have both written constitutions and entrenched rights. Indeed, I would go further and say that I think there is a lot to be said for it. But the problem over the Charter of Fundamental Rights in this context is that it contains a very wide range of rights. Some of the social and economic rights—I think particularly of Article 29 covering the right of access to placement services—seem rather out of place in this context. While I do not want to trespass on the debate that is to follow, if we look at the way in which the European Social Chapter has
1008
operated in practice, we can see how things have developed. Whether one is an employer, an employee or merely an observer of the UK labour market, one regrets what has taken place through, one might almost say, the law of unintended consequences.
For that reason, I am concerned about the proposal to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights into the proposed treaty, making it judicially enforceable. We may end up in a position where we face a large raft of litigation which would better not have been there in the first place. That is not because people should not have rights, rather it is a matter of how those rights are organised and enforced. For example, look back at John Major's Citizen's Charter. If you wish to have rights of that kind available in the general form described, some sort of administrative process for enforcing them is infinitely preferable. So I feel strongly that Jack Straw is right in trying to see what he can do within the ongoing negotiations to try to change some of these provisions.
When all is said and done, Europe is a creature of law or it is nothing. If there is no single legal order across the European Union, we will have anarchy and chaos, and the whole thing will fall apart. That being the case, we must have a single court at its apex. From my perspective, just as the European Union itself is still evolving, the construction site is still subject to a lot of work. We do not want to be too prescriptive about how we see this evolving. We should be pragmatic about it because, as I said earlier, the relationship between the legal and political structures within the European Union provides a sufficiently flexible framework for us to be able to deal with these issues as work in progress.
11.33 a.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I rise to speak as a member of the EU sub-committee chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and I join the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in his praise of the magisterial presentation of the report before us and of the great issues implicit in that report as the European Court of Justice faces changes to its role in the face of an enlarged Community. For my part, I should like to express my appreciation for the work of the legal officials of our sub-committee, Dr Kersh and Dr Mitsilegas. I hope that the reforms the Government presently have afoot on the domestic front in setting up a supreme court over here will not deprive us totally of the wisdom of noble and learned Lords such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, and the work of the European committees of this House.
As one of the first Commissioners to the EEC in 1973, and brought up in the pragmatic British tradition of an unwritten constitution where law officers rarely, if ever, appeared at a Cabinet meeting, I was fascinated to see that in Brussels, our Service juridique of the European Commission were present all the time and did not hesitate to intervene if they thought that we Commissioners were getting above ourselves and in danger of falling foul of the European Court of Justice.

1009
As we say in paragraph 10 of the report, the European Court of Justice is no ordinary court:
"International courts having jurisdiction over sovereign states are … relatively rare … But when establishing the European Communities the Member States went even further. They created institutions having the power in certain areas to make laws which were directly applicable in the Member States".
I must say that as part of the generation to suffer a second catastrophic European war within a period of 30 years, I found the concept, embodied in the European Court of Justice and the judicial role of the Community generally, of European law rather than European war an inspiring one. I am bound to say that we should not forget that aspect of it. It is as true today as it was when the European Community was first set up and when Britain joined it in 1973.
However, the economic and political success of the European Union since that time means that much has changed. The European Community, in alliance with the United States through NATO, helped to win the Cold War and prevent nuclear Armageddon. Today our grandchildren face a frightening new world with new forms of international terrorism and menaces to peace. In this situation, the USA as a single superpower needs, I believe, a European Union—now a Union of the east and west of Europe—with Britain at the very heart of it as a balancing and sometimes restraining partner.
These are the global issues that lie behind the work of the Discard d'Estaing commission and the current IGC summit. Making a success of that work is vital. Enlargement from 15 to 25 nations simply cannot succeed without a new treaty. I emphasise that when using the word "treaty", I refer to an intergovernmental treaty of the character that is now under discussion at the IGC. The label "constitutional treaty" is unfortunately ambiguous in terms of the present debate. The reality is that it is an inter-state treaty rather than a new constitution for a new European super-state.
The role of the European Court of Justice is therefore right at the centre of this further stage of the development of the European Union. As our report remarks, and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, pointed out, it is surprising that so little has been said so far about the role of the Court in the convention proceedings and in the IGC. The noble and learned Lord was absolutely right to draw attention to those great issues. I hope that our report will help to correct this and inform the debate more fully, at least within the United Kingdom.
As a layman I have a certain diffidence about commenting on many of the judicial details of our recommendations. I recall an occasion when there was a slight misprint in a Foreign Office telegram. I was reported as having spoken in "broad, brash terms" at an important meeting of European Ministers. Of course it should have said "broad-brush terms". I am therefore conscious that I am a layman in these matters. I will confine myself to very few remarks on the details.
I hope, however, that the Government will back the text put forward by my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart—who will be speaking in your Lordships' House later today—as an amendment to Article III-270(4) for
1010
widening individual access to the Community courts. The arguments are set out very clearly in paragraphs 149 to 151 of our report.
Having said that, however, I am much in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said about bringing a pragmatic sense of proportion to bear in relation to the operations of the ECJ in the field of individual human rights—and, indeed, generally—and in the challenges that lie ahead following enlargement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I am wary of too much duplication in the human rights field between the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Human rights will not be helped greatly by increasingly longer queues at more institutions. There is a need for a sense of proportion.
Whatever the nature of the arguments in the past, the way in which the European Union has developed has been primarily as a union of sovereign states. The new members of the European Union have behind them decades of a centralised Soviet tradition and are themselves relatively poor in resources. It therefore seems to me that the top challenge for the European Union as a whole, and for the European Court of Justice within it, will be to adjudicate over inter-state relations primarily and to face the limitations of some painful budgetary priorities in its own operations.
I remember that great British public servant, Sir Con O'Neill, who was a major architect of British entry into the Community, telling me, as a Labour Minister, that once I got to Brussels I would learn lessons in pragmatism that I had never dreamt of in the Fabian Society. He was absolutely right. And the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is absolutely right to draw our attention to the fact that the European Union, as an international animal and international organism, is absolutely sui generis. It cannot deal with its problems by means of tidy blueprints that fill all the black holes; it can deal with them only by a gradual process and a pragmatic approach. Ultimately, the judicial problems within the European Union always turn out to be political problems requiring a political tolerance and political give and take in order to find solutions. Nor will the European Union succeed in its enlarged state if it insists on unanimity for every advance being sought on the basis of referendums in individual member states.
I was proud to be one of the members of the Labour government who helped to take Britain into the European Union. I cannot tell your Lordships how depressing it is for me that a Labour Government, who claim that they want to be at the heart of the European Union, should for the second time—for reasons of purely short-term domestic tactics—do a U-turn and resort to a referendum as an alternative to parliamentary leadership. As I have done before, I plead with the Government that if they are going to take that course they should put their heart into it and ensure that the case for the advantages—not only for Britain and Europe but for the international community as a whole—of having a successful European Union working in world affairs is made in strong and clear terms.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, I did not put my name down to speak because it seemed to me, as a former member of the Court of Justice, that this was an occasion to listen and to learn rather than to put forward one's own thoughts on the admirable report. But, in the light what has been said in the past few minutes, I hope your Lordships will allow me to make four very short points.
The first and most essential point that has to be made—I think the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has made it—is the importance of the European Court of Justice having the power to declare the law for the Community as a whole. Even in the days when there were six members—and certainly in the days when there were 13 and 15—it was very important that there should be a coherent, structured body of law for the region which is now the European Union. With 25 member states it is even more important that the Court of Justice should have the final say on all matters of law—not only in regard to the states but also in regard to the various tribunals and courts which it may be considered should be established to deal with specific matters.
There have been proposals that there should be panels or an increased number of courts in the Community. However, it is critically important—I hope that the Government will always insist on this—that the final decision on all aspects of the law should lie with the European Court of Justice. If it does not, there will be not only a divergence between states but also a divergence between various subsidiary courts and tribunals in the Community.
The second point I wish to make relates to the workload of the court, a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred. It is absolutely clear that, despite the creation of the Court of First Instance—now to be called the High Court—the European Court has a very heavy workload. Most of its cases come to it by reference from national courts. In my view, the obligation on courts to refer should be looked at again.
Judges below final courts have a complete discretion over whether or not they send a case to Luxembourg. In the treaty as it stands, final courts are obliged to refer questions to the European Court. The court itself has slightly relaxed that requirement, but not sufficiently. In my view, it is unfortunate that the recommendation of a committee set up by the Commission two or three years ago to relax the obligation on final courts was not accepted.
What is happening in many states is that final courts are deciding matters for themselves. That is not in accordance with the wording of the treaty, but it should be made quite clear that the final court obligation is limited to sending cases which either have a constitutional significance or are important from the Community point of view. There are many cases in which final courts can decide matters and it seems to me that there is a great deal to be said for relaxing that obligation and coming out, quite cleanly and clearly, with what is the obligation and what are the restrictions.
1012
The Commission, of course, is afraid that if final courts are not obliged to send there will be considerable disparity and differences between various states. That could be remedied by adopting our own system whereby the Attorney-General can refer a question of law in a case in a criminal court, and the decision is limited to the law without deciding the issue in the case.
I realise that my time is up and that I must mention my other two points very briefly. I think that it is unfortunate—I hope the Government will pursue this—that the ability of, particularly, traders to take challenges to the European Court will be enlarged further than it has been, as is referred to in the report.
My final point, in 30 seconds, relates to the charter of human rights. If it has to deal with that, as is the intention, the role of the Court of Justice in the future will be of very great importance. We have to make quite clear the relationship between the Luxembourg court and the Strasbourg court in relation to the application and interpretation of the charter.
11.50 a.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, intervened. He has been one of the great British judges and a member of the European Court of Justice. He speaks with unique authority in this House, having served in this country and in Luxembourg in a high judicial office. It is a particular pleasure for me to speak not only in his wake, but also in that of my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who is a wise European and British statesman with a truly international perspective. I well remember reading Cabinet papers which showed how he heroically stood up against the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968 in the deliberations of the Government. That showed his high ethical sense and courage.
I was privileged to be a member of Sub-Committee E, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, during the preparation, but not the completion, of the report. Although the report appears to be dry and, at first sight, to be the concern of judges and lawyers, it addresses matters of considerable political importance, as was apparent in the powerful speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. It was a pleasure to serve under him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, as a member of that important committee.
The Minister will have a formidable task in replying to the debate in place of the person whom one might have expected to reply to a debate of this importance; namely, the Lord Chancellor. I have the greatest respect and admiration for the Minister. I always enjoy listening to her, but if she will permit me to say so, she is relatively junior to be dealing with a matter of such enormous importance. No doubt she will be able to demonstrate in her reply that she is better by far than any judge or lawyer.
The description of the draft treaty as a "constitution" lends itself to misuse, particularly by Euro-sceptic opponents, who seek to distort its true nature as though it were a US-style federal constitution for a European super state. It is no such instrument. It is an intergovernmental

1013
treaty to consolidate the previous treaties, from Rome to Nice, and to adapt them to the need to add 10 new member states. It is the product of the inevitable compromises emerging from the Convention on the Future of Europe that brought together politicians from 28 countries over a period of 16 months.
The draft treaty is neither concise nor perfectly drafted, but as the Financial Times pointed out yesterday,
"it promises to make the EU more manageable and accountable to the elected European and national parliaments. It is an advance on the present rag-bag of incomprehensible treaty texts".
The draft treaty aims to make an enlarged EU workable, to clarify its responsibilities and to increase accountability. The framework designed for the founding six member states needs urgently to be adapted to a greatly enlarged Union. The draft treaty envisages a stronger role for national parliaments to promote subsidiarity. As my colleague, Nick Clegg MEP, noted in an article in the Financial Times on Monday, the draft treaty is a surprisingly conservative revision of the EU treaties. As he explained in that article,
"breathless charges"—
that the draft treaty will—
"lead to wholesale tax harmonisation, a raft of new EU policy powers, the subversion of British monarchical prerogatives and persecution by EU criminal prosecutors are based on fantasy … the new constitution does not add a single new policy power to the EU … Given that gridlock would undoubtedly result without some extension in majority voting, the constitution's critics must explain why they wish to condemn the EU to decision-making impotence".
There is little, if anything, in this balanced report that we are debating today to provide grist to the Euro-sceptics' mill. Paragraph 25 of the report points out that the European Court's,
"value and effectiveness are based on the importance of law and legal order to the creation, functioning, cohesion and development of the Union and also on the Court's independence".
That point was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. The report concludes in paragraph 31 that the Court already has a constitutional character and that it is unlikely that any change in the role of the Court would result from the difference of wording between the existing treaty and the draft treaty. However, it states:
"The Court would more clearly take on the mantle of a Constitutional Court for the Union".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, emphasised that point.
The report also points out, in paragraph 51:
"It is not surprising that Part 1 of the Constitutional Treaty includes a statement of the primacy of Union law. The doctrine is a well established and key element of the Community's legal order".
I hope that the Official Opposition will take particular note of that, given some rather ignorant suggestions that the draft treaty creates a new primacy and threat to national systems of government and law. It does no such thing.
The report notes:
"The Court of Justice, as a matter of Union law, has jurisdiction to rule on the division of competences between the Union and its Member States and on whether a particular matter is within the vires of the Union as set out in the Treaty. That is not new.
1014
Member States, and their courts, generally respect the rulings of the Court on these and other matters … What is new is the classification and division of competences set out in Part I of the draft Treaty".
The report then raises the critical question, emphasised by the noble and learned Lord Scott in his introduction, of,
"which court, the Court of Justice or national courts, will finally decide whether a matter falls within Union competence".
In one of the most important passages, in paragraph 77, it continues—and I make no apology for quoting it—as follows:
"In principle there should be one court in the end able to say whether the European Union institutions have exceeded their powers or not. A strong argument can be made that the effective functioning of the Union requires the Court to be the ultimate arbiter of the extent of the Union's competences and of the validity of its acts. It is difficult to see how the Union could work if the courts of each Member State had jurisdiction to declare EU law invalid. There would be a risk of conflicts of decision, 'limping' regulation (with legislation valid in some States and invalid in others) and no legal certainty in the absence of a unified legal system".
The report observes, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, has rightly emphasised, that,
"if the Court is the ultimate arbiter on the extent of the Union's competence it follows that Court also has the final say in defining the extent of Member States' powers".
The Government's response makes it clear that they agree with the argument contained in those passages. That is a most welcome response to the issue, as was that of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.
However, it is important to know the Official Opposition's standpoint on that important question, because the draft treaty will otherwise become embroiled in electioneering without our knowing their position. What is the response of the Government and the Opposition to paragraph 103 of the report, which refers to the committee's earlier report on the future status of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights? That report concluded that, in principle, the actions of the Union and/or member states in giving effect to CFSP should be subject to judicial review or supervision in both the European Court of Justice and the Strasbourg Court.
The report then goes into the dangers to the rule of law in there being a European legal black hole. I strongly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, about the pressing need to avoid a legal black hole and I would be grateful to hear the Government's reasons for apparently rejecting that part of the report.
I also hope that the Minister will inform the House of the Government's response to the committee's reflections on enlarging the Court's jurisdiction over the third pillar. The committee concluded that there are strong arguments for the Court having jurisdiction over all justice and home affairs matters that are within EU competence, including co-operation in relation to criminal law and procedure.
As we said in our earlier report on the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, recent developments, in particular the European arrest warrant, show that such matters may impinge directly on the interests and rights

1015
of individuals. The Court should be entitled to measure the legality of action, whether that of the Union or of member states and their authorities, when implementing Union legislation, against the norms contained in the Charter. That is a very important part of the report and I hope that the Minister, for whom I feel compassion, will be able to explain—and not just in a single sentence—why the Government apparently reject the need for the European Court of Justice to be able to review measures taken by member states relating to police and law enforcement operations. It is hard to see how the European rule of law can be effectively secured in this important and increasing area of Union activity unless there is effective judicial review.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, mentioned the importance of avoiding conflict between the two European courts on human rights matters. Again, Sub-Committee E has in the past urged the Government to support the accession to the European Convention on Human Rights by the European Community, now the European Union, so that it is quite clear that in the hierarchy of courts the Strasbourg Court will remain the ultimate arbiter on the European Convention. Again, we would welcome a response from the Government to that important suggestion.
I agree with all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate so far that the standing rule is too restrictive and fails to provide effective judicial remedies. Like other noble Lords, I very much hope that the Government will support the text of my noble friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart that was put forward during the convention deliberations and mentioned in paragraph 151 of the report.
The detailed changes made by the draft treaty need, as Gisela Stuart MP has observed, to be combined with a strong political vision of the ideas which should inform the European agenda. Very regrettably, I am not convinced that the Government have such a vision. Nick Clegg MEP is surely right in commenting that for Mr Blair it is difficult to see how the referendum can be won without a successful challenge to the anti-European propagandists in the press. He also said that that will be hard for the Prime Minister and that his premiership has always operated in thrall to much of the press that has forced him, through ill-disguised political blackmail, to concede a referendum. Like my noble friend Lord Thomson and other noble Lords on these Benches, I very much regret that that has occurred.
It is a far cry from the referendum campaign 30 years ago, so brilliantly led by Roy Jenkins, a statesman who sacrificed the possibility of leading a Labour government because of his unswerving commitment to an ever-closer European Union, and who devoted huge energy to that campaign. I well remember working with him in the Home Office and trying to focus him on Home Office matters when he was rightly devoting at least half of his mental and emotional life to leading that great campaign. I have to say that I see no sign of a similar commitment or similar political energy among the heavyweights in the present Government as we approach the June European elections and beyond.
12.4 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I wholeheartedly join other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, for chairing and steering his committee towards this fascinating report and for the skilled and measured way in which he presented the findings to us at the beginning of the debate.
I must confess that I am not part of the very select club of learned judges and lawyers who tend to address these issues and some of my remarks may sound as though they come from outside the club. I hope that they will not cause too much offence. However, there are a number of comments I want to make about the report.
I have only just had the opportunity, during the debate, of seeing the Government's reply. I am sorry that the powers that be did not feel able to get a copy to me earlier and did not even warn me that a reply was coming. I think that that was not quite up to the Government's usual standard of courtesy. I have done what I can to read it during the course of the debate but it would have been easier to know that it was there and even easier if someone had sent me a copy.
There can be no question that the issue before us in this report, the future of the European Court of Justice, is central to the whole negotiation on a future constitution for the European Union. A number of noble Lords have recognised that this morning. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in a very wise speech based on his long experience, remarked on the scant attention that the convention seemed to give to this crucial question of the law underpinning the entire enterprise, namely the European Court of Justice—the motor, as it were. The plain and obvious fact is that a constitution must have a constitutional court to rule upon it. The report says that this will be the more so given the constitutional dimension of the current treaty. Indeed the Government's reply recognises that fact. The European Court of Justice is going to be the constitutional court. Its future shape is vital to our life and welfare as a nation and the report is right to pose, and in some cases to answer, some absolutely fundamental questions on which, so far, the Government have been deplorably silent.
Indeed, the report begins by confirming, almost on the opening page, that:
"In a number of respects the powers of the Union would be increased",
by the constitution. That simple statement in itself nullifies the numerous ministerial statements to the effect that the balance of power would be shifted to the member states. That is not so. The learned authority behind this report confirms that it is not so.
As to the questions raised, the report first asks whether the ECJ now becomes a supreme court, the "ultimate arbiter" of the constitution and its powers. The answer, at paragraph 31 of this report, is a clear yes.
The report asks whether the draft does not merely confirm, but extends the doctrine of the primacy of community law. We all know that the doctrine is there; the

1017
question is whether it is extended. Contrary to the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to whom I always listen with the greatest respect because of his considerable learning, it seems to me that at paragraph 52 and in the conclusions on page 45, the matter is by no means settled. Indeed, the suggestion is that with the collapse of the former separate intergovernmental pillars there is considerable uncertainty and lack of clarity. Of course, that characterises the nature of the draft constitution for which some have praise but for which I have very little praise. Certainly, as this report wisely and correctly makes clear, this is not a matter that has been addressed. It needs to be addressed because it is of central importance.
The report asks whether the Court will ultimately decide the boundaries and divisions of all competences, which, as one witness remarks in the report, are,
"grey and not black and white".
The answer to that question, at paragraph 76, is a pretty firm yes. I want to expand on the enormous ramifications of that in a moment.
The report asks whether the jurisdiction of the Court will come to embrace all Union activities, despite exemption clauses. Again, the answer is uncertain, because the constitutional draft is uncertain, but if noble Lords look at paragraph 78 and the conclusion it is probably yes.
Finally—or finally in my list, although there are many other fascinating questions—the report asks whether the ECJ's jurisdiction under the treaty extends over common foreign and security policy despite the clear excluding articles 139 and 140 in the draft treaty. The answer—at paragraph 102 of this report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightly referred—is that it could well be so. I want to elaborate on that also.
Those are highly significant conclusions with considerable implications for all of us. It is extraordinary that we have not been able in the debate so far to give them the airing and attention which this excellent report rightly brings to bear.
I began by mentioning the report's firm conclusion, reinforced by your Lordships' speeches this morning, that the ECJ is already in a sense the constitutional court, but that it now takes on what the report calls the definite mantle of a constitutional court. From our perspective that is important because our own proposed Supreme Court—when it comes, and when it finds a place to work—will not have constitutional jurisdiction as some continental constitutional courts do, notably the German court, which of course raised the competence issue. So that is more or less accepted. Everyone agrees that that is what is going to happen.
Turning to the next key question, that of primacy of Community law, the issue is how far the draft extends it beyond present assumed levels. Professor Denza, who gave evidence to the committee, at paragraph 39, expresses no doubt that it extends so far that it calls into question the independence of a nation state's foreign policy—that is, our foreign policy. But even if one does not go quite as far as that, it is obvious that, with the new powers assigned to the Union and the long list of shared competencies which have been identified and the proposals about supportive involvement, which the noble
1018
and learned Lord, Lord Scott, mentioned, Union law will be enlarged and therefore the primacy of that law will be enlarged.
As the report says at paragraphs 52 and 53, where there has been uncertainty before and primacy has been challenged in certain courts, draft Article 10(1) appears to apply generally across all Union business, including common foreign and security policy. If that is right, that is a substantial and incontrovertible new incursion into our laws and freedoms. I do not think that that should be pushed aside under phrases such as "tidying up" and so on.
The next question on my list—indeed the next question posed in the report'—concerns this central matter of divisions of competencies and who decides them. The clear answer is that the ECJ will decide them, which means, as paragraph 78 makes absolutely explicit, that this court will also decide the final extent of member states' powers as well, an outcome that the report says is "unacceptable"—that is the word used in the report. Yet this really is an issue that touches on the fundamental nature of the Union, and there it is embedded in the draft which is currently being discussed in Dublin and unchallenged by our Government—although, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, reminded us, and as the report reminds us, various national constitutional courts in other countries have challenged these matters in the past and may well challenge them again, particularly as there are so many ambiguities in this far from simple draft treaty.
It is going to be, of course, the European Court of Justice that will have to grapple with these matters—with the concept of shared competencies; with the fact that all these divisions are, as I said, far from being clarified and are, as I already said, grey rather than black and white; and the fact that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, said, there are overlaps, which there certainly are.
As for matters of competencies being raised in national courts, I think I understood from the fascinating intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley, that there is a problem that they have to go again—as paragraph 57 seems to confirm— to the European Court of Justice as the final court. So in the end nothing seems to be excluded from the ECJ. It can be claimed that the ECJ can have no jurisdiction over matters that have no EU element in them, but we go round in a circle. Who decides about that EU element? Even that is not clear. The draft constitution is riddled with new blurred areas and obscurities. It is bound to be the constitutional court that has to deal with them, which is why we are so right to be focusing on this issue.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can clarify an obscurity in what he has been saying. Is he saying to the House that his party would welcome the avoidance of European legal black holes by giving the Court jurisdiction to review EU activity in the area of defence and foreign affairs and justice and home affairs, for example, in relation to the police? As he knows, that is an area

1019
where the Government are apparently not accepting our recommendations. It is important to know what the Official Opposition think about that in view of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I was coming in some detail, if your Lordships will permit me, to the question of jurisdiction in common foreign and security policy. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to deal with that question in some paragraphs to which I should like to come in a moment. I am trying to go in sequence through the issues and was dealing with the broader question of competencies.
I just wanted to add to that that there is a mention in the Government's reply to the report of the principle of conferral. It is often claimed that the principle of conferral, which is clearly restated in the draft treaty, will protect us and prevent any competence drift and so on and so forth; the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, who is a great doughty champion of these matters, is often claiming just that. Again, one is left uneasy by this report, because it could be the Court that will be called upon to sort out just what has been conferred and what has not been conferred. These two matters, as well, are not clear and precise in the new treaty.
Perhaps I can try one other line of defence we hear from the apologists of the constitution—that is, that there is a clear ruling at Article 139 that expressly excludes the ECJ from foreign policy and defence matters; here I come on to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, rightly raised. Is that right? It is not if one studies the detail of the draft and not if one studies this excellent report. It is not necessarily so, say the learned authors of this report. As we heard, aggrieved individuals will be free to challenge and test the legality of the member states' or the Union's actions in CFSP matters and the ECJ would be within its powers to rule on them, as paragraph 101 states.
Moreover, as the report also observes, the Union is increasingly involved in various peacekeeping and security activities which all member states will be obliged to support "actively and unreservedly" under Article 115 of the draft treaty. That obligation, says the report, would not be excluded by this constitution from the Court's jurisdiction—that is at paragraph 110—which means that it would be included if it is not excluded. That is the "black hole" to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, rightly referred. The question arises whether the answer to the black hole is to urge still more powers and involvement by the ECJ in our foreign policy and our defence policy, or whether it is to look much more closely at this draft constitution and realise that it takes us in the direction of that dilemma and these problems, and urge instead that we go in another direction, as I and my party would very much like to do in the interests both of this country and of Europe as a whole.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry to press the point but I am still not clear. The Official Opposition have to have a position on the matter.Are
1020
they saying that they are content that there be a European legal black hole over matters such as Guantanamo, policing and so on, or that they would like the ambiguity to be resolved by a complete no-go area? The rule of law depends on answers to that question.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, that does not have to be resolved in the context of the constitution and the European Union at all. The issues are great and important—I do not question that for a moment—but we certainly do not need a new constitution that itself, by expanding the role of the ECJ in such areas, creates the black hole. I do not accept the premise behind the noble Lord's question that a political party must have a position on something that we would not wish to create in the first place. It is an absurd proposition.
The report is highly authoritative—we shall hear a lot more about it—and shows beyond all doubt that the draft constitution would extend the ECJ's reach into nearly every walk of life, which is of course what Lord Denning warned some years ago. When combined with the new charter of rights—it still sits firmly in paragraph 11 as an integral section of the draft, despite the Government's promises that they would resist that—it confirms the ubiquity of the Court's powers and the rule of its judges as never before under any previous treaty. That is why the constant claim of Ministers that the constitution is no different from wording in previous treaties is so misguided and utterly misleading. Moreover, the Government keep claiming that the constitution will be the same as that of a golf club. However, a golf club has no ECJ, and no right to tax or sanction force.
An expanded ECJ with much wider jurisdiction, as the report rightly foresees, certainly means more separation of the judges from our national affairs. Frankly, that is no guarantee of their complete political independence from broad political currents and trends. On the contrary, all experience confirms that the ECJ will be under strong political influence to he one-sidedly favourable to more integration by the EU and more central power. What could be more political than that?
I have trespassed too long on your Lordships' patience, although we have had some exchanges and dialogue, which I always welcome in debates. The report confirms our conviction that although a new and simplifying treaty is doubtless required to embrace the union of 25 states, the constitution does not provide it. Even if all the so-called red lines are held or claimed to have been held—those claims look extremely questionable—that will not solve the matter. The constitutional draft extends, expands and strengthens a higher legal order that we do not want, and that is unnecessary and undesirable both for ourselves and for Europe's future. We can do much better for Europe, and we will.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the noble Lord claimed that the difficulties to which he devoted his speech stemmed from the inadequate drafting of the convention's draft constitutional treaty. Will he

1021
make a little more clear the proposed remedy that he has in mind to determine disputes between member states about the interpretation of treaty duties imposed on the institutions of the Union in spheres of common foreign and security policy and home and justice policy, if it is not to be the Court? If there is disagreement among the member states, how is it to be resolved?
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, they would be resolved as they were in the past. I question the entire way in which the convention was constructed and operated to produce this unfortunate new constitution. We still had in the European Union, up to the time of the attempt to impose the constitution on it, a system whereby foreign policy and defence co-operation could be developed in pragmatic and sensible ways, with discussion between political leaders. We did not see the need to bring the rule of judges into the centre of such matters. Problems will obviously arise, but I do not see the need for the whole constitution to be drummed up to answer them. There are better, more practical and more limited ways of addressing the issues as we go along. That is what we did before; that is what we can do in future. I see no problem.
12.25 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful, as the Government are, for the impressive and thorough work of the committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. It was unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, had not seen a copy of the response, and I shall speak to him outside the debate about that.
I seem to be almost alone among the speakers today in not being a lawyer, so I am conscious, in responding to the detailed and highly informed report, of my relative lack of expertise in the complex and technical legal issues that it raises. None the less, I base my speech on the Foreign Secretary's considered views from his reading of the report, as expressed in the Government's response. I must apologise if time does not allow me to cover every point made in the report or in the speeches of noble Lords. I shall write to them to follow up, and they are of course welcome to write to me or the Foreign Secretary with any outstanding points that they wish to address.
We welcome the report and the careful thought and research that has gone into its preparation. I underline the praise given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. It is a sign of the detail of that work that the report itself asks for relatively little comment from the Government, and makes instead a number of observations and recommendations. The report addresses four principal issues: the primacy of Union law; the power of the Court to rule on the extent of EU competence; the jurisdiction of the Court over common foreign and security policy and police and judicial co-operation; and individual access to the Court.
The report raises the question of the Court's overall role. We welcome the committee's assertion that Article I-28(1) of the draft treaty would be unlikely to bring about any change in the Court's role. The jurist-linguist
1022
process, carried out after political agreement of the treaty, will provide the opportunity to ensure that different language versions are consistent with each other. Overall, the Court's jurisdiction and role will remain essentially the same under this draft treaty as under the European Community treaty, although the scope of the constitutional treaty itself will, of course, be different.
We welcome the committee's judgment that:
"It is not surprising that Part I of the Constitutional Treaty includes a statement of the primacy of Union law. The doctrine is a well established and key element of the Community's legal order as defined in the jurisprudence of the Court".
That sensible and sound conclusion stands at variance with the claims made occasionally in another place that the statement of the primacy of Union law is somehow novel and dangerous.
In addition, as the committee says, the declaration which will be attached to the article will state clearly that the conference notes that the provisions of Article I-5a—formerly Article 1–10—
"reflect existing Court of Justice case law".
The committee suggests that the existing case law is unclear. As we explain in our response, we are clear on the current meaning of primacy and that the declaration would clarify that Article I-5a was not intended to expand the meaning of primacy beyond its meaning under existing ECJ case law.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, this is a matter that has been the subject of exchanges in this Chamber before, but, regarding the doctrine of primacy of Community law, what do we make of the challenges by the German and the Danish constitutional courts? Is it the case that we cannot challenge because we do not have our own constitutional court? Or is it that all those past challenges will be overruled and subsumed under the new constitution? Can the Minister give a clear answer?
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am very happy to write to the noble Lord and answer his detailed question.
The report also raises the question sometimes known as "Kompetenz-Kompetenz", which many noble Lords raised this morning. It states in paragraph 76:
"The critical question is which court, the Court or national courts, will finally decide whether a matter falls within Union competence. This is not just a drafting question … but an issue touching upon the fundamental nature of the Union and its relationship with the Member States".
The answer to this question of Kompetenz-Kompetenz is and always has been the European Court of Justice. As the report says, in paragraph 77:
"A strong argument can be made that the effective functioning of the Union requires the Court to be the ultimate arbiter of the extent of the Union's competences and of the validity of its acts."
That is an argument that we make. As the report goes on to say:
"It is difficult to see how the Union could work if the courts of each Member State had jurisdiction to declare EU law invalid".

1023
Certain noble Lords in our debate on 11 May on the IGC, to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, referred, and has been raised again today, seemed to regard the Kompetenz-Kompetenz: question as a party-political hot potato. In fact, the Kompetenz-Kompetenz controversy arose in the context of the particular constitutional situation in Germany, as interpreted by the German constitutional court. The UK's position is different. The effect of treaties on UK domestic law is decided by Parliament and, in any event, as the Committee has concluded in paragraph 81, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, has mentioned:
"In practice Kompetenz-Kompetenz issues may be no more likely to arise in future than in the past. Were a problem to arise, the Community Courts and national courts would and should seek to work together in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation".
We fully agree with that judgment.
The report notes, in paragraph 80, that the draft Treaty does:
"reaffirm and strengthen the position of the national courts by seeking to define the division of competences and by restating, explicitly, the principle of conferral".
Indeed, it is clear from Article 1–9(2) of the draft Constitutional Treaty that competences not conferred upon the Union by the treaty remain with the member states. The committee states that does not dismiss the possibility of,
"the argument being advanced that Parliament did not intend, by the European Communities Act, the final definition of the Union's powers to be determined by the Court".
In fact, however, the role of the ECJ of ensuring observance of Community law, and thereby deciding issues of competence where applicable, was clear at the time of Parliament passing the 1972 Act.
The ECJ does not have jurisdiction over CFSP and we see no basis for changing that. CFSP is, and will remain, a distinct area of activity, subject to separate and distinct procedures. However, the Court will have the jurisdiction to rule on proceedings to review the legality of restrictive measures against natural and legal persons adopted on the basis of the CFSP chapter.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister and I do not expect her to reply now, because my question is about an important and technical issue. However, can she and her department reflect on what I am about to say? She has just recited the Government's response to our report on that issue. But it is meaningless. I have looked 10 times at Article III-209 of the draft constitution and I still do not understand what it means—it seems to be, if I may say so, gobbledegook. I also do not understand the Government's response when they say that the ECJ will have jurisdiction to review the legality of European decisions in relation to Article III-209, providing for restrictive measures against natural or legal persons.
I simply do not know where that comes from. It may be that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, will be able to explain that, but it seems not
1024
to be warranted by the text and I simply do not understand this area at all. It is critical to find that out. However, I do not expect an answer from the noble Baroness today.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Noble Lord for that. I have taken a note of what he said and will ensure that he is given a detailed reply. Indeed, the noble Lord and learned, Lord Scott of Foscote, may well wish to refer to that in his summing up.
This is in addition to the Court's jurisdiction in relation to restrictive measures adopted under Article III-224 and any rights of redress that individuals have before national courts. We consider this to be an adequate solution that balances our interest in a common standard of judicial redress for individuals with preserving the distinct status of CFSP in EU law and procedure.
While the Government support greater EU action to safeguard collective security, we remain of the view that the ECJ should not be given the competence to review measures taken by member states relating to police and law enforcement operations—again raised by noble Lords today—or to the exercise by a member state of its responsibility to maintain law and order or its security. The constitution reaffirms that the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of its security is the responsibility of individual member states—a position that is already enshrined in the existing treaties.
As Article II-51 of the draft treaty makes clear, the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are, it states,
"addressed to the Institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law".
The ECJ will examine the conformity of the action taken by these addressees with the relevant charter articles in respect of the areas for which the ECJ will have jurisdiction.
We take the views of the committee very seriously, and have given thought to its views on individual access to the Court. The committee considers that the draft treaty's provisions on this are an improvement on the existing situation, but want them to go further. It prefers the text put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, during the convention. The Government feel, however, that the issues of widening individual access to the EU were extensively discussed in the convention. A range of views were canvassed. In addressing the ECJ discussion circle, the then president of the ECJ noted that,
"the Court considers the current system, which is based on the principle of subsidiarity in that the national courts in particular are responsible for protecting the rights of individuals, satisfies the requirements essential for the effective judicial protection of those rights, including fundamental rights".
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I fear that the government gloss on what happened in the convention on the discussion of the locus standi might be regarded by some of the participants as a little misleading. So far from it

1025
being extensively canvassed, the discussion group which was set up was established at an extremely late date with inadequate time to deliberate fully on the issue. It understandably heard the President of the ECJ speak in the sense which the Minister has voiced but was also conscious of contrary views within the European Court of Justice. Furthermore, it was conscious of the reluctance of member governments, led as spokesman in that circle by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on behalf of our Government, concerning the potential cost of any additional expansion of the rules on locus standi and the effect that might have on the work of the court, bearing in mind the extremely parsimonious attitude of government to expenditure on the Court. I hope that it will not be thought that as a matter of principle the convention was convinced by the argument she has adduced.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Lord's views are now on the record and we take note of them.
We strongly endorse this view of the fundamental role played by national courts in providing legal remedies at the local level. We have to disappoint the committee in saying that we also underline in our response the need to ensure that the workload of the ECJ is kept within manageable proportions. We consider that the increase in individuals' access to the ECJ set out in Article III-270(4) represents a balanced and wholly sufficient reflection of the convention's deliberations.
I am sorry to have to disagree with the committee on this point, but we strongly welcome the inclusion of the wording in the second sub-paragraph of Article 28(1). It provides explicit recognition of the fundamental role that national courts currently play in applying and enforcing Community law and ensuring that there is access to legal remedies at local level, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, pointed out. The enforcement of Union law by national courts will, as now, be secured by the implementation of the Constitutional Treaty in domestic legislation.
In the time remaining to me, I shall deal with some questions that have arisen. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, raised in his excellent intervention— as did the noble Lord, Lord Lester—the many issues around CFSP. He asked whether, if we leave this to national courts, there would not be inconsistent ruling in different countries on the same CFSP and no way of resolving such discrepancies. The Government acknowledge that there would be a potential for some inconsistency but no more than exists at present where two or more countries adopt a foreign policy. The Government also disagree with the principle of extending ECJ jurisdiction to CFSP.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, raised other issues on CFSP. We say that we cannot have an institution of the Union subscribing actions that sovereign governments wish to take together under the CFSP framework. This does not mean that CFSP actions are above the law. National courts will have jurisdiction. National courts would be most likely to be asked to consider restrictive measures against individuals.
1026
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, asked for the Government's view of the issue of competence, which he said was outstanding. Our legal advice is that if some national courts do not consider that the ECJ has the final word, that is a breach of Union law.
He also asked whether the Government accept that, short of appeal, they have to give effect to primacy law if the domestic law is invalid. We would have to reply to that in writing.
We will also reply in writing to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on his criticisms of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, asked the Government to think again on the ECJ being denied any CFSP jurisdiction. I must disappoint him in saying that we stand by our response on this matter.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn, and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, sought clarification on the relationship between the ECJ's role on the charter and the Court of Human Rights. We say in reply that the Court of Human Rights will have no role in ruling on the charter. This will be exclusively for the ECJ.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, for whom I have the greatest respect, too, raised my junior position in replying to the debate. We checked through the usual channels that it would be acceptable for me to speak on behalf of the Foreign Office and the committee did not object.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, raised the issue of the legal and other implications of terming the treaty a "constitution". The treaty, as he knows, would not be a constitution for the United Kingdom. The European Union, as he has said, currently has treaties which set out its competences and govern its operations. These treaties already form, as he has also said, a constitutional framework for the European Union. This treaty's use of the term "constitution" only makes this explicit. It would not turn the European Union into a state any more than UNESCO is made into a state by possessing a constitution, for example.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked about the implications of changes in Article III-282. That revised article ensures that the rights of the individual are safeguarded. The Court can rule on the legality of restricted measures taken under the CFSP framework against individuals; for instance, visa bans. The Court also retains the power to rule on other restrictive measures currently falling under the EC treaty taken on the basis of Article III-224 (economic and financial sanctions). Individuals also have the right of redress before national courts.
I am out of time. I will follow up the other questions in writing. In conclusion, I congratulate the committee on its fine work. Its 15 reports on the convention's text have informed and shaped the Government's negotiation strategy during the past months. While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that political decisions have in the end to be made and there are occasions when we will respectfully disagree with them, we value the committee's contributions and consider them extremely carefully. I am sure that we

1027
would all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who so eloquently put it: better European law than European war.
12.48 p.m.
Lord Scott of Foscote: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords and to the Minister for the contributions they made to our interesting discussion on the report. I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, by way of tribute to the legal advisers who assist Sub-Committee E and the Select Committee in preparing the reports. Whatever merit there is in the report is largely due to the learning and hard work put in by those legal advisers and I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning it today. I also want to express my particular gratitude to my noble and learned friend Lord Slynn for the remarks that he made and to the Minister for the nice things that she said about the reports that we have been producing.
The noble Baroness was presented with a number of difficult questions in the course of the debate. It is not to be expected that there could have been one-line answers to them. They are difficult and important questions arising out of the proposed draft constitutional treaty. An answer needs to be considered and account needs to be taken of all kinds of political and other points of view. They are matters for discussion over a period and one cannot expect them to be dealt with in short.
When preparing the report, it struck me from time to time that we were very fortunate, as perhaps would be expected, in having in both the sub-committee and the Select Committee members who represented both what may be the called the Euro-sceptic and the Europhile opinions. Naturally, the holders of those opinions take somewhat different views on the merits of the proposed constitution. We endeavoured to produce a report which was neutral on those issues and, so far as it could be, informative about the issues that arose and had to be considered. We also endeavoured to produce a report which was relatively neutral on the answers to those issues from a political point of view. Having listened to the speeches here this morning, I think that we may have succeeded in achieving that neutrality. I commend the report to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pensions Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

European Union Social Chapter
12.52 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall Lord Lea of Crondall rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what benefits have been gained by people at work in Britain arising from the signing of the European Union Social Chapter in 1997.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the undoubted impact of the Social Chapter over the past 10 years, and in particular since the Labour Government signed up to it in their first major act when they were elected in May 1997, is thanks to careful groundwork—above all, by Jacques Delors when President of the Commission in the late 1980s. He recognised that there must be complementarity between economic and social policy if the aim is to create an internationally competitive and socially just society, which, in turn, means an economy able to handle rapid structural change with confidence and support across the Community. Therefore, we had the Single European Act and the Social Chapter and, later, the move to economic and monetary union, with huge implications for the creation of one Community.
I know that some of that is anathema to one kind of English mind-set. The question whether the European Union, under whatever label, was to be just a single market or not just a single market has been the counterpoint of debate over the whole of the past 50 years—indeed, for as long as most people can remember. Surely no one can now doubt that where we cross cultures and languages, with all the stresses of history and consciousness, we need co-operation between the civil society institutions—by far the most significant in this sphere of social and employment policy being the trade unions.
Therefore, although I shall concentrate today on the past 10 years, we can all recall landmark legislation over a much longer timescale, including in the social field. For example, it is well over 20 years since we accepted obligations on employers to give equal pay for work of equal value. Let us remind ourselves of something else from Europe that we now take for granted: the protection of terms and conditions of employment when businesses change hands, whether in the public or private sectors. All 28 million people in Britain at work are covered by that in one way or another.
In recent years, the TUC has had no doubts about the importance of the European dimension to the development of employment rights in Britain—certainly not since the historic address by Jacques Delors to the Trades Union Congress in Bournemouth in 1988. That commitment to co-operation in depth across Europe has been confirmed by the fact that John Monks last year agreed to be translated from General Secretary of the TUC in London to General Secretary of the European TUC in Brussels.
The European Trades Union Confederation of some 50 million members in 35 European countries is also the social partner for negotiations under the Maastricht Treaty, which we know as the Social Chapter. It so happens that I was involved in the exercise from the start, participating in a series of private meetings with Mitterrand, Kohl, Gonzalez, Andreotti, and so on, before Maastricht so that we knew we would succeed there.
Given the tradition of political discourse in Britain, it is not surprising that there was sniping against the Social Chapter right from the start—not least from the Conservative Party, and Michael Howard in particular.
It was on this issue that he threatened to resign his post as Employment Secretary in John Major's government when the possibility of the British government signing up to some form of agreement was mooted at Maastricht in 1991.
It was as if the sky would fall in—in Rupert Murdoch's case, some of us sometimes wished that it had. But I think it is fair to say that that has not been the consequence of us signing the Social Chapter when Labour came to power in 1997. Those were the days before some of our colleagues became even more in thrall to Mr Murdoch than had previously been the case. The new rights have been widely accepted and, indeed, have become popular—in Bristol, Birmingham, Belfast and Berwick-upon-Tweed. The implicit question now, indeed, is: what was all the fuss about?
The EU has been an innovator in a number of ways, which I shall enumerate, but the essential procedure is itself remarkably bold. I quote the relevant clause of Maastricht:
"Should management and labour so desire, the dialogue between them at Community level may lead to contractual relations, including agreements".
The procedure is that, if such agreements are reached, they are then submitted to the Council of Ministers. But it should be noted that in one respect the employers have a veto in the sense that they are involved with the trade unions in the negotiations, with a number of consequential advantages—not least the fact that employers can live with the result, otherwise they would not have reached the agreement.
The substantive range of agreements covers very wide and varied fields, some broad themes of which can be identified: making working life more friendly for women, for example, and the related issues of what we now call "work/life balance". These precepts have been given a massive boost by the measures on parental leave, working time and part-time workers. I shall spell some of that out.
Not all the measures affect all 28 million people at work in Britain—certainly not all at once. But I say without fear of contradiction that every worker in Britain benefits from the generally improved framework conditions affecting the quality of the contract of employment. There are now 6 million part-time workers in this country, all benefiting from the European Part-Time Work Directive, which provides that they are not to be treated any less favourably pro rata than full-time employees.
Incidentally, some 10 years ago, the European Commission started to dub these provisions as legislation for "atypical" workers. Some of us pointed out, tongue in cheek, that, the way things were going, the atypical workers would soon become more typical than the formerly typical workers, and I sense that quip becoming true.
Although the Working Time Directive was not introduced under the Social Chapter—it came earlier via a different route—it is often put into this category. I estimate that some 10 million workers are benefiting from the four weeks' paid holiday. The majority of manual workers never had such rights and many were
1030
not covered by collective agreements. The same is true of many millions of white-collar office and shop workers; Easy Jet must have seen it all coming.
In my local pub I have heard people say that they are now moving from the bogus self-employment status prevalent in the construction industry to proper contracts of employment precisely because they will have four weeks holiday paid upfront. Workers on short-term contracts are now receiving the pro rata rights and benefits of workers on open-ended contracts.
All in all we are talking about a huge improvement in the quality of contracts of employment. Take the right to 14 weeks' maternity leave, which most do not realise stemmed from Brussels, or the right to three months' unpaid parental leave or time off for urgent family commitments, also negotiated under the Social Chapter. All those advances assisted the changing economic structure of part-time work and work on fixed-term contracts by recognising those as mainstream employment affecting many millions of people at work in Britain.
I would like to make one further point before concluding. I am sure that the argument will be made that we should be quite capable of making such reforms in Britain on our own and that they should have nothing to do with Brussels. I hope that the answer to that is obvious. As every trade union official in the country can testify, employers will always cite international competitiveness as the reason why we cannot do that kind of thing on our own. The fact is that it is enormously beneficial in the area where we conduct most of our trade—the EU—to have progress on social measures on a concerted basis. By the way, the EU has a trade surplus with the rest of the world, unlike the US, but that is a wider story.
The next measure to be introduced is on information and consultation rights. It is extremely timely. All the surveys show that in Britain we are way behind as regards keeping workers in touch and getting feedback from them on a whole range of issues, from technology to training and pension planning. When that is phased in, to the point where all undertakings of over 50 workers are included, it will cover three-quarters of all employees, as and when those measures are triggered into effect, industry by industry. Potentially, about 21 million workers out of 28 million workers in Britain will be covered.
In itself that is a very significant further shift from a purely voluntary system of employment relations in Britain to one with a broad framework of minimum statutory rules. It will mean that employers will need to be more systematic in their explanations of their future prospects and plans.
I think it was Frankie Howerd—not Michael Howard—in one of those "Carry On" films who, not noticing that there were several Roman legions marching in his direction, asked the rhetorical question, "What have the Romans ever done for us?". In our case, the answer is quite a lot. I think it is very timely for people at work in Bristol, Birmingham, Belfast or Berwick-upon-Tweed to show their appreciation for what has been achieved so far and to resolve to keep this good work going in conjunction with a Labour government in the future.
1.3 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity for this short debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Lea for initiating it.
In discussing people at work, I think that it is appropriate today to refer to the sad passing of my friend—he was a friend—Lord Murray this morning. He was an enormous figure in this House. He was quiet, but nevertheless a man of enormous intellect and integrity. He gained the respect of anyone with whom he came into contact. He was brought to the trade union movement by his profound Christian beliefs and that led him into a life of service for working people and society as a whole in Britain. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that he will be sadly missed as a Member of this House.
The debate deals with the European Union Social Chapter, as it has become known. It was agreed in 1991, but not until a couple of months after the Labour Government were elected in 1997 did the UK sign up to it. My noble friend covered a great deal of the detail of the Social Chapter and I shall not take up more time of the House by duplicating that. It covers essential areas.
I want to deal with the benefits to the working people of Britain and to Britain itself. The Social Chapter covers not only those in work but also their families and it covers benefits to employers. It brings into the workplace a civilising environment for relationships between employees and employers. Many good employers have brought about some of the changes initiated by the Social Chapter.
As my noble friend has rightly said, quite often in negotiations I would suggest matters, such as equality or pensions, and be told, "That cannot be done because the competitors down the road will not do that; they will undercut us and we shall lose jobs". Alternatively, if the competitors down the road were prepared to do it, it could not be done because we were in competition with Europe. If the matter were laid down in law, the situation would be different. At national level, governments of the day would often say, "We cannot do that because we are in competition internationally".
Here we have a proposal that comes from an initial idea in Europe, which was about the single market, although for me it was about much more: it was about a peaceful Europe, a Europe that would be a civilised place in which to live, making life better for all members of the Community.
I regard the Social Chapter as being more than just rights for people at work. It has assisted considerably those on occupational pensions. I gather that Britain is the only country in Europe to have an anti-racial discrimination law. That is a very progressive law and it is good to see that initiated by the Social Chapter. There is the change to the burden of proof—our law was very short on that. Last year was the year of disability in Europe, identifying the special needs of people with disabilities. There is a whole range of other matters.
1032
One key area is the term "social partnership". Part of Britain's economic problems have arisen because too often the place of wealth generation—the workplace—has not been a place of social partnership, but a place of strife. It has been almost a battleground, with "them" and "us". The Social Chapter brought about a whole environment, including the introduction of social partnership, which the TUC always supported, as I did. I could see that those for whom I was privileged to be union officer would be better off in successful companies because successful companies can afford to be good companies. No one wants to work for a failing company. That is at the heart of what the Social Chapter is about and why there have been benefits for working people.
There is a whole range of activities and areas of protection, which are national issues, international issues and issues of a single market. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Lea about the opposition and it will be interesting to hear what is said in response to the debate. But I think opposition is difficult to come by because we now have the benefit of hindsight. We now do not have a situation of being told, "This will not work; it will bankrupt the country and it will put companies out of business", because we now have the benefit of hindsight. Today over 70 per cent of our population is in work and that is little short of the highest number of people ever in employment. Certainly in numbers, there are more people in work today than ever before—more than 28 million people.
So I believe that it is about a step-by-step incremental approach, about having a workplace environment where we can have these discussions and where we can move forward with companies. It is also about engendering what is absolutely needed in work today in Britain, and that is looking to the future. Because of the demographic trends, because of globalisation, Britain today needs more than ever a knowledge-based society in which employees have a loyalty to the company born no longer out of the fact that they have a job for life, because that does not happen, but out of a need for training. However, it also concerns what is contained in the partnership between them as employees and the company: what compact the company will enter into to ensure that they want to stay with the company. Yes, training is a factor, but so are family-friendly policies. Pensions are another— controversial at present, I agree.
Discrimination is another area. The number of women in employment in Britain is growing. We have among the highest proportion outside the Scandinavian countries of women in work today. That will not change. My goodness, we do not want it to change; if it does, it will affect the economic viability of Britain.
In conclusion, I welcome the debate. We need to have more of this kind of debate to get a balance in the European discussions that we will, it is to be hoped, have in Britain, which, unfortunately, until now have taken place in closed arenas such as this one. I do not suggest that people are excluded from the debate, but we need to spread the discussion about Europe more widely and have a more balanced discussion then we

1033
have been able to achieve in the country thus far. So I welcome the debate and look forward to hearing the response from the three Front Benches.
1.10 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I begin by associating myself and my noble friends with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, about the passing of Lord Murray. He was indeed a statesman of the Labour movement. During what in my lifetime must be regarded as the most tempestuous and confrontational period, he never lost a sense of the dignity of labour, which he personified. We shall all remember him with pride and sadness at his passing.
I am also enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lea. for introducing this extremely timely debate. For it takes place against a background in which the prevailing mood of the British people emphatically emphasises what are perceived to be the disadvantages of the European Union. It is so important that we do not take for granted the great, abiding benefits that have come in the daily lives of many people as a result of European Union initiatives, especially in the field of the workplace, which affect all our citizens in so many aspects. It is right to recall those in some detail, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lea; and, indeed, as I wish to do.
As this country is being asked effectively to accept the continuance of that role of the European Union or to reject it—for we should be in no doubt that the loss of the referendum by those who advocate it would be seen as, and in practical terms be, a discontinuity of damaging proportions to our relations with the European Union—we should remember that those positive benefits, and others to come, are what the great debate will be about. If we reflect on the development of social policy in Britain during the past two decades, few of us would doubt the valuable impetus for reform that has come from the European Union.
I parenthetically recall one occasion—not strictly about employment law policy—in which I had personal involvement as a junior Minister in the Labour government of the day. Despite the wishes of some Ministers, that government shied away from the banning of corporal punishment in the classroom and it was left to the European Court of Justice to declare it unlawful.
More startlingly and publicly, other noble Lords may recall the debate in 1983 when the late Alan Clark introduced the order to give effect to the European Court of Justice ruling in a case about equal pay for work of equal value. One remembers well his personal attempts to distance himself from the impact of what was being done and his distaste for the fact that it was the necessary consequence of European Union law. Who could doubt that it would never have happened under the government led by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, without that requirement of law?
Europe has provided the thrust for reform, but in so many ways Britain has tended to be the laggard. The lesson, which some Ministers still have not learnt, is
1034
that our partners will no longer accept that Britain should be permitted to act as the drag anchor when they are agreed on how to advance. One sometimes has the impression that Ministers regard the European Union as a mortally weakened bull in the ring, maddened by every pass of the Foreign Secretary's red-lined cape under its nose. Our partners are wise enough to recognise that the grandstand before which such behaviour is conducted is back home and has been softened up by the press to accept those predictable rituals for what they are—archaic, death-dealing entertainments.
As he embarks on the current negotiations on the convention, including discussion of the Charter of Human Rights, which widely touches on issues of employment law and social policy, I do not doubt that the Prime Minister will be conscious that if Britain seeks to step off the moving travelator towards improving the condition of life of our citizens, the European Union will go on. We shall he left in the position of the late petitioner, seeking to catch up, as was the case when the Labour Government came to office in May 1997 and embarked upon the catch-up provision over the Social Chapter.
It is worth recalling what happened. It is also worth remembering how the present leader of the Official Opposition fought tooth and nail against the Social Chapter of the Maastricht treaty and how he resisted every attempt to enhance the European Union's competence in that sphere. Fortunately, he and his colleagues were firmly rejected in the opinion polls.
However, there was a catching-up operation to be done by the new government, which included: the introduction of the right to four weeks' paid holiday a year, one day off a week and a general limit of 48 hours in the working week, 13 hours in the working day and eight hours in night work—a directive that had been introduced in 1993 for the rest of the European Union. It involved, belatedly, introducing the right to three months' unpaid parental leave and to time off for urgent family reasons. It involved the requirement for undertakings or groups of undertakings with at least 1,000 employees located in the European economic area and at least one establishment employing a minimum of 100 workers in each of two member states to establish works councils. It involved the extension to Britain of the right of part-time employees not to be treated less favourably than those working on a full-time basis.
Subsequently, further measures were introduced, not as catch-up provisions but measures in whose shaping we were able to take part, having subscribed belatedly to the Social Chapter and effected the revision of the European Community Treaty to encompass it. It included the right of fixed-term workers not to be treated less favourably than comparable permanent workers; the right to four weeks' paid holiday a year; and the extension of limits on working time to the excluded sectors: transport, sea fishing, offshore industries and junior doctors.
One remembers also how under the race discrimination directive new rules were introduced for the benefit of our citizens: on the burden of proof in race discrimination

1035
cases and the removal of the exemption covering racial discrimination in employment in a private household. Indeed, many scandals on that front have been brought to the public's attention. It also involved the prohibition of discrimination in employment on the grounds of religion or belief or sexual orientation, giving effect to the European Employment Directive 2000/78/EC of November 2000. There remains more in the pipeline. There is the age discrimination strand of the European Employment Directive 2000/78/EC, which requires that regulations be enforced prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of age by 2 December 2006.
There are other measures, but I was advised not to weary the House by putting too much on the record. Nevertheless, they are significant matters, whose provenance it is right to remember. It is also right to remember the threat to their continuing enactment at this time, when we hear so much bilious rhetoric poured upon the work of the European Union by those who seek to return this country to the status of an offshore island dragged along in the wake of the United States. Those matters have been addressed comprehensively and with a forward-looking sense of purpose in the draft treaty on the European constitution.
The draft treaty sets out clearly the shared competence of the European Union in respect of social policy. Article 13(2) sets out those aspects dealt with in Part 3 of the constitution. It is clearly intended to subserve the definitions of the objectives of the European Union as set out in Article 3(3) of Part 1 of the constitution. It is in part a social Union. The original philosophy underlying its establishment—that the social dimension, referred to in the preamble to the Treaty of Rome, could be brought about merely by improving the mobility and freedoms in the Union—was not enough. It had to be directly assisted by legislative activity that was social in purpose. One could not rely solely on the freeing of the market to bring about those changes. No doubt the theory will continue to be argued by the ideologues and self-interested individuals who seek to present their case for protecting their own employment practices by invoking arguments of a less obviously selfish nature.
It is my judgment that that argument has now effectively been decided in the European Union. The Union has a social dimension, and the issue is not whether it should have competence in the sphere, but precisely how it should exercise those competences, and, where it is necessary or helpful to do so, to avoid distortions of the marketplace and to encourage the laggards to take action where it is required. I have no doubt that the Minister will be ready robustly to reject the suggestion, with which we lived before 1997, that the introduction of such changes in our employment law would have a disastrous effect on British competitiveness. The actuality is that Britain is among the more competitive countries in the global economy. Evidently our position has not been hampered one whit by the adoption of those important social measures in the workplace.
1036
I congratulate the Government on their record of innovation so far and look to them to be equally robust in providing, through the convention's draft treaty, the means to continue this benign development of our own law.
1.27 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I share with noble Lords regret and sadness at the passing of Lord Murray of Epping Forest, who we remember as Len Murray. Obviously, my view of how to better society differed from his in some ways, but we served together on the National Economic Development Council at the beginning of the 1980s and got on extremely well. I had some very valuable discussions with him and we found common ground, although I confess that it was not all common ground. He was a very great figure and will be missed.
The Unstarred Question initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, takes me down memory lane into past battles. When I saw the debate listed I tried to think why we all felt so deeply about some of the issues raised by the Social Chapter, which, as part of the social aspirations of the European Community, were there from the Treaty of Rome onwards. There is nothing very new about the original social and economic aspirations. But it must be recalled, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lea, can, that in the atmosphere of the 1970s, and perhaps the 1980s, the whole country was assailed and appalled by the ways in which militant trade unionism of a certain kind—the noble Lord, Lord Lea, was utterly disassociated with that aspect—abused workers' rights. Proper rights and well-established and fought-for rights were openly and flagrantly abused, and as a result dreadful cruelties were imposed on the most vulnerable members of society and this country was brought to its knees, culminating in the winter of discontent. Those who had questions in their minds, and still may look critically at the piling on of more social rights of this, that and the other kind, as particularly instanced in the present Charter of Fundamental Rights'—which will apparently be part of this new constitution, if it happens—have a fair case to make.
Certainly, for the first half of my political life, this country was constantly embroiled in bad industrial relations in contrast to more recent times, and suffered appalling disruptions of normal daily life and work, which we could not stand. They turned us into the sick man of Europe in those days, something that we ceased to be during the 1980s and 1990s. I am not sure that many people of older generations will either forget or forgive what was done so irresponsibly and unaccountably to our country in those terrible days. We never want to see that period come back again. I look with a little unease when I hear the loud-voiced claims of those inside vital public services that their rights must be upheld even at the expense of grave and direct disruption and possible danger to human life. It is sad that that attitude persists even to this day.
That certainly explains why Social Chapter debates were so intense in the past. It explains why the present Government—the Labour Government—are fighting

1037
so hard at this minute to resist new legal rights on top of our own extensive armoury of worker rights, and to resist them being imposed through legal status being given to the new Charter of Fundamental Rights in the new constitution. The Government—from the Prime Minister downwards—promised that would not happen. It looks to me as though it will happen. I hope that Ministers will win the battle and stand on the ground on which they said that they would stand. Frankly, it looks to me as though that battle is already lost, unless the whole constitution is sunk. I, for one, think that outcome is now highly likely. I was bold enough to write in the International Herald Tribune a few weeks ago predicting that the rush for trying to get a draft by 17 June was like the rather wild horseman running at the fence too fast, stirrups flying, and those pushing this course of action were riding for a fall. That fall is about to come.
All this goes along with the concurrent push—in a sense this is the next phase of the Social Chapter story—to make the UK give up its exemption from the 48-hour working week directive. Of course, 48 hours sounds like a long time to work, and it is a perfectly desirable limit to have on some kinds of work. Surely—this is part of a more general theme that I shall develop—this is something to be negotiated with employers or left to individuals to choose freely if they want to work longer. In a modern, service-based economy, hours are bound to be flexible and unpredictable to fit in with the other aspects of people's lives, such as leisure, work and family duties.
In the professions, jobs must be finished, even if it means working through the weekend or through the night. Services must be delivered and deals completed overnight. The doctrine of trying to apply a central control of hours must be a huge error in modern economic conditions. The French Government have found out just how appallingly damaging their 35-hour working week has proved to be. It is no doubt one of the factors that have brought the French economy to the virtual coma and stagnation that it now faces. All those thoughts are raised by going back over the Social Chapter. I supported it, although I was not a member of that government. That was what the government were thinking about when they sought the opt-out of the Social Chapter at the time of the Maastricht Treaty.
A second matter raised in this debate was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. Many aspects of the social and labour legislation that govern work practices in this country are thoroughly admirable. I have often felt—standing aside from party politics for a time—that in some areas one party or another, including my own at times, could have pushed these things much more vigorously. I am not too sure that I include in that approval the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, about the advances in status of part-timers. A lot of part-timers may have a better deal, but I wonder how many part-timers are not part-timers at all, as a result of employers saying, "This is really too difficult for us; we would rather not get involved in these additional obligations". I do not know. It is a balance and a
1038
debate that will no doubt go on and never be fully resolved. In some areas, it is fair to say that my party has been a pioneer in social legislation. Why, oh why, do we so definitely need a supra-national body to impose these laws and carry forward proper working conditions for working people? What is wrong with our own legislative and social aspirations? They were powerful enough in the past. Why can we not do it on our own?
I accept, if anyone wishes to point out, that in the past employers in some areas of the United Kingdom—certainly in the 19th century and maybe the 20th century as well—behaved like idiots and did not pursue the conditions for their workers that would have been in their own interests and would have raised their productivity. I have always personally held it against the employing fraternity of Britain that we were much too slow—and may be still too slow—to see a much wider ownership of capital. I mean turning earners into owners, and bringing to everyone—but everyone—the dignity and security of ownership that is often assumed by the middle classes and the employer classes to be their privilege. That is nonsense. The dignity and security of ownership should be everyone's. I would like to have seen much more legislation encouraging that in this country from either government, but I have not seen it, and I have not seen it from Brussels either.
If Europe is such a necessary driver to social and employment legislation, why did the Labour Party for most of its existence oppose membership of the European Community? It is the only party that ever has. My party has never opposed membership. For most of my political life, the Labour Party was dead against it, vigorously against it, argued against it, and yet here we are being told that it is a necessary driver of social legislation. That is putting it much too strongly. It contributes here and there, but to put it at the centre of the drive for social improvement cannot be right—
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. On that point, the principle of socialism in one country was a precept that began to be questioned precisely because of some of the factors that we have been discussing this morning. I do not know whether the noble Lord would agree with that, or whether he is a "socialism in one country" man himself.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord has touched on an even more fascinating point—how socialist was the early Labour Party? That is the question. I agree with him. These are fascinating discussions about the universality of socialism. The noble Lord will remember the very strong stand that the Labour Party took 30 or 40 years ago—20 years ago, even—against involvement in the European Union, which was widely regarded as a free market, capitalist plot. There is still time to change, and we see that attitudes can change.
The Library kindly gave me a list of the rights affecting employment that have emanated from European Union law in the past seven years. I take

1039
that period because it is the time-span that others mentioned and because it is roughly the period since the chapter was signed up to by the incoming Labour Government, as one of their first acts. It is a long list. It includes directives on length of holidays; parental leave; works councils; treatment of transsexuals; part-time employees; and all kinds of prohibitions on discrimination. I heartily support the prohibitions on discrimination. I get more and more in favour of prohibiting age discrimination, as time goes on. There are directives on working-time rights for air crews and on all aspects of consulting and informing employees and so on.
Those are all matters that should be attended to vigorously on their merits, but, in each case, I ask why there must be a centralising and standardising EU-wide template placed on it. Why centralise and standardise throughout the diverse European continent? That question still stands unanswered. In the network age, the aim of management seeking to promote good relations between employers and employees and create successful and highly productive firms is to decentralise and allow variety, which makes the question more relevant than in the past.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, who has been at the centre of such affairs for many years, I see little in the original Social Chapter, as devised, conceived and embedded in the Maastricht amendments to the Treaty of Rome, that we could not have done for ourselves and probably done better. I see a great deal that we should have avoided and that still has the potential to damage our economy, our well-being and the prosperity of our people.
At some stage, as we survey the high unemployment and economic stagnation throughout the euro-zone, the lesson will have to be learnt that the best social legislation should come from the bottom up, from the grass roots. Ideally, it should be home-grown, even if, thereafter, one seeks collaboration and intimate international co-operation to harmonise it. It must be recognised that that should be the source of the best improving social legislation, of which we always need more. In an age of increasing variety and diversity, the imposition of central norms and rigid rules and more central norms and more rigid rules through the proposed—and unnecessary—constitution will take the peoples of Europe backwards, not forward to the standard of living that should rightly be theirs.
1.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall for raising such an important issue and for describing some of the history of the Social Chapter and the benefits that have flowed from it for people at work in this country.
I also endorse the views expressed by my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde about Lord Murray of Epping Forest. He was a man of very great integrity who, during his career, had to deal with many difficult political
1040
issues. He was respected by everyone who had to deal with him and by everyone in the House. We mourn his passing very much.
First, I must say to my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall that I welcome the appointment of John Monks as general secretary of the ETUC. I agree that it will be of enormous benefit to measures agreed in Europe, and it is good that we have, at the heart of the debate, someone who can take account of the different traditions and practices of labour markets in Europe. Our system of voluntary agreements between trade unions and employers is different from the Scandinavian model, which is different from the German model, which is different from the French model and so on. It is encouraging to have someone at the heart of the debate with such experience.
The Government's 1997 election manifesto committed a Labour government to accept the Social Chapter. We did so at the European Council at Amsterdam in June 1997, when we ended the UK opt-out. The Social Chapter allows for directives to be agreed in a range of fields, including working conditions, information and consultation and equality between men and women. Some of those stem from agreements between the social partners in Europe and from business organisations working alongside unions. The Social Chapter does not allow for directives on pay, the right of association, the right to strike or the right to impose lock-outs. Those are rightly left to member states to determine. There will be no EU minimum wage under the Social Chapter, and there will be no directives from Brussels undermining our national laws on strikes and collective action. The new constitution retains this position.
Why did we sign up to the Social Chapter? We signed up because it was a good opportunity to implement certain standards of fair treatment to which all employees should be entitled. Social justice has always been at the heart of our approach. We have common values with other member states: tackling poverty, removing discrimination and combating social exclusion.
People at work in Britain have benefited enormously from the Social Chapter by having their employment rights extended. They now have the right to parental leave, which gives parents the right to 13 weeks' unpaid leave at the birth or adoption of a child. Because of the Social Chapter, part-time workers are entitled to the same pro-rata terms and conditions of employment as full-time workers, thereby removing any discrimination and improving the quality of part-time jobs. That benefits Britain's 6 million part-time employees, many of whom are women. It is only right that part-time workers should be on an equal footing with their full-time colleagues.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, said that there might be fewer part-time workers as a result. There is a careful and sensible balance to be struck. If we push the argument too far, we will reduce the number of part-time workers, who play a critical economic role. Equally, however, if we do not have good conditions, people who, often, can decide

1041
whether or not to work will not take advantage of part-time work. I think that the right balance has been struck.
We now have rights under the fixed-term work directive that provide equal treatment and prevent the abuse of fixed-term contracts. People should not have to put up with the uncertainty of an endless succession of fixed-term contracts. Those on fixed-term contracts should not be paid less for doing the same work. The Social Chapter makes it easier for women to tackle unfair treatment in the workplace. Once a prima facie case has been made in an employment tribunal claim, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant—usually the employer—who will need to demonstrate that sex discrimination has not occurred.
The European works council directive requires companies with at least 1,000 employees in total and at least 150 workers in each of two member states to establish structures for consulting workers on issues that affect them. In addition, the information and consultation of employees directive, to be implemented in the UK by March 2005, establishes a right to new minimum standards for workforce communication and involvement in large firms.
We do not see such measures as burdens; we see them as protecting fundamental rights. Millions of workers have gained from the improvement to their life. There is no evidence that the changes have adversely affected the economy. There has been no loss of flexibility in the labour market.
Our critics predicted that those regulations would destroy jobs. I am very happy to follow the prediction made by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, in robustly rejecting those fears of disaster. As my noble friend Lady Dean pointed out, we have the benefit of hindsight. We can see that the fears of those who predicted a disaster have not come to pass. Today, we have the lowest levels of unemployment for 30 years. Employment is at a record level; that is, up by more than 1.7 million since May 1997.
We have succeeded on both scores. We have proved that provided the implementation is right, there does not have to be a contradiction between job creation and greater rights at work. We have kept burdens on business to a minimum. We need to separate the administration costs—the red tape element which we want to eliminate—from the costs of the actual benefits that workers receive. The administration cost of benefits of the directives that we have implemented under the Social Chapter are extremely low. Leaving aside the Working Time Directive, the annual recurring implementation costs are less than £750,000 across the whole of the economy, but under the directive—the right to 20 days paid leave, rest breaks and a maximum working week—the annual administration costs are only £10 million. That is less than one penny per worker per week.
The main costs to employers stem, quite simply, from the benefits that are provided to employees: that is between £50 million and £83 million for parental leave;
1042
between £170 million and £370 million for giving fixed-time workers the same rights as full-time workers; and the cost of giving people 20 days paid annual leave., which is something that is now taken for granted and, indeed, exceeded by many employers. The total cost of all measures that we have introduced amounts to less than 1 per cent of the annual bill.
The 2002 OECD report was right. The UK is at the forefront of regulatory reform in the OECD. It noted that entrepreneurs face a better business and regulatory environment in the UK than in most other OECD countries. At the same time, I agree with my noble friend Lady Dean when she said that the Social Chapter has had a civilising force.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, about the timeliness of this debate. This is a time when some people want to stoke up, feed and take advantage of a short-sighted fearful nationalism. It is important to have a rational debate about the benefits and the advantages of the EU.
However, I disagree with the noble Lord on the position of the UK in Europe. Increasingly, the UK is seen as taking a lead on many issues that are of great concern to the members of the EU, particularly as regards job creation. The other agenda for the people of this country, which is of key importance, is that alongside the improvement of social conditions we also keep our flexibility.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I was speaking historically of such matters as our exclusion from the euro-zone and the Schengen agreement. I was not seeking to cast doubt on the energy of the Minister or his colleagues in the area that we are talking about today.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I appreciate that comment. I think that we have now a new approach to Europe, which is much more in tune with the debate within Europe today on how those factors are balanced.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in a very thoughtful and cogent speech, explained why members of his party had opposed the Social Chapter in the past. However, I do not think that trips down memory lane are always the best guide to current policy making in Europe. Today, we must face the issues that concern us and get the right balance between the social dimension and flexibility in the economy. That is the balance for which we must strive. We should look at the issues on the basis of today's realities rather than battles that have been fought before.
My noble friend Lord Lea dealt well with the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on why it is necessary to have a European initiative on some issues. He rightly said that employers will always cite international competitiveness as the objection to improvement. Therefore, there is a case for European action to move things forward.
We signed up to the Social Chapter to show that we wanted to be part of social Europe and to provide basic rights in the workplace without burdening business.

1043
The Government believe that a fair and flexible labour market is essential for job creation. It benefits both employers and workers, enabling business to adapt to changes in the market while providing opportunities for participation in the labour market for workers who might otherwise be excluded. It improves choice for all.
Employers complain of burdensome European regulation. Does anyone really think that 20 days paid leave each year is excessive; or that it is unfair for part-time workers to get the same treatment as full-time workers; or that we should not have basic parental leave provisions that enable people to reconcile work and family responsibilities; or that workers should hear on the radio that they have lost their jobs?
The Government will use the implementation of the information and consultation directive to contribute to their promotion of high performance work places and partnerships and of ongoing genuine dialogue between employers and employees and to enhancing the contribution of everyone involved in the business to the benefit of the company itself and all its staff.
Let us not forget the benefits that these laws generate, including employer benefits from protection from less scrupulous competitors, from better motivated staff, and from lower staff turnover. They need to draw from the full pool of talent available and promote diversity and choice. Exclusion from workers from any group does not make economic sense.
1044
That a typical worker does not fit the normal pattern of nine-to-five, five-days-a-week, working for a single employer throughout one career should be regarded as a positive and not a negative feature of the dynamic labour market. A variety of working hours provides choice that suits employees and employers. Agency work acts as a good entry point to enable people to gain work place experience and to develop skills. But that must be made an attractive option by providing adequate protection.
If we are to maintain our high level of employment, we need to have both a flexible and a fair labour market. We have the most flexible labour market in Europe. We can see the benefit of that in our employment position today. Flexibility is also now near the top of the EU agenda. The EU is looking at how labour markets can be made more flexible across Europe. Europe needs an adaptable workforce which has the skills training and mobility that are necessary to cope with change. Labour market reform must focus on those issues.
This Government have shown consistently that social justice goes hand in hand with economic progress. Our constructive adoption of measures under the Social Chapter have benefited many and have allowed us to maintain our competitive advantage. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Lea and this debate have drawn attention to the very real benefits that have been gained by people at work in this country.
House adjourned at two minutes before two o'clock.

  Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
  Asylum and Immigration Tribunal
  Tourism: Support After Foot and Mouth Disease
  Tourism: Support After Foot and Mouth Disease
  Higher Education Bill: Scottish Implications
  Higher Education Bill: Scottish Implications

  Military Aircraft Accident Summary: Tornado GR4A ZG710
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)
  My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement

  The Ministry of Defence has today placed in the Library of the House copies of the Military Aircraft Accident Summary of the RAF Board of Inquiry into the accident to Tornado GR4A ZG710, which was shot down during Operation TELIC by a US Patriot Battery on 22 March 2003.

  The Board of Inquiry found that the immediate cause of the accident was that the Patriot Battery, in following its self-defence rules of engagement, misidentified Tornado ZG710 as a hostile anti-radiation missile and engaged it. However, like most aircraft accidents, no single cause was to blame. There were several contributory factors. These included the failure of the Tornado's IFF (Identification Friend or Foe), the wide classification criteria for anti-radiation missiles programmed into Patriot system and the Patriot Rules of Engagement, which were not sufficiently robust to prevent a friendly aircraft without a functioning IFF system being classified as an anti-radiation missile.

  The war in Iraq was completed in a highly efficient and effective manner, for which all those involved must take great credit. As part of that campaign, the crew of ZG710 conducted a dangerous and demanding combat mission in an exemplary manner yet did not return safely. ZG710 was the only Royal Air Force aircraft lost during the war. The Board of Inquiry has established the causes of this tragic accident and has highlighted the various factors that contributed to it. The board's recommendations are now being implemented.

  Use of Animals in Scientific Procedures
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  The Government believe that current developments in science are providing significantly more opportunities to do work on the reduction of the number of animals used, the refinement of the procedures involved to minimise suffering, and the replacement of animal use (the 3Rs),
  WS 46
  and that to take advantage of these opportunities we should put more resources into this area and broaden the community of interest

  I am, therefore, pleased to inform the House that the Government are setting up a new national centre for research into the 3Rs and animal welfare. The Centre for Best Practice for Animals in Research (CBPAR), established by the Medical Research Council, will form the core of the new centre. The new centre will be called the National Centre for Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, and will act as a focal point for research into the 3Rs.

  This decision implements the recommendation by the House of Lords Select Committee on Animals in Scientific Procedures, in its report published in July 2002, that such a centre should be established, which we broadly accepted in the Government's reply in January 2003. The Government have today published a report prepared by the Inter-Departmental Group on the 3Rs (IDG3Rs) on the implementation of the Select Committee recommendation and have accepted its recommendation that responsibility for the new national centre should rest with the Office of Science and Technology, with its wider scientific remit, rather than with the Home Office, whose role is constrained by its regulatory function under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. A copy of the Inter-Departmental Group's report has been placed in the House Library.

  Placing the lead responsibility with the Office of Science and Technology emphasises that the 3Rs, humane experimental techniques, and the development of advanced research methods are part of the mainstream United Kingdom science base. It also acknowledges that department's leading role in signalling both the financial and scientific benefits of such developments. In the initial stages the centre will need the wider support and structure that the MRC can offer.

  A new board will be set up to direct the centre and I am delighted to announce that Lord Turnberg has agreed to chair this board, aided by Professor Paul Flecknell as vice-chair. The remaining membership of the board will be appointed shortly. It is envisaged that all major stakeholder groups will be represented, including academics, government, industry and animal welfare groups.

  The mission statement for the centre will be:
  "The National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research is dedicated to the 3Rs—replacing, refining and reducing the use of animals in research and testing licensed under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
  Replacement is the ultimate aim for the Centre, but for so long as the use of animals continues to be necessary, it is essential that every effort is made to minimise their use and improve welfare. Ensuring that laboratory welfare is optimised is critical for scientific, legal and ethical reasons.
  The Centre's mission is to advance and promote the 3Rs in research and testing using animals. This will be progressed by:
  Developing a UK strategy for the implementation of the 3Rs;
  Supporting high-quality research that advances the 3Rs;

  WS 47
  Promoting a co-ordinated approach to 3Rs research;
  Providing advice and guidance on the 3Rs and animal welfare to the scientific community;
  Supporting the UK scientific community's commitment to best practice in all aspects of laboratory animal science and welfare;
  Working with regulators on the acceptance of alternative methods for regulatory toxicology."

  The first task of the new board will be to develop the mission statement into a detailed action plan.

  The Centre will require more funding than currently being made available to CBPAR. The Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have both agreed to double the level of funding provided this year and the Home Office will transfer its budget for research into the 3Rs currently administered by the Animal Procedures Committee to the centre once current commitments have been honoured. It is envisaged that funding for the centre will increase further in future years and Lord Turnberg will be discussing this with government. He will also discuss funding commitments with other funders of research involving animals.

  Petroleum Act 1998: Out of Round Award of an Onshore Licence
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My honourable friend the Minister for Energy, E-commerce and Postal Services (Stephen Timms) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I am pleased to announce to the House that I am today offering a Petroleum Exploration and Development Licence (PEDL 133) to Composite Energy plc to cover acreage in the counties of Falkirk and Clackmannanshire (Blocks NS88, NS89, NS97, NS98 and NS99).

  The company will have a fixed period in which to decide whether or not to accept the offer.

  Emergencies: Guidance on Dealing with Fatalities
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  Guidance on Dealing with Fatalities in Emergencies has been published today on the UK resilience website (www.ukresilience.info). Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. The purpose of this guidance—which is directed primarily at local planners and responders—is to reaffirm, update and consolidate what emergency officers should consider when planning the response to an emergency involving fatalities. It is the product of consultation with a range of stakeholders—central and local government, and the emergency services among others—and builds on earlier guidance in Dealing with Disaster—Revised Third Edition.

  Thankfully, mass fatality incidents have not occurred frequently in the United Kingdom. The emphasis of any response will focus on saving lives—but we must be prepared should the worst happen.

  But the guidance is by no means intended to be a stand-alone solution to ensure that there is sufficient capacity across the country to deal with such incidents. Work is being taken forward by the Home Office, in collaboration with the regions, the devolved administrations, planners and responders to establish existing levels of national capability. This should inform the development of a framework for a national response.

  The guidance will be revisited in light of developments stemming from the Civil Contingencies Bill, currently before Parliament, and a review of the coroner system, set out in the Home Office position paper Reforming the Coroner and Death Certification Service. We will also update and revise the guidance as findings emerge from research and scientific projects, and lessons are learnt from incidents both at home and abroad. Feedback on the guidance should be sent to feedback massfatalitiesguidance@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk. It would be helpful to have these by 30 June 2004.